Doom and Gloom from Dale Hanson...

[joseephuss]

You still never addressed the question, you simply argued for pre-addressing and unkowns!!!

Relax. Sorry, I didn't answer the question. Every team will struggle to improve under the conditions you gave. Those types of injuries or issues are only overcome through proper management. I didn't think Dallas did that during the last off season. What I was pointing out was that through a little better off season, Dallas could have been in better position to overcome those injuries.

They lost a starter at right corner back, who was not playing that well, and struggled to replace him. Maybe if they had brought in a proven corner to start or even just push Hunter they would not have been in such a bad position when he was injured.

They lost Carter. Maybe if they brought in a better QB than Vinny, then maybe they would not have been in such a bad position.

They failed to bring in any safeties to replace Dixon and Scott. Woody's injury was a big blow to this team and there was no way to replace what he brings to the defense, but how do you go in with no one better than Tony Dixon or Lynn Scott. That is poor management. Those are the types of decisions that make it impossible to overcome injuries.

There are many positions on the team where this happened. The only pass I give them is at tight end. They had two good tight ends. Witten was the back up. It would be difficult to have a 3rd stringer that could step in and help the team more than what Campbell did.

I don't know if I made myself any clearer. I will sum it up like this. You can't overcome injuries to starters when there are guys on the roster that really aren't qualified to be back ups.

 

[JackMagist]

Given the choices that I had, there is no way I cut Quincy. It's called being smart and preparing for the worst case scenario. Guess what that scenario happened on Thanksgiving when ole Bill wanted to replace Vinny and he didn't have anyone else to turn to.

I would have sworn we won that Thanksgiving Day game. I still see the loss of Carter as a non-factor or insignificant factor at best. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this point because I doubt either of us will change the others mind.

 

[BPARCELL'SRULESUBOY]

You have no clue what you are talking about. I didn't want to say that earlier but since you are calling me out, I won't be polite.

It's a well known fact Jimmy favored certain players on his team. If you don't believe me, ask anyone else on this forum. Jimmy was only a disciplinarian with his rookies and unproven players. He admitted to treating players differently. Jimmy believed that certain players earned the right for a little more leeway. Parcells doesn't believe in this. He treats everyone the same regardless. This is what you fail to grasp. Parcells intentionally berates star players because he wants to make certain everyone knows he is in charge. I remember Drew Bledsoe would talk about how Parcells would belittle him after he had a good game just to keep him humble. Jimmy Johnson would never do that. Jimmy Johnson would massage the egos of his best players while being a disciplinarian with the other players. This is a major difference in their philosophy. And this is why a star free agent would love to play for Jimmy because he knows he won't be spoken down to.

Players were willing to deal with Parcells ascerbic ways because he won. However, now that Dallas has lost its championship form, it's doubtful some of the leagues best free agents would come to Dallas if a contending team made a similar offer.

Sorry, but that is a simply wrong evaluation of Parcells. Both Parcells and Jimmy favor ( i.e.Parcells guys) their mature and sound players to some extent and allow certain things to pass. Read through the board, all the Parcells guys criticisms and why???? In addition, Jimmy would bench his "stars" if they continuously played poorly or get up in their face for poor play, just like Parcells does. Sure their are differences in personality, but Jimmy and Bill handle young players the same as well, but substantially speaking you have no argument. Parcells would motivate his QBs if they played poorly, and Jimmy would too if he had similar problems. You simply need to read through all the favoritism threads with Parcells to point out this obvious point. Your point on free agents not comiing to Dallas is a joke, as if players are so fragile and money and Dallas' tradition will not draw them either.

 

[BPARCELL'SRULESUBOY]

Relax. Sorry, I didn't answer the question. Every team will struggle to improve under the conditions you gave. Those types of injuries or issues are only overcome through proper management. I didn't think Dallas did that during the last off season. What I was pointing out was that through a little better off season, Dallas could have been in better position to overcome those injuries.

They lost a starter at right corner back, who was not playing that well, and struggled to replace him. Maybe if they had brought in a proven corner to start or even just push Hunter they would not have been in such a bad position when he was injured.

They lost Carter. Maybe if they brought in a better QB than Vinny, then maybe they would not have been in such a bad position.

They failed to bring in any safeties to replace Dixon and Scott. Woody's injury was a big blow to this team and there was no way to replace what he brings to the defense, but how do you go in with no one better than Tony Dixon or Lynn Scott. That is poor management. Those are the types of decisions that make it impossible to overcome injuries.

There are many positions on the team where this happened. The only pass I give them is at tight end. They had two good tight ends. Witten was the back up. It would be difficult to have a 3rd stringer that could step in and help the team more than what Campbell did.

I don't know if I made myself any clearer. I will sum it up like this. You can't overcome injuries to starters when there are guys on the roster that really aren't qualified to be back ups.

You relax, this comment is unecessary, and you still never answer the question, your argument is based on the unknown and a set of circumstances that could not reasonably be addressed given the unknown. In addition, an assumption that all teams can be deep at every position and behind that depth as well.

 

[BPARCELL'SRULESUBOY]

I have yet to see or hear any team member come out and claim this. One minor comment made to a member here, but certainly no one on the team publicly stated this. I have heard this from "the Jet's" fans, but have not heard it anywhere close to coming from the team.

Let's play devil's advocate now and assume that it did in fact affect the team's chemistry. Let me ask this in defense of Parcells' and Jones' decisions. Should it have? I mean let's be serious here, we're talking about rumors of drug use being behind the reasoning. The team rallied around that? If so then we have some serious problems ahead.

Truth be told this "reasoning" doesn't give me much to hang my hopes on if the reason the team fell apart is that they became afraid to jointly hit the bong. Pretty damned bleak if you ask me. If that is true it would make me want to applaud Bill and Jerry more than ever. They need to finish that drug war if this is what it is.

I also have to assume that at least some of the players on the team are not addicts and would feel a sense of relief that the drugs were taken away and would have played harder. Unless of course you believe our entire team is partaking. You getting a sense of how hopeless a picture this philosophy is painting?

That is why I put no stock in it at all. I just don't. I find the very hint at belief in it to be laughable. Again, one player on the team told a member here and called it "karma." Maybe it's just me but I don't believe that Buddhist and Hindu Gods punished this team for cutting a Christian QB.

Now let's push this a little farther in the question of should this have affected the team chemistry. We can even remove the concerns over the drug rumors if you want. Aren't they supposed to be professionals? Since when did it matter if someone else was on the team or not and whether you had to do your job?

You see, the very hint at this being a reason behind their lackluster play just kind of makes my blood boil, drug rumors or not. I don't want a team full of lace panties cry babies. I want a team of professionals who can shrug off an injury or a waiver and go on. Guys who lace up their boots a little tighter and get the job done. What this philosophy is suggesting is that we have players who need pacifiers. I mean that's what it boils down to if they can't move past a personnel decision and do their jobs.

You guys who embrace and espouse this thinking really worry me. You make me think our entire team is weak minded and has issues with dependency. That kind of cloying neediness doesn't make me envision a football team. It makes me envision emotional support groups in need of group hugs and commiseration over lifelong emotional needs. No thank you very much.

What is even more baffling to me is that the biggest difference between 2003 and 2004 had nothing to do with the offense where "the Jet" played. 289 points scored in 2003, 293 in 2004. 322.6 yards per game in 2003, 324.8 YPG in 2004. I mean from where I sit that looks like stasis.

On the other hand, let's look at defense where he did not play. 260 points allowed in 2003, 405 in 2004. 253.5 YPG allowed, #1 in the whole NFL in 2003, 330.3 YPG allowed in 2004.

Maybe you can explain to me why the loss of chemistry is most evident on the side of the ball not played by the "reason" in question? I've been wondering about it for months now. Every time this philosophy shows itself I become more perplexed on how it can be accepted and embraced.

For the longest time I have felt that issues facing this team were lack of personnel. Read the real "reasons" here and I discover it is really a lack of Kleenex. Hey didn't Parcells say that last year Bradie James could barely lift a box of Kleenex? Maybe this thinking is on to something after all. I mean a team full of ultra needy pansies like this would need a lot of Kleenex.

I appreciate your thoughts but see that your argument is not based on anything that I argued but apparently other engagements you have had with other members on the site. The reason being, one cannot reasonably argue that cutting your starting QB, who you invested three years in on the team, and started the last entire season, does not change your offensive philosophy and team chemistry. Any change at the QB position would change the dynamics on offense and thus affect the team for better or worse. "The Jet" was a young, mobile QB with 18 months vested as starter, was assumed to be the starter with Vinny as a backup and Henson riding the bench. Irregardless of why the "jet" was cut, though all evidence points to drug problems and a reoccurence, ANY quick QB change will in turn affect the teams philosophy and chemistry between offensive players.

This is an obvious point, Vinny became the starter and certainly it changed the team dynamic. The team missing "the Jet" or some type of psychological change as referenced by "missing" him is laughable and is not what I argued, that is absolute nonsense. The simple law of inertia applies in this context, this was a substantial change, at a early period in camp, to a projected backup who had experience but not as the starter of this team in particular. This definately changed the offensive chemistry on this team.

Further, I NEVER argued that the QB change was the substantial reason for the teams overall poor performance last season. Of course it was primarily defensive, if you looked at the context of my point on the QB position, you would have noticed that I argued the entire list of starters injured, primarily on defense, contributed substantially to a change in team chemistry, performance and the overall problems related to last season. This was the point of my post and my overall argument, not that the QB change alone is the reason Dallas' team chemistry and performance suffered, this ignores the conext, argument and logic of my argument. But to overstate a counter argument based on something I never argued, to the extent the quick QB change would have NO affect on the team chemistry at all, is not reasonable nor cogent.

Losing your starting QB, RB most the season, Starting speed WR, starting blocking TE, RCB wether you value him or not (and Thorton), Darren Woodson experienced warrior at FS easily changes the overall team chemistry and performance, this would apply to any team. No one has this much depth without a substantial drop off and most of these injuries came late and there were no viable options given they were the starters from the beginning. This is an honest assessment, sure you can say they should of signed a corner other than Hunter, but guess what, the veteran you signed goes down for the year, then his backup (Hunter) and you are left with the same problem. Same issue with running back, Vinny was a reasonable backup QB, no one planned "the Jet" to be ousted this far into the plan. No one planned a Woodson injury, he was reliable for years, and their were no viable candidates at this point that were available. This is no excuse, Dallas was simply bad this year, but you cannot honestly argue that these substantial injuries did not contribute to this past years chemistry or lack thereof and overall performance, that being on BOTH sides of the ball.
But thats just my opinion

 

[Hostile]

I appreciate your thoughts but see that your argument is not based on anything that I argued but apparently other engagements you have had with other members on the site. The reason being, one cannot reasonably argue that cutting your starting QB, who you invested three years in on the team, and started the last entire season, does not change your offensive philosophy and team chemistry. Any change at the QB position would change the dynamics on offense and thus affect the team for better or worse. "The Jet" was a young, mobile QB with 18 months vested as starter, was assumed to be the starter with Vinny as a backup and Henson riding the bench. Irregardless of why the "jet" was cut, though all evidence points to drug problems and a reoccurence, ANY quick QB change will in turn affect the teams philosophy and chemistry between offensive players.

This is an obvious point, Vinny became the starter and certainly it changed the team dynamic. The team missing "the Jet" or some type of psychological change as referenced by "missing" him is laughable and is not what I argued, that is absolute nonsense. The simple law of inertia applies in this context, this was a substantial change, at a early period in camp, to a projected backup who had experience but not as the starter of this team in particular. This definately changed the offensive chemistry on this team.

Further, I NEVER argued that the QB change was the substantial reason for the teams overall poor performance last season. Of course it was primarily defensive, if you looked at the context of my point on the QB position, you would have noticed that I argued the entire list of starters injured, primarily on defense, contributed substantially to a change in team chemistry, performance and the overall problems related to last season. This was the point of my post and my overall argument, not that the QB change alone is the reason Dallas' team chemistry and performance suffered, this ignores the conext, argument and logic of my argument. But to overstate a counter argument based on something I never argued, to the extent the quick QB change would have NO affect on the team chemistry at all, is not reasonable nor cogent.

Losing your starting QB, RB most the season, Starting speed WR, starting blocking TE, RCB wether you value him or not (and Thorton), Darren Woodson experienced warrior at FS easily changes the overall team chemistry and performance, this would apply to any team. No one has this much depth without a substantial drop off and most of these injuries came late and there were no viable options given they were the starters from the beginning. This is an honest assessment, sure you can say they should of signed a corner other than Hunter, but guess what, the veteran you signed goes down for the year, then his backup (Hunter) and you are left with the same problem. Same issue with running back, Vinny was a reasonable backup QB, no one planned "the Jet" to be ousted this far into the plan. No one planned a Woodson injury, he was reliable for years, and their were no viable candidates at this point that were available. This is no excuse, Dallas was simply bad this year, but you cannot honestly argue that these substantial injuries did not contribute to this past years chemistry or lack thereof and overall performance, that being on BOTH sides of the ball.
But thats just my opinion

I get it. Respond to you only if I stay inside the box of what you mean or want to talk about.

Thanks no. I prefer that if something sparks a possible good discussion to go ahead with it.

I thought that's what I'd get. Oh well.

Funny how on one hand you preach Parcells is always correct then you question his making this decision. It doesn't work that way but okay. I can slice this reasoning thinner than filets.

But I'm outside the box again. Toodles. :gent:

 

[mr.jameswoods]

I appreciate your thoughts but see that your argument is not based on anything that I argued but apparently other engagements you have had with other members on the site. The reason being, one cannot reasonably argue that cutting your starting QB, who you invested three years in on the team, and started the last entire season, does not change your offensive philosophy and team chemistry. Any change at the QB position would change the dynamics on offense and thus affect the team for better or worse. "The Jet" was a young, mobile QB with 18 months vested as starter, was assumed to be the starter with Vinny as a backup and Henson riding the bench. Irregardless of why the "jet" was cut, though all evidence points to drug problems and a reoccurence, ANY quick QB change will in turn affect the teams philosophy and chemistry between offensive players.

This is an obvious point, Vinny became the starter and certainly it changed the team dynamic. The team missing "the Jet" or some type of psychological change as referenced by "missing" him is laughable and is not what I argued, that is absolute nonsense. The simple law of inertia applies in this context, this was a substantial change, at a early period in camp, to a projected backup who had experience but not as the starter of this team in particular. This definately changed the offensive chemistry on this team.

Further, I NEVER argued that the QB change was the substantial reason for the teams overall poor performance last season. Of course it was primarily defensive, if you looked at the context of my point on the QB position, you would have noticed that I argued the entire list of starters injured, primarily on defense, contributed substantially to a change in team chemistry, performance and the overall problems related to last season. This was the point of my post and my overall argument, not that the QB change alone is the reason Dallas' team chemistry and performance suffered, this ignores the conext, argument and logic of my argument. But to overstate a counter argument based on something I never argued, to the extent the quick QB change would have NO affect on the team chemistry at all, is not reasonable nor cogent.

Losing your starting QB, RB most the season, Starting speed WR, starting blocking TE, RCB wether you value him or not (and Thorton), Darren Woodson experienced warrior at FS easily changes the overall team chemistry and performance, this would apply to any team. No one has this much depth without a substantial drop off and most of these injuries came late and there were no viable options given they were the starters from the beginning. This is an honest assessment, sure you can say they should of signed a corner other than Hunter, but guess what, the veteran you signed goes down for the year, then his backup (Hunter) and you are left with the same problem. Same issue with running back, Vinny was a reasonable backup QB, no one planned "the Jet" to be ousted this far into the plan. No one planned a Woodson injury, he was reliable for years, and their were no viable candidates at this point that were available. This is no excuse, Dallas was simply bad this year, but you cannot honestly argue that these substantial injuries did not contribute to this past years chemistry or lack thereof and overall performance, that being on BOTH sides of the ball.
But thats just my opinion

Oh my gosh, you mean we were in agreement all along? Good post i definitely think the lost of Quincy affected this team. I was never a fan of his but I can't understand why we cut players when we have no depth at positions like quarterback. I wasn't in favor of starting Quiny Carter either but would I have liked him to be on the bench....you bet. Because I would have started Quincy on Thanksgiving day and probably the games after that. Who knows what could have occurred. Yes, we may have finished worse but we may have improved too.

 

[Doomsday101]

I was one of those saying it was a wasted season and I think that comment is a bit harsh and inaccurated so I am curbing my earlier stance because the development of Julius Jones was a major blessing. At the same time, last year should not have been a rebuilding year. We could have and should have built upon the 10-6 season by addressing our weaknesses so last season was wasteful to some degree but not a total degree.

Overall, this article is accurate. It may be hard to stomach; it may upset you but it doesn't change the fact that it's the truth.

I was not upset with the article but again this was in no way a wasted season. The writer of this article is basing everything on the fact that Henson did not play, I have not only read his article I have listened to him on the radio after a Cowboy game and that was all he was talking about that it was a wasted season because Henson was not playing. Henson is 1 part of this team and a kid who has not played in 3 years, bottom line was he was not ready. Now I have a writer who thinks other wise and a HOF coach who has been doing this for 40 years, sorry Parcells knows a hell of a lot more about working with a QB than some desk jockey who has never played the game. I will agree it was a bad season but wasted no it was not a wasted season

 

[joseephuss]

You relax, this comment is unecessary, and you still never answer the question, your argument is based on the unknown and a set of circumstances that could not reasonably be addressed given the unknown. In addition, an assumption that all teams can be deep at every position and behind that depth as well.

I was not trying to offend you, but you seemed to be irrated. Therefore the "relax" comment. I did answer your question. I agreed with you that any team will struggle to improve and overcome injuries to key positions. I know in this age of parity that not evey team can be deep at every position. That is tough to deal with and I thought Dallas did a poor job of it during the last off season.

You say that it dealing with unknowns. I disagree. Dallas knew that it lacked experience and depth at cornerback last off season. They addressed it by drafting a three cornerbacks. They knew that they would not be in good shape if an injury occurred. They took that chance. They could have brought in a veteran as insurance. That to me is not an known.

They knew they had no qualified backups at safety during the off season. They did nothing about it. You can't predict the injury to Woodson, butyou have to takes steps to have someone better on the roster in the backup role. I don't see how that is an unknown circumstance. Dixon and Scott are no good. That was known. Woody was up in age and could have been playing in his last season. That was known. It is not unreasonable to find a competent backup safety and start developing one long term for life after Woody. At least with the corner back position, there is hope for the future. At this point, that is not the case at safety.

I just cited two examples as part of my arguement. And yes I am arguing because that is what you call it when you present differing views of a situation.

 

[BPARCELL'SRULESUBOY]

I get it. Respond to you only if I stay inside the box of what you mean or want to talk about.

Thanks no. I prefer that if something sparks a possible good discussion to go ahead with it.

I thought that's what I'd get. Oh well.

Funny how on one hand you preach Parcells is always correct then you question his making this decision. It doesn't work that way but okay. I can slice this reasoning thinner than filets.

But I'm outside the box again. Toodles. :gent:

First of all, you apparently cannot take it when someone offers a "corrective" to your views, I was simply arguing against the assumptions in your response, but never stated or indicated that you could not or should not argue a take off of any given post. My remarks were only based on where you assumed things as a base for your "take off" point, that I never argued but you definately assumed was a element or theme of my argument. This was not an example of thinking outside of the box to me.

In addition, I have NEVER argued Parcells does everything right, this is another uncritical overstatement, based on the assumption that some hold that if you like Parcells, it is either you MUST agree with every move he makes or If you do not like him, you MUST disagree with every move he makes. This is simplistic logic at best, and is it really necessary to use "filet" your argument type stuff??? I am not offended per say but does this really accomplish what you are trying to say??? Its fine if you disagree with me on any given point, just say so, but expect a response if you post a reply using a aspect of my argument to expound your own. I never even spoke to the contours of the rest of your thoughts, just where I thought you misread or overstated something I never argued to make your case, this is a reasonable response from me. I am not compelled to tell you that I can crucify your opinions or something. Lets just disagree respectfully.

 

[BPARCELL'SRULESUBOY]

[

QUOTE=joseephuss]I was not trying to offend you, but you seemed to be irrated. Therefore the "relax" comment. I did answer your question. I agreed with you that any team will struggle to improve and overcome injuries to key positions. I know in this age of parity that not evey team can be deep at every position. That is tough to deal with and I thought Dallas did a poor job of it during the last off season.

I was not offended but one should not "command" someone in this context.
You initially did not answer the question ultimately, but have now simply agreed with me on this question. We are really closer than further apart on this question, you answer above the reason why we do not have depth at every position. In an ideal world and a set starting team, yes you could load up for depth at key positions while waiting a little longer on other positions.

You say that it dealing with unknowns. I disagree. Dallas knew that it lacked experience and depth at cornerback last off season. They addressed it by drafting a three cornerbacks. They knew that they would not be in good shape if an injury occurred. They took that chance. They could have brought in a veteran as insurance. That to me is not an known.

I disagree, Dallas concluded that Hunter was capable to man the corner position on the right side, they drafted three corners and Hunter went down. In addition, Thorton went down as well which caused the kids to play. So think this through logically, their starter goes down AND his backup. Lets play your game here, if we signed a veteran to man RCB and Hunter was the backup, then BOTH the veteran AND Hunter go down (like Hunter and Thorton) which leaves you with the same problem. You have no argument here because either way it was injury at RCB that hurt us this year not a lack of depth. We even signed a veteran in Williams, that also got hurt. Think this one through you cannot have 5 deep at RCB!!!

They knew they had no qualified backups at safety during the off season. They did nothing about it. You can't predict the injury to Woodson, butyou have to takes steps to have someone better on the roster in the backup role. I don't see how that is an unknown circumstance. Dixon and Scott are no good. That was known. Woody was up in age and could have been playing in his last season. That was known. It is not unreasonable to find a competent backup safety and start developing one long term for life after Woody. At least with the corner back position, there is hope for the future. At this point, that is not the case at safety.

Wrong, they did not know this, that is why Parcells gave Dixon a chance to step up after Woodys injury. Bill follows the three year rule, Dixon is in his third year, and he never started to this extent for them to truly know otherwise. He was given every chance to step up and be a player, but he could not do it. Only now do they truly know what Dixon is and is not, because he failed after being given a starting role as a third year player. Not all picks work out, Dixon looks like a bust, but that is part of reality in the NFL. In addition, we had way too many needs on the team other than FS when Woody was healthy to have reasonably redressed the FS position. Sure if they knew Woody was going to retire they would have prepared for this by aquiring a good player. Woody went down late and no viable options were there so they needed to find out about Dixon anyway so give him a chance. That is a reasonable approach given the teams other needs, Woodys untimely injury, and a player you need to find out about on your roster without any other viable options.

I

just cited two examples as part of my arguement. And yes I am arguing because that is what you call it when you present differing views of a situation.

[/QUOTE]
Obviously you arguing a perpective, this is common knowledge but your examples unfortunately do not support your argument. All you can say is that the injuries were extensive defensively this year more than normal and Dallas must address these positions at RCB because Hunter and Thorton are coming off substantial injuries and the kids were not adequate given the hole at Strong saftey created by Woodys injury and retirement. With this knowlegde we must address the FS position, because Dixon/Scott were not adequate in replacing Woody on the strong side (now we know this but you have to see what you have given no other real options) and Roy will most likely move to his natural Strong Side position. Now we know we need to add saftey help, not only behind Roy at the SS, but a starter at FS and we have depth in Keith Davis and maybe Woody Dantzler.

The corner back position was injury riddled, would have been so if a Antione Winfield tore his ACL first and then Hunter, leaving us Thorton and the kids to play. You cannot be but so deep at each position and timing is a huge factor in terms of finding outside help. We were injury riddled this year, you
cannot "blame" this on the team, it was a unfortunate event at two positions that we could not currently afford these types of injuries given that we are rebuilding the team.

 

[Hostile]

First of all, you apparently cannot take it when someone offers a "corrective" to your views, I was simply arguing against the assumptions in your response, but never stated or indicated that you could not or should not argue a take off of any given post. My remarks were only based on where you assumed things as a base for your "take off" point, that I never argued but you definately assumed was a element or theme of my argument. This was not an example of thinking outside of the box to me.

In addition, I have NEVER argued Parcells does everything right, this is another uncritical overstatement, based on the assumption that some hold that if you like Parcells, it is either you MUST agree with every move he makes or If you do not like him, you MUST disagree with every move he makes. This is simplistic logic at best, and is it really necessary to use "filet" your argument type stuff??? I am not offended per say but does this really accomplish what you are trying to say??? Its fine if you disagree with me on any given point, just say so, but expect a response if you post a reply using a aspect of my argument to expound your own. I never even spoke to the contours of the rest of your thoughts, just where I thought you misread or overstated something I never argued to make your case, this is a reasonable response from me. I am not compelled to tell you that I can crucify your opinions or something. Lets just disagree respectfully.

Wrong.

I just wanted a discussion.

 

[mr.jameswoods]

First of all, you apparently cannot take it when someone offers a "corrective" to your views, I was simply arguing against the assumptions in your response, but never stated or indicated that you could not or should not argue a take off of any given post. My remarks were only based on where you assumed things as a base for your "take off" point, that I never argued but you definately assumed was a element or theme of my argument. This was not an example of thinking outside of the box to me.

Dude, you have not been on here long enough to know Hostile. He is one of the more objective members here. He is not insanely stubborn like some members. He will actually listen to your view and change his opinion if you make a sound argument.

In addition, I have NEVER argued Parcells does everything right, this is another uncritical overstatement, based on the assumption that some hold that if you like Parcells, it is either you MUST agree with every move he makes or If you do not like him, you MUST disagree with every move he makes. This is simplistic logic at best, and is it really necessary to use "filet" your argument type stuff??? I am not offended per say but does this really accomplish what you are trying to say??? Its fine if you disagree with me on any given point, just say so, but expect a response if you post a reply using a aspect of my argument to expound your own. I never even spoke to the contours of the rest of your thoughts, just where I thought you misread or overstated something I never argued to make your case, this is a reasonable response from me. I am not compelled to tell you that I can crucify your opinions or something. Lets just disagree respectfully.

I hear this excuse all the time. People say they don't agree with everything Parcells does but then again, they never state specifically what Parcells does wrong. They will only defend him every single time in a thread. I doubt this is just a coincidence after a while. If you want to convince people you are objective then you need to admit some negative things Parcells has done otherwise you will convey that you love everything Parcells does. I totally see where Hostile is coming because you do seem like a Parcells homer. This post isn't meant to criticize you. If you took it that then I do apologize. I think you make some excellent points; I just find it hard to believe that you think there is anything wrong with Bill Parcells. If you love everything Parcells does then so be it. it doesn't mean you are wrong but at least admit that if it's the case. If it's not the case then show your objectivity by admitting the potential bad moves Parcells has made.

 

[Hostile]

Dude, you have not been on here long enough to know Hostile. He is one of the more objective members here. He is not insanely stubborn like some members. He will actually listen to your view and change his opinion if you make a sound argument.



I hear this excuse all the time. People say they don't agree with everything Parcells does but then again, they never state specifically what Parcells does wrong. They will only defend him every single time in a thread. I doubt this is just a coincidence after a while. If you want to convince people you are objective then you need to admit some negative things Parcells has done otherwise you will convey that you love everything Parcells does. I totally see where Hostile is coming because you do seem like a Parcells homer.

He misunderstood something I said before and we cleared the air. I figured I'd try again to be friendly and engage him in a discussion and enjoy some banter. Pretty clear to me he wants to have an issue. I'll pass.

 

[Waffle]

He misunderstood something I said before and we cleared the air. I figured I'd try again to be friendly and engage him in a discussion and enjoy some banter. Pretty clear to me he wants to have an issue. I'll pass.

And I still haven't figured out the placement of his apostrophe either.

 

[BPARCELL'SRULESUBOY]

And I still haven't figured out the placement of his apostrophe either.

Lets not be childish now, I am not bashing your selection of Waffle nor do I even know you.

 

[BPARCELL'SRULESUBOY]

Wrong.

I just wanted a discussion.

You have an interesting way of dialogue that I apparently keep misunderstanding.

 

[BPARCELL'SRULESUBOY]

He misunderstood something I said before and we cleared the air. I figured I'd try again to be friendly and engage him in a discussion and enjoy some banter. Pretty clear to me he wants to have an issue. I'll pass.

Hostile, we have no issues. I made no personal comments to you, I simply disagreed with a few items in your thinking, and did so by only disagreeing with your line of thinking and was only responding to your reply to my post. There seems to be a pattern here that if I voice a criticism of someones argument then I am somehow being intolerant and making trouble. This is absurd, read through my posts, its if I am the only one that cannot have an opinion or I am being mean or somehow not open to dialogue.

You have a certain type of approach that you use but so do I, neither is invalid we just argue differently, big deal, it is not me being unfriendly or unkind, I am exchanging ideas even though they may not resonate with your views. Please, no more of this, I respect you, but can respectfully disagree with your take, lets end this imaginary problem.

 

[Waffle]

Lets not be childish now, I am not bashing your selection of Waffle nor do I even know you.

Although you seem somewhat hypersensitive to me, I have agreed with some of the opinions you have put forth in your posts and I definitely do not want to discourage you from being a contributor to this board. I find your approach unique and interesting to say the least.

As for the username...I wasn't bashing you, but just made the statement that I didn't understand why there was an apostrophe in "Parcells" when it wasn't required, nor is your username possessive in nature to begin with. I think Hostile had politely offered to alter it for you if you wanted and you proceeded to rip his head off if I'm not mistaken.

I hope you understand that I meant no offense to you at all. You can call yourself whatever you like and spell your username any way you please. It's a free country. But if there is some special reason for the apostrophe between the "l" and the "s", feel free to enlighten the rest of us as to what that is. If you choose to keep it to yourself, no big deal.

 

[BPARCELL'SRULESUBOY]

[

QUOTE=mr.jameswoods]Dude, you have not been on here long enough to know Hostile. He is one of the more objective members here. He is not insanely stubborn like some members. He will actually listen to your view and change his opinion if you make a sound argument.

And I also have not been here long enough for you to know me, your words are not needed here and no one is attacking anyone so you can save your apologetic. There is no such thing as an "objective" perspective, we are all subjects and view things subjectively. I am sure there are points where ALL posters agree and disagree, none being more valid than the other. Many posters read sound arguments and still cannot leave their presuppositions and propositions behind. Anyone can have a sound and properly reasoned argument that is valid but that is based on a proposition that is not true but false.

I hear this excuse all the time. People say they don't agree with everything Parcells does but then again, they never state specifically what Parcells does wrong. They will only defend him every single time in a thread. I doubt this is just a coincidence after a while. If you want to convince people you are objective then you need to admit some negative things Parcells has done otherwise you will convey that you love everything Parcells does. I totally see where Hostile is coming because you do seem like a Parcells homer. This post isn't meant to criticize you. If you took it that then I do apologize. I think you make some excellent points; I just find it hard to believe that you think there is anything wrong with Bill Parcells. If you love everything Parcells does then so be it. it doesn't mean you are wrong but at least admit that if it's the case. If it's not the case then show your objectivity by admitting the potential bad moves Parcells has made.

[/QUOTE]
First of all, you do not know me, nor ALL of my views on Parcells and the team. You have no reasonable basis whatsoever in this context to argue that I am a "homer" which by the way is a childish name calling approach that you should know better, and that I somehow think Parcells can do no wrong. Think this through, how simplistic is your logic and argument.

For example, you base this argument on very little knowledge of my perspectives, the possibilities that could be understood otherwise and you fall into a either/or argument based on a lack of information and sound logic. You wrongly presuppose that I am one of those "people" that apparently frustrate you because of their views on Parcells and corresponding approach.

You assume you are "objective" if you view Parcells through a critical only perspective but others are somehow not "objective" if they accuse those who are uncritical and overstating the Parcells "blame" game perspective as being reactionary to the extent they are being illogical. No position is "objective" we are subjects hence our perspectives are subjective. See this is the problem here, ultimately because you have assumed things about me, because I have not agreed with the company line, I am the "non-objective" Parcells can do no wrong guy that cannot possibly be correct. This is your critical mistake, you should never ctriticize me, call me names and then whine because I challenged your argument or a posters perspective you side with accordingly. This exposes gross bias and an unwillingness to dialogue and exchange with those who disagree genuinely from your perspective especially if the challenge your logic or call it wrong. This is not a pride contest, leave that stuff at home.

I never called you a name, indicated you have no right to your opinion or I will call you a Parcells only basher, who says Parcells does the right things but never says specifically what they may be or only attacks his moves and decisions in a thread. Why?? Because whether I agree with you or not, name calling is unacceptable, I do not know you completely so I will not assume ALL of your perspectives based on the few items I have seen you argue or to gang up because I disagree with your post and perspective. Please grow up, everyone has the right to their perspective, even me, so argue your case with anyone but you may want to try to refrain from generalizations and name calling because it only exposes other issues and it does make you look childish.