Doom and Gloom from Dale Hanson...

BPARCELL'SRULESUBOY

New Member
Messages
125
Reaction score
0
Waffle said:
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.
This is another rude comment, I am not hypersensitive, read through the posts, I am getting the treatment because I am deconstructing arguments. Those who disagree or who I exchange with try to make it personal if I deconstruct their argument, then call names, generalize or attempt to discredit. If you were not being a team player in this you could honestly look through the posts and see I have only argued logic, nothing personal.

A
s 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.
That is not what happened exactly, but it really does not matter. I have "boyz" and "U" and "ownz", should I explain these as well? I mean if the apostrophe is that important I wonder why the other words are not also this important or require the same curiosity?? I am very well versed in social exchange and clearly understand the nuances of how one says something which generally exposes their intent. Apparently you only bring this subject of my name up in a imagined dispute thread and coached in this context, this exposes your sentiments.

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.
I have no need to enlighten concerning anything, its a made up screen name, not precise, not proper spelling or grammer, just a silly screen name.
Can this be just that simple? The context in which you bring this subject up and truly why your bring this up to begin with begs questions to your motives. You could have sent a PM if the curiosity suddenly struck you on this thread where you needed to bring this up out of the blue. Look, it does not matter but just know dude that I see you, to me a typical move. :)
 

SuspectCorner

Still waiting...
Messages
10,240
Reaction score
2,861
to nobody in particular:

sometimes i find myself in a situation that appears to involve much more effort than it deserves. at which point i have to make a decision - am i willing to continue investing in it? or would it simply be easier to let it go and move on?
every situation is a little bit different. "F you" doesn't always carry the same weight. sometimes i might bow up with an "oh yeah?"... generally i just smile and give a little chuckle.
99% of the time - these situations don't have a life of their own. they only continue as i continue to invest in them. otherwise, they die of neglect.
 

Charles

Benched
Messages
3,408
Reaction score
1
BPARCELL'SRULESUBOY said:
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.
:hammer: How about that for hitting the nail on the head!!!

BPARCELL'SRULESUBOY I remember telling you in a reply to one of your previous posts that most posters that don't tow the company line on this forum receive the kind of response that you have got so far.

welcome once again ;)
 

WoodysGirl

U.N.I.T.Y
Staff member
Messages
79,281
Reaction score
45,652
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
tothewhipbill said:
to nobody in particular:

sometimes i find myself in a situation that appears to involve much more effort than it deserves. at which point i have to make a decision - am i willing to continue investing in it? or would it simply be easier to let it go and move on?
every situation is a little bit different. "F you" doesn't always carry the same weight. sometimes i might bow up with an "oh yeah?"... generally i just smile and give a little chuckle.
99% of the time - these situations don't have a life of their own. they only continue as i continue to invest in them. otherwise, they die of neglect.
Can I borrow that? Seems to be useful when you're in a conversation going nowhere...
 

BPARCELL'SRULESUBOY

New Member
Messages
125
Reaction score
0
Charles said:
:hammer: How about that for hitting the nail on the head!!!

BPARCELL'SRULESUBOY I remember telling you in a reply to one of your previous posts that most posters that don't tow the company line on this forum receive the kind of response that you have got so far.

welcome once again ;)
Yep, you are the man...it is true...I am a huge poster on a sister board...very well respected...this is interesting to say the least. You were right on the money...and notice it does not stop!!! :)
 

jimmy40

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,866
Reaction score
1,888
BPARCELL'SRULESUBOY said:
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 ;)
Losing Julius Jones cannot be considered in any arguement as to why we played worse in 2004 than 2003. We had him a hell of a lot more in 2004 than 2003 when we didn't have him at all. As far as team chemistry he couldn't make it through preseason without getting hurt and he wasn't starting so that's a non factor. I don't understand why people keep bringing this up.
 

joseephuss

Well-Known Member
Messages
28,041
Reaction score
6,920
BPARCELL'SRULESUBOY said:
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.

I don't know if Bill strictly goes by the 3 year rule. If it is clear that a player is no good, he probably should just get rid of them. Dixon just completed his 4th year with Dallas. It was pretty clear to everyone that they needed to upgrade the back up safeties going into the year. Dixon just reinforced this opinion this season.

I don't think every team can have backups that are as good as the starters, but Dallas lacks severe talent in the back up roles. That comes from management decisions. They have wasted draft picks to bring in guys like Dixon and trade for guys like Coleman and Ogbogu. Busts happen and they have been coming to Dallas. Heck, the starters are lacking talent in several areas. Injuries or not, this team wasn't going to improve because it failed to improve several important areas. The injuries just sealed the deal.
 

SuspectCorner

Still waiting...
Messages
10,240
Reaction score
2,861
jimmy40 said:
Losing Julius Jones cannot be considered in any arguement as to why we played worse in 2004 than 2003. We had him a hell of a lot more in 2004 than 2003 when we didn't have him at all. As far as team chemistry he couldn't make it through preseason without getting hurt and he wasn't starting so that's a non factor. I don't understand why people keep bringing this up.
i thought julius jones' performance in the seasons second half was eye-opening to say the least. i don't see why this should be overlooked because he wasn't around last season when he was at ND. it doesn't take a lot of imagination to see he would have made a difference in the first half of the season too. it has little to do with team chemistry. julius is a better back than eddie george. and better than T-Ham. it's really that simple.
last season dallas was very lucky as far as injuries went. this year it was just the opposite. and julius jones' injury is as significant as the injuries to terry glenn and darren woodson. his injury had a major impact on the fortunes of the team - even if for just half a season. he is obviously one of their best players. how can you compare last seasons running game to this seasons without factoring in julius jones?
 

BPARCELL'SRULESUBOY

New Member
Messages
125
Reaction score
0
tothewhipbill said:
i thought julius jones' performance in the seasons second half was eye-opening to say the least. i don't see why this should be overlooked because he wasn't around last season when he was at ND. it doesn't take a lot of imagination to see he would have made a difference in the first half of the season too. it has little to do with team chemistry. julius is a better back than eddie george. and better than T-Ham. it's really that simple.
last season dallas was very lucky as far as injuries went. this year it was just the opposite. and julius jones' injury is as significant as the injuries to terry glenn and darren woodson. his injury had a major impact on the fortunes of the team - even if for just half a season. he is obviously one of their best players. how can you compare last seasons running game to this seasons without factoring in julius jones?
Outstanding logic and point!!!
 

BPARCELL'SRULESUBOY

New Member
Messages
125
Reaction score
0
joseephuss said:
I don't know if Bill strictly goes by the 3 year rule. If it is clear that a player is no good, he probably should just get rid of them. Dixon just completed his 4th year with Dallas. It was pretty clear to everyone that they needed to upgrade the back up safeties going into the year. Dixon just reinforced this opinion this season.

I don't think every team can have backups that are as good as the starters, but Dallas lacks severe talent in the back up roles. That comes from management decisions. They have wasted draft picks to bring in guys like Dixon and trade for guys like Coleman and Ogbogu. Busts happen and they have been coming to Dallas. Heck, the starters are lacking talent in several areas. Injuries or not, this team wasn't going to improve because it failed to improve several important areas. The injuries just sealed the deal.
I agree bad decisions have plagued the talent pool, around a decade of them, this is an obvious point. That being said, would it not make sense to find young talented starters first like JJ and Witten when you are rebuilding??? You cannot address every need when you NEED starters with talent. These ten years have a long trajectory, that it will take time to evaluate what you do have and then address it in a rebuild mindset given limited options.

I never argued Parcells goes by a three year rule without exception with no measure of latitude but he has followed Landry in principal on this rule. Dixon was not with Bill for four years either was he??? I agree if the player has no potential or upside then obviously you get rid of them but you also give a chance to compete and step up so you can properly evaluate this aspect. They may have needed to add depth at Saftey last year, but in reality we had way too many other pressing needs as you rightly argue above, thus barring injury or retirement, it was a need that could wait. Remember, by your own attestation, we need young talented starters and have alot of starting positions to address on this team. Our team context dictates what we will be able to do in terms of depth at each given position, so this really simply undermines your entire argument.

Wrong, this team would have been much better if it had not lost the following:

1) QB starter (cut but gone)
2) RB JJ starter (most the season)
3) TE Cambell
4) WR Glenn
5) SS Woodson
6) RCB HUnter
7) RCB Thorton (tells the story)
8) RCB Williams (tells the story)

Even say they upgraded at RCB with a veteran, then all you have is the Veteran AND Hunter out for the year with the same problem. Sorry, but these players in particular, at skill positions in general, would decimate any team across the board. Name one team that suffers these blows and still competes or improves. This is a simple concept, we all know we had 10 years of horrible drafts and decisions (old news), and the club needs new young talent that we are slowly collecting at skill positions, but rebuilding this team will take some time. Yet, be honest, these injuries truly changed what we could do and who we were and would to any team given the same losses.
 

Hostile

The Duke
Messages
119,565
Reaction score
4,544
BPARCELL'SRULESUBOY said:
You have an interesting way of dialogue that I apparently keep misunderstanding.
Basically I like good discussions. I like open debates. I like opinionated posters. Some of my favorite people to read and debate here are people who never agree with me on anything. When I find someone who speaks well of something and has an opinion that I see differently I attempt to open a discussion.

That is what I did in this thread. You said something that obviously piqued my interest so I responded to it in the hopes it would open a discussion. It didn't.

Your response came across as put off and that once again you were offended over nothing. I don't need the drama. Plenty of people here who can debate without me feeling the need to walk on egg shells so as not to elicit a cry of persecution.

I have had no intentions of intimidating or persecuting you and frankly I'm tired of the drama already. If little things set you off then I am a wrong partner for a debate with you because I enjoy it too much.
 

Hostile

The Duke
Messages
119,565
Reaction score
4,544
BPARCELL'SRULESUBOY said:
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.
You may not intend to come across as unfriendly, but in fact you do. Every response to anything challenging your viewpoint seems charged with extra emotion or hyper-sensitivity.

For example, the apostrophe thing obviously still irks you. Another poster cracks a joke about it and you come across as ulta offended immediately. I offer to fix it so people quit having an issue with it, and you fly off the handle.

The first time we "cleared the air" it was over your impression of me as Mod on the forum. It got so bad I had to point out to you in private that if I am debating stuff with you I am not a Mod. The "woe is me, the big bad Mod is after me" angle doesn't sit well with me. Especially over an apostrophe, which still seems to be a huge issue. I offered to help remove it as an issue. You took it bad. My gosh, such a big thing to blow up over.

From the looks of it, this will be a pattern with you. By all means enjoy it.

Any time you want to jump into a debate with me I ask that you initiate it please. Speak your mind and add some mustard if you wish. I'm dead serious about that too. I do not mind the give and take at all.

However, I won't attempt to engage you in a debate any more until I know we are past this crap. Too much drama for this country boy.
 

Waffle

Not Just For Breakfast Anymore
Messages
3,379
Reaction score
1
BPARCELL'SRULESUBOY said:
I have no need to enlighten concerning anything, its a made up screen name, not precise, not proper spelling or grammer, just a silly screen name.
Can this be just that simple? The context in which you bring this subject up and truly why your bring this up to begin with begs questions to your motives. You could have sent a PM if the curiosity suddenly struck you on this thread where you needed to bring this up out of the blue. Look, it does not matter but just know dude that I see you, to me a typical move. :)
No motives dude. I was just making a harmless comment to Hostile about your "silly screen name" and even attached a a smiley face at the end of it to emphasize my demeanor. If you were insulted, please accept my apologies.
 

BPARCELL'SRULESUBOY

New Member
Messages
125
Reaction score
0
Waffle said:
No motives dude. I was just making a harmless comment to Hostile about your "silly screen name" and even attached a a smiley face at the end of it to emphasize my demeanor. If you were insulted, please accept my apologies.
No matter it still makes no sense. Lets move on on this "silly" exchange.
 

Waffle

Not Just For Breakfast Anymore
Messages
3,379
Reaction score
1
BPARCELL'SRULESUBOY said:
No matter it still makes no sense. Lets move on on this "silly" exchange.
I already have.
 

BPARCELL'SRULESUBOY

New Member
Messages
125
Reaction score
0
[
QUOTE=Hostile]You may not intend to come across as unfriendly, but in fact you do. Every response to anything challenging your viewpoint seems charged with extra emotion or hyper-sensitivity.
This is where we disagree, there is no emotion or hypersensitivity in my reply to your reply to my post whatsoever. The coming across unfriendly was how I felt you treated me from the beginning, it has not changed. I never attacked you, I simply disagreed with you logic, which apparently makes you assume I have an issue with you and not your perspective. Go back and read my reply to your reply, you were the one upset with me.

For example, the apostrophe thing obviously still irks you. Another poster cracks a joke about it and you come across as ulta offended immediately. I offer to fix it so people quit having an issue with it, and you fly off the handle.
Wrong, it does not irk me, it does not even matter, this is truly foolishness.
The context of the comment, the obvious intent of the comment based on the context is what bothered me. Obviously you will not be unbiased enough to admit you and your buddies were ganging up. Heck, other posters if honest can see this is the case. So please do not play the joke line, given the context, the purposlessness of the joke, and the fact a joke is supposed to be funny to all parties involved. No one but this fellow even said anything concerning, why?? They do not care!!! This was brought up for your support by obviously, which should flatter you, but stop the charade, its obvious what was being done. I do not know him so a joke would not apply, it has never been mentioned before by anyone but you.

The first time we "cleared the air" it was over your impression of me as Mod on the forum. It got so bad I had to point out to you in private that if I am debating stuff with you I am not a Mod. The "woe is me, the big bad Mod is after me" angle doesn't sit well with me. Especially over an apostrophe, which still seems to be a huge issue. I offered to help remove it as an issue. You took it bad. My gosh, such a big thing to blow up over.
Actually, it was you as a mod in terms of how you were approaching me as a new guy and how I felt you were treating me because I argued my take and it was somehow less valid than others perspectives in approach but I more readily think now content was an issue too based off some recent comments. Just let me post without the bulldogging, thats what it looks like and seems like, sorry but others are noticing. It has nothing to do with me being disrespectful to you, hypersensitive, or anything else.

The apostrophe was your opportunity to, from my perspective attempt to "insult" me initially, we worked through this so this can be dropped. Your buddy brought this issue back, not me. If you really think it was the "apostrophe" that fostered my response, when it does not matter,you simply disregarded everything I told you I felt that you were doing and saying to me because I argued strongly my points that you apparently disagreed with accordingly.

From the looks of it, this will be a pattern with you. By all means enjoy i
t.

I have simply argued points on here but God forbid if I question your arguments, then we are back to the "apostrophe" that your buddy brought up, not me, in your support. This is a common and rather juvenile tactic on the boards when a stranger is arguing with a familiar,the buddy system then shows up, you know this is true.

Any time you want to jump into a debate with me I ask that you initiate it please. Speak your mind and add some mustard if you wish. I'm dead serious about that too. I do not mind the give and take at all.
I will argue anything Cowboys with you anytime, unless it gets reduced to this stuff, somehow being turned into a persnal issue again when I simply disagreed with the basis of your logic on your reply to my post. That is why we are having this exchange, because apparently it made you mad. If you will argue points, then drop the other stuff and stick to the logic.

However, I won't attempt to engage you in a debate any more until I know we are past this crap. Too much drama for this country boy.
[/QUOTE]
Agreed, but remember, I posted nothing to you nor did I criticize or deconstruct your arguments, you chose to challenge an aspect of my argument with another poster. I simply disagreed with your perspective, you cannot say I instigated or intiated this exchange and my response to your post was only based on your logic, nothing else.

To me, I was simply counter arguing an aspect of your response but nothing more. This board is huge, lets just avoid exchanging because obviously this will not be fruitful right now. All is forgiven, it was never personal with me, I do not need the drama, I get enough from all the other posters who view the team in a similar vein, thats enough.
 

Waffle

Not Just For Breakfast Anymore
Messages
3,379
Reaction score
1
tothewhipbill said:
somebody please attach several sticks of TNT and a detonator to this thread.
I'll light the match. :)
 

Hostile

The Duke
Messages
119,565
Reaction score
4,544
I couldn't agree more about detonating this thread. Wow

Suddenly me and Waffle are tag team partners in a bash fest. Holy cow.

Waffle, I'm sorry man. I don't mean for you to get dragged into whatever this is. I find it funny that you and I both used the word hypersensitive. That must be why he thinks this was a planned witch hunt. Well, that and Charles' warning/welcome.

The really funny thing is that I liked what the guy had to say. It made me want to have a debate with him. Forget it. Whoever needs a "me against the world" party to crash can have this one.
 
Top