Flashback: Parcell quit being conservative !! What's the worse that can happen?

[InmanRoshi]

That's the worse that can happen.

 

[Jarv]

Well, we could end up with 3 INT's and a fumbles...Oh, wait a second...Oh yeah, Bledsoe could get sacked a lot...Oh, wait a second.

With Peppers and the panthers rush, start Romo so he at least has a chance to escape a few times, make some plays with his feet. What is the worse that can happen Inman, 3 INT's and 7 sacks...You are sooo right.

 

[Dave_in-NC]

That's the worse that can happen.

Amen, and now the crying begins that he did nothing to adjust it. Its amazing.

 

[Juke99]

That's the worse that can happen.

Huh?

There wasn't even time to put a game plan into effect.

We were throwing way too often because we were behind and the other team KNEW we had to throw...that had nothing to do with abandoning being conservative.

We started the game with a little dink pass...and it got picked off...and then everything unravelled from there.

During the week Parcells said he was going back to being conservative and he meant it. Perhaps the conservative mindset was best evidenced by the way our team came out...looking afraid to make a mistake...while the other team came out jacked up....ya know, the same way Philly did on Monday night (a game in which we got manhandled and stole)...and the way the Giants did...

Sorry...but we were out of this game so quickly, there's no way to suggest how effective the "game plan" was.

 

[chinch]

That's the worse that can happen.

7 sacks.

INT first play of the game.

blowout loss.

 

[kingwhicker]

A loss is a loss, 14-13 or 35-7, it's all the same- in fact, the 14-13 felt way worse than this one.

 

[InmanRoshi]

Sorry...but we were out of this game so quickly, there's no way to suggest how effective the "game plan" was.

In other words maybe Parcells has been conservative because he knew that this isn't a team that afford to get behind quickly after a couple of turnovers.

For the last month the talk was that conservative Parcells was focusing too much on helping the offensive tackles. You know ... you gotta let Witten and the backs run routes, leave the tackles to hold their own and let the chips fall where they may.

Yesterday, we left the tackles isolated and the chips fell where they may .. .... right off the table.

 

[SultanOfSix]

I think Parcells knows his offensive tackles pretty well. And he knows that they are pretty awful. This OL handicaps the team, and we live and die by it. I don't think it has anything to do with a Parcells' philosophy of being conservative or not, because I think he'll air it out when he feels he can. He has to be conservative, because the line constrains him to be. That's the best explanation I can come up with.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Purcells has to be conservative with this team because our offense-- offensive line and QB are totally incapable of being able to "open it up". The line sucks and the QB is a turnover/sack machine. What a messy combination.

 

[DBoys]

That's the worse that can happen.

 

[DBoys]

I think Parcells knows his offensive tackles pretty well. And he knows that they are pretty awful. This OL handicaps the team, and we live and die by it. I don't think it has anything to do with a Parcells' philosophy of being conservative or not, because I think he'll air it out when he feels he can. He has to be conservative, because the line constrains him to be. That's the best explanation I can come up with.

I wish more people had your understanding of the issue.

 

[TruBlueCowboy]

That's the worse that can happen.

I love this post! :lombardi:

Right on Inman!

 

[Mash]

typical.....If we came out conservative and ran the ball on every single play....the results would of been the same.

This team wasn't prepared.....got out played in every facet of the game and like Bill says....."we are what we are" and things really haven't changed since he took over considering that he had high picks and a boatload of money....I expected more....This team isn't that much better then Campo's 5-11 teams......sad but true

 

[chinch]

Originally Posted by SultanOfSix
I think Parcells knows his offensive tackles pretty well. And he knows that they are pretty awful. This OL handicaps the team, and we live and die by it. I don't think it has anything to do with a Parcells' philosophy of being conservative or not, because I think he'll air it out when he feels he can. He has to be conservative, because the line constrains him to be. That's the best explanation I can come up with.

I wish more people had your understanding of the issue.

Amen.

Unfortunately it's just easier to spew hate

 

[Juke99]

In other words maybe Parcells has been conservative because he knew that this isn't a team that afford to get behind quickly after a couple of turnovers.

For the last month the talk was that conservative Parcells was focusing too much on helping the offensive tackles. You know ... you gotta let Witten and the backs run routes, leave the tackles to hold their own and let the chips fall where they may.

Yesterday, we left the tackles isolated and the chips fell where they may .. .... right off the table.

So, three years in, we are so bad on the Offensive line that we have to game plan like this?

You do know that the last line Campo had, when he was literally taking guys off the street and putting them into the starting line up, compares FAVORABLY to this line in rushing stats and protecting the QB, right?

The "conservative" problem that I have with Parcells is his entire MINDSET...not just the game plan.

Yes, in the Central Division of the NFC, circa 1973, this was all the rage.

NFL 2005? Not.

 

[InmanRoshi]

So, three years in, we are so bad on the Offensive line that we have to game plan like this?

You do know that the last line Campo had, when he was literally taking guys off the street and putting them into the starting line up, compares FAVORABLY to this line in rushing stats and protecting the QB, right?

The "conservative" problem that I have with Parcells is his entire MINDSET...not just the game plan.

Yes, in the Central Division of the NFC, circa 1973, this was all the rage.

NFL 2005? Not.

It was all the rage in the NFC East, circa 1993, as well.

 

[Undisputed]

Hell, a less conservative approach is what screwed us in this game. We may not like the way Parcells coaches sometimes, but conservative play gives this game the BEST chance to win our games. When you start to sling the ball around, that is when bad stuff tends to happen. Sacks, fumbles, and interceptions, all of which we saw on Sunday.

 

[Juke99]

It was all the rage in the NFC East, circa 1993, as well.

That team had playmakers...

That coach had brass ones...

Have you forgotten "The Catch II" Aikman to Harper, vs SF?

Parcells would still be running off tackle in the Jumbo formation.

 

[gbrittain]

To suggest that the Cowboys went into this game with an aggresive game plan is wrong. The game yesterday is hardly a game you can make the point that agressive game planning will get Dallas blown out.

 

[wileedog]

To suggest that the Cowboys went into this game with an aggresive game plan is wrong. The game yesterday is hardly a game you can make the point that agressive game planning will get Dallas blown out.

The first play from scrimmage that Drew was picked on we spread the D with a 3 WR set. We almost never start a game that way.

After that all heck broke loose, so I do agree with Juke that we really don't know what the total plan was. But that first formation hints that we were going to try and exploit their banged up secondary. At least that might have been the plan.