Fire Zimmer Now!!!

[Hostile]

I view it differently

I am not minimizing the effect that Zimmer has on the defense......others are minimizing the effect that Parcells has on this defense.

Bottom line is that the move to the 3-4 would not be having the success that it has without PArcells in the equation.

Replace Zimmer with another DC and you would basically get the same results if Parcells were still in the equation...and if PArcells was the one selecting the DC.

Absolutely 100% incorrect. Not one person who has debated with you in this thread has said Parcells doesn't deserve credit. Not one single, solitary person. You on the other hand are saying Zimmer deserves little to none. To the point of you have him fired, when anyone can see he clearly isn't.

So, you're essentially saying that Bill Belicheck, Marvin Lewis, Gregg Williams, no one else in the NFL could successfully transition the Cowboys from a 4-3 to a 3-4?

There's at least 1 other guy who can and that is apparently Mike Zimmer because he's done it. At Parcells' direction, yes. I'll grant you that. But the task was still his. A blueprint without someone to make it come to life is just paper.

No one is so brilliant that they can tell you something and with no effort on your own you make it succeed. Zimmer must be doing something right.

 

[scottsp]

I view it differently

I am not minimizing the effect that Zimmer has on the defense......others are minimizing the effect that Parcells has on this defense.

Bottom line is that the move to the 3-4 would not be having the success that it has without PArcells in the equation.

Replace Zimmer with another DC and you would basically get the same results if Parcells were still in the equation...and if PArcells was the one selecting the DC.

No one is minimizing the effect Parcells has on the defense because he is the primary reason the 3-4 has made its way here. No Parcells, odds are this transformation does not take place.

We all know why this defense in in place. We understand the the impact an infusion of talent brings to the table. Of course those things are essential to the equation.

Zimmer simply deserves a fair share of the credit. To state something such as, "since Parcells was here, we didn't need to hire a defensive mastermind" is belittling the contribution Mike Zimmer has made to this unit's success. And it's not necessarily true either.

If Bill Parcells is going to give himself and this club the best shot to make a successful passage to the 3-4, he is going to go with a person he feels is best suited to lead that transition. To coach it, teach it, and coordinate gameplans week in, week out.

Obviously, Mike Zimmer is that guy for Bill Parcells. Because Parcells has enough contacts and enough reach throughout the league to get any number of qualified coaches who are well-versed in the 3-4. And there are plenty of qualified young coaches who would die for the shot to be an NFL defensive coordinator.

This says a lot for Mike Zimmer.

 

[Hostile]

It is working mainly because of Parcells...not because of Zimmer.

I'll bet you Parcells himself would disagree with you.

 

[Hostile]

No one is minimizing the effect Parcells has on the defense because he is the primary reason the 3-4 has made its way here. No Parcells, odds are this transformation does not take place.

We all know why this defense in in place. We understand the the impact an infusion of talent brings to the table. Of course those things are essential to the equation.

Zimmer simply deserves a fair share of the credit. To state something such as, "since Parcells was here, we didn't need to hire a defensive mastermind" is belittling the contribution Mike Zimmer has made to this unit's success. And it's not necessarily true either.

If Bill Parcells is going to give himself and this club the best shot to make a successful passage to the 3-4, he is going to go with a person he feels is best suited to lead that transition. To coach it, teach it, and coordinate gameplans week in, week out.

Obviously, Mike Zimmer is that guy for Bill Parcells. Because Parcells has enough contacts and enough reach throughout the league to get any number of qualified coaches who are well-versed in the 3-4. And there are plenty of qualified young coaches who would die for the shot to be an NFL defensive coordinator.

This says a lot for Mike Zimmer.

Best post in the thread so far.

 

[Mike 1967]

I 'll bet you Parcells himself would disagree with you.

Yes..he would publically disagree. But in his mind he would not.

But that is how Parcells operates.

"I will die before I let you fail"

 

[Hostile]

Yes..he would publically disagree. But in his mind he would not.

But that is how Parcells operates.

"I will die before I let you fail"

No way. If in his mind it is all about him and his ideas the team would fail. They'd quit playing for him.

The statement you used as an example works to my argument, not yours. He's saying, "I believe in you," not "I'm going to make you believe in me."

 

[Trip]

I view it differently

I am not minimizing the effect that Zimmer has on the defense......others are minimizing the effect that Parcells has on this defense.

Bottom line is that the move to the 3-4 would not be having the success that it has without PArcells in the equation.

Replace Zimmer with another DC and you would basically get the same results if Parcells were still in the equation...and if PArcells was the one selecting the DC.

But that's where your logic is flawed. We moved to the 3-4 because of Parcells' directive, and to say it would not be as successful without him is irrelevent because it wouldn' have happened without him.

 

[Mike 1967]

No one is minimizing the effect Parcells has on the defense because he is the primary reason the 3-4 has made its way here. No Parcells, odds are this transformation does not take place. We all know why this defense in in place. We understand the the impact an infusion of talent brings to the table. Of course those things are essential to the equation..

Then we are on the same page. This is the only point that I am debating.

And I am debating it in defense of those who were calling for a defensive change last year.

Zimmer simply deserves a fair share of the credit. To state something such as, "since Parcells was here, we didn't need to hire a defensive mastermind" is belittling the contribution Mike Zimmer has made to this unit's success. And it's not necessarily true either. .

How is that belittling ???

Are you saying that Zimmer was a mastermind of the 3-4 ? Surely you are not.

It is what it is....Zimmer was not a master mind of the 3-4. We can surely all agree on that.

And it is not belittling to say that he was not a mastermind. It is also not belittling to say that it would be logically preferable to have a mastermind if we were going to make that type of major overhaul.

If Bill Parcells is going to give himself and this club the best shot to make a successful passage to the 3-4, he is going to go with a person he feels is best suited to lead that transition. To coach it, teach it, and coordinate gameplans week in, week out.

Obviously, Mike Zimmer is that guy for Bill Parcells. Because Parcells has enough contacts and enough reach throughout the league to get any number of qualified coaches who are well-versed in the 3-4. And there are plenty of qualified young coaches who would die for the shot to be an NFL defensive coordinator.

This says a lot for Mike Zimmer.

Agreed

 

[Mike 1967]

But that's where your logic is flawed. We moved to the 3-4 because of Parcells' directive, and to say it would not be as successful without him is irrelevent because it wouldn' have happened without him.

EXACTLY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Trip]

EXACTLY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Is that what this is all about? I don't think anyone in this whole thread is saying that Parcells hasn't contributed to this defense.

 

[Next_years_Champs]

Yes..he would publically disagree. But in his mind he would not.

But that is how Parcells operates.

"I will die before I let you fail"

The world is full of poorly managed work forces and evidently your experienced in poor management theory. Nothing you have said is correct including your comment above.

Parcells is a proven master of people management, except he's not dealing with middle class working stiffs. He's working with millionaire players and coaches who have chosen one of the most competitive fields imaginable.

You don't manage people on that level by erecting borders or fences giving them a very narrow input. You manage people on that level by communicating a goal then delegating and empowering those people whose job it is to reach those goals. Just as any successful manager knows Parcells understands that it takes a total effort from everyone to be successful at his level.

Parcells wouldn't privately or publicly agree with you, he would laugh at your ridiculous opinions as to what a successful manager is.

 

[scottsp]

you saying that Zimmer was a mastermind of the 3-4 ? Surely you are not.

It is what it is....Zimmer was not a master mind of the 3-4. We can surely all agree on that.

And it is not belittling to say that he was not a mastermind. It is also not belittling to say that it would be logically preferable to have a mastermind if we were going to make that type of major overhaul.

Nice twist. You were belittling his contribution. That is all I said.

You might assume certain things to be true, such as Bill's reasoning to go with Zimmer. But you don't know for certain why he chose to go that route.

We do know Bill chose him. And we know Zimmer is doing a good job.

What we don't know is what another "mastermind" might or might not do with this unit. All we can do is speculate.

 

[Mike 1967]

The world is full of poorly managed work forces and evidently your experienced in poor management theory. Nothing you have said is correct including your comment above.

Parcells is a proven master of people management, except he's not dealing with middle class working stiffs. He's working with millionaire players and coaches who have chosen one of the most competitive fields imaginable.

You don't manage people on that level by erecting borders or fences giving them a very narrow input. You manage people on that level by communicating a goal then delegating and empowering those people whose job it is to reach those goals. Just as any successful manager knows Parcells understands that it takes a total effort from everyone to be successful at his level.

Parcells wouldn't privately or publicly agree with you, he would laugh at your ridiculous opinions as to what a successful manager is.

I have no idea what poor management theory is.

You also seem to have taken my analogy way out of context.

In an operation you manage by establishing standard operating procedures. Think of a traffic laws. There are basic traffic laws that everyone must follow in order to obtain a level of operation required to allow for a large number of cars to operate safely and effectively.

Without these traffic laws chaos would soon be in play and traffic would come to a screeching halt.
The specific management analogy I am using would be best associated with a startup company. You are starting a company from scratch with no existing standard operating procedures. In this type of environment it would be necessary to employ someone who had experience in the type of business I was looking to launch. It would be necessary to have experience in order to derive realistic operating policies.

If, however, you were hiring a manager to come in and manage an existing department that already had SOP in place, then it would not be as important to hire someone with previous experience. Because in that instance the manager would simply have to follow the pre-existing procedures.

The 3-4 scheme is a startup. There was no pre-existing system in place within Dallas to work off of.

This was the crux of my analogy.

 

[Hostile]

I have no idea what poor management theory is.

You also seem to have taken my analogy way out of context.

In an operation you manage by establishing standard operating procedures. Think of a traffic laws. There are basic traffic laws that everyone must follow in order to obtain a level of operation required to allow for a large number of cars to operate safely and effectively.

Without these traffic laws chaos would soon be in play and traffic would come to a screeching halt.
The specific management analogy I am using would be best associated with a startup company. You are starting a company from scratch with no existing standard operating procedures. In this type of environment it would be necessary to employ someone who had experience in the type of business I was looking to launch. It would be necessary to have experience in order to derive realistic operating policies.

If, however, you were hiring a manager to come in and manage an existing department that already had SOP in place, then it would not be as important to hire someone with previous experience. Because in that instance the manager would simply have to follow the pre-existing procedures.

The 3-4 scheme is a startup. There was no pre-existing system in place within Dallas to work off of.

This was the crux of my analogy.

I do not agree with that analogy at all. You're basically saying we could have hired me to be the DC and with Parcells' blueprints I could build the same defense and have the same success. (I used myself so no one would be offended.)

No sir. I'm not stupid about football but no amount of preparation would have got me to draw the same success out of this D as Zimmer has.

Parcells wants the best people he can get around him. He feels Zimmer was his best option there or in switching schemes he would have found someone else to take the task. It's really just that simple.

 

[Mike 1967]

Is that what this is all about? I don't think anyone in this whole thread is saying that Parcells hasn't contributed to this defense.

I cannot speak for others on this thread. But the basis of my argument is very simple. The original poster/thread starter made the following statements:

TITLE: Fire Zimmer Now!!!

"His defense has given up 4 Touchdowns in the last 5 games!!! Man we could do so much better."

My interpretation of his post was quite simple.

INTERPRETATION: Those who called for Zimmers head last year were wrong because the defense is performing at a high level.

This argument is flawed because it assumes that the Zimmer is the one responsible for the defenses success. It is stating that (a) the defense is good (b) Zimmer is the one responsible for it being good and thus (a+b) = it was rediculous to ever question Zimmers abilities.

All I am debating is that if you are going to give anyone credit for this defense..then that person should be PArcells, not Zimmer. And my point is in direct response to this statement.

I did not start this thread by stating that Zimmer sucked and should get no credit. I simply am pointing out the error in the original posters statement. And I am doing so because I was one of those calling for a change last year.

I personally have nothing against Zimmer. Last year my line of thought was simply that if you change schemes you change DC's...because this is normally what occurs. But...it is great that Zimmer was open to learn a new system. This is rare in my experience. Most DC's and coaches appear to have their own fingerprints that they wish to employ to the offensive or defensive systems.

Now...perhaps I have mis-interpreted the original posters intent. If the original poster was saying....

"See, you people who said we could not have a good defense with Zimmer were wrong because he is still here and we still have a good defense."

Then I apologize for mis-interpreting his statement. Because if he did say that then I have no issue with the statement.

Because I personally had no issue with Zimmer staying when I knew that the system was going to be the 3-4 system...and that Parcells was going to be the architect of that system.

 

[Mike 1967]

I do not agree with that analogy at all. You're basically saying we could have hired me to be the DC and with Parcells' blueprints I could build the same defense and have the same success. (I used myself so no one would be offended.)

No sir. I'm not stupid about football but no amount of preparation would have got me to draw the same success out of this D as Zimmer has.

Parcells wants the best people he can get around him. He feels Zimmer was his best option there or in switching schemes he would have found someone else to take the task. It's really just that simple.

If I were saying that then I would be incorrect.

There is still a skill level that is required to perform certain tasks. We all have strengths and weaknesses.

Zimmer is obviously a good teacher and sport manager, or he would not be where he is.

I am not saying that just because the SOP is in place you can plug anyone into a management role. In my analogy even that manager would still require certain management and leadership skills. And the specific skills would be dictated by the job requirements.

Zimmers job no doubt requires very special skills.

But the basic X's and O's of the defense have been defined by Parcells. And those definitions are based of years of succesful experience with this system.

Zimmer could very well become an architect of this system after a few years experience. Heck..maybe even 1 year for all I know.

 

[Mike 1967]

Absolutely 100% incorrect. Not one person who has debated with you in this thread has said Parcells doesn't deserve credit. Not one single, solitary person. You on the other hand are saying Zimmer deserves little to none. To the point of you have him fired, when anyone can see he clearly isn't.

So, you're essentially saying that Bill Belicheck, Marvin Lewis, Gregg Williams, no one else in the NFL could successfully transition the Cowboys from a 4-3 to a 3-4?

There's at least 1 other guy who can and that is apparently Mike Zimmer because he's done it. At Parcells' direction, yes. I'll grant you that. But the task was still his. A blueprint without someone to make it come to life is just paper.

No one is so brilliant that they can tell you something and with no effort on your own you make it succeed. Zimmer must be doing something right.

Wrong !!!!!

You have gone down a rabbit trail.

My original counterpoint was (and still is) in direct response to the first post in this thread. Period.

What you have chosen to add to subtract to it is your problem...not mine.

 

[Mike 1967]

No way. If in his mind it is all about him and his ideas the team would fail. They'd quit playing for him.

The statement you used as an example works to my argument, not yours. He's saying, "I believe in you," not "I'm going to make you believe in me."

LOL

Why do you think Parcells has the reputation of a control freak ? Give me a break.

Yes he believes in you. He believes that you are on board his bus and can get the job done.

 

[Trip]

I cannot speak for others on this thread.

True, and I certainly shouldn't have either.

But if you wanted Zimmer to go, why were you okay with him staying when you found out we were switching to 3-4?

 

[Mike 1967]

Nice twist. You were belittling his contribution. That is all I said.

You might assume certain things to be true, such as Bill's reasoning to go with Zimmer. But you don't know for certain why he chose to go that route.

We do know Bill chose him. And we know Zimmer is doing a good job.

What we don't know is what another "mastermind" might or might not do with this unit. All we can do is speculate.

No...I was not belittling his contribution. I was counterpointing the first post in this thread that was implying that Zimmer was the reason behind the defensive success.

In this case my post was the egg and the original post was the chicken. And in this case, the chicken came before the egg.