Give Parcells credit for this...

[khiladi]

It often happens when people paint themselves into a corner with some pathetic argument and then they get called on it. It's an act of sheer desperation by a helpless man......

So can you repeat for me who was literally begging the Cowboys to take Tony Romo in the draft?

Was it Sean Payton as I SAID IT WAS, or was it Bill Parcells?

One can butter it up all they want by trying to argue that since Bill was coach, than he was responsible for Tony, even if Payton found him, but that doesn't change the fact of what I have been saying all along. Sean Payton found him and was the FORMATIVE INFLUENCE in keeping Romo around with the Cowboys.

I just love the hypocrisy... So Jerry doesn't get any credit for the Cwoboys with Jimmy, but Bill gets all the credit for finding a person like Romo even though he didn't find him?

 

[Stautner]

I don't care about your 'clear point' that has no relevance to what was being inserted at the time, i.e. who was responsible for Romo? That is what the whole argument was about, and then you brought in the issue of Bill replacing Bledsoe with Romo as if this was somehow related to the topic at hand.

Use your brain a second and think about this .......

when do you think coaches replace starters .....? It's when they determine the starter is no longer effective.

Your argument that Parcells couldn;t have wanted Romo to play because he only replace Bledsoe when he was ineffective is ridiculous, because that's how it works pretty much EVERY TIME a starting player is replaced.

Obviously you don't give a crap about my clear point, because despite the fact it's crystal clear, it doesn't fit your agenda so you choose to ignore it.

I stated that the ONLY reason Parcells played Romo is because Bledsoe sucked, and he had no choice but to make a change. The media was also criticizing him. Parcells still had the look of dejection on HIS FACE even when he started Romo in the Carolina game, until they finally started winning. It is easy to say one loves Romo after he totally turns the team around.

The look of dejection ..... now there's a strong argument.

Parcells looked down in the dumps, so he must not have liked Romo .......

Nice logic.

Of course, let's ignore Parcells frequent words of praise for Romo and the fact that for 2 consecutive preseasons he gave Romo more snaps than Bledsoe ......... or the fact that Parcells could have cut him at any time in favor of another cheaper backup.

That "look" says it all ........

SImply based upon a mis-understanding of your post.

What is that? Are you saying you misread what I had written? Imagine that ........

Because Parcells likes veterans. Why do you think he went from Vinny to Drew?

Parcells does like experience - no question. Which was why he was developing Romo rather than throwing him in the fire as you clam he would have if he liked the guy.

You actually are contradicting your own argument.

Of course he had a bright future when Sean Payton is gushing all over him. You have Parcells not even drafting him, and Sean Payton pushing for it. WHat does that say for what the original argument that Romo was the product of Bill Parcells?

I'm telling you that's not what I'm arguing about. I don't care if Payton did have more to do with Romo becoming a Cowboy than Parcells.

That may be true, and if so, congratulations, you get to win a point that I'm not even arguing with.

My dispute is with your statements that Parcells didn't even care for Romo or want him to play, and on that fron you don't have any logic to back-up your statements.


How did he lose his job? Because Simms got injured, and Hostetler took them to the Super Bowl and WON. Your desire to simply nit-pick on points, as if this changes the argument that your bringing up Hostetler actually proves my point, and not yours is absurd.[/quote]

Simms came back before they went that far and Parcells stuck with Hostetler DESPITE the fact that Simms was a proven Super Bowl winner.

 

[InmanRoshi]

Tony's real mentor

Nice of Tony Romo to show up to his interview session in pajama bottoms this afternoon.

I talked to him about his relationship with assistant David Lee, who deserves a lot of credit for Romo's development. It was Lee who completely overhauled Tony's throwing motion three years ago.

He was the quarterbacks coach last year, but the arrival of Chris Palmer meant that he had to return to his quality control position.

Lee was the coach who would leave home to meet Romo at Valley Ranch at all hours of the night. He would catch balls for hours and offer feedback.

If you spend enough time with Tony, you realize that he's not as close to Sean as others would have you believe.

http://cowboys.beloblog.com/archives/2006/12/06/

Hogs may hire Cowboys assistant

I'm told that Cowboys offensive assistant David Lee is the leading candidate for the recently vacated offensive coordinator position at the University of Arkansas.

Lee, who helped mentor eventual first-round draft pick Matt Jones as the school's quarterbacks coach, came to Dallas with Bill Parcells in 2003.

He turned down the Arkansas OC job after last season in order to stay in the league, but with Parcells' future in limbo, I don't think he'll turn it down this time.

Tony Romo gives Lee most of the credit for his development over the past four years and is taking him to the Pro Bowl next month as a show of thanks.

Lee became the Cowboys quarterbacks coach in 2004 but had that title removed when Chris Palmer arrived.

More to come.

So all the credit goes to Sean Payton for Tony Romo, except Tony Romo doesn't even consider Payton the biggest reason for his success as a Cowboy.

Dance monkey, Dance !!!

 

[iceberg]

So can you repeat for me who was literally begging the Cowboys to take Tony Romo in the draft?

Was it Sean Payton as I SAID IT WAS, or was it Bill Parcells?

One can butter it up all they want by trying to argue that since Bill was coach, than he was responsible for Tony, even if Payton found him, but that doesn't change the fact of what I have been saying all along. Sean Payton found him and was the FORMATIVE INFLUENCE in keeping Romo around with the Cowboys.

I just love the hypocrisy... So Jerry doesn't get any credit for the Cwoboys with Jimmy, but Bill gets all the credit for finding a person like Romo even though he didn't find him?

dude - you're getting beaten like an orphan in a dickens novel. i'd take what blood i had left and go scar up and come back another day.

 

[khiladi]

http://cowboys.beloblog.com/archives/2006/12/06/




So all the credit goes to Sean Payton for Tony Romo, except Tony Romo doesn't even consider Payton the biggest reason for his success as a Cowboy.

Dance monkey, Dance !!!

You really do need a class in logic. How does any of this negate the fact that Sean is the one who FOUND Tony? How does this negate the point that Sean was begging Dallas to draft Tony when he was still available in the 6th round? Really, is this more side-tracking?

Of course the QB coach is going to work with the QB more... That is why it is called the QB coach...

And how is that relevant to your contention about Parcells? uh, let me guess... absolutely no relevance..

 

[khiladi]

dude - you're getting beaten like an orphan in a dickens novel. i'd take what blood i had left and go scar up and come back another day.

How so?

It only took Parcells one sentence to end those talks. He told Payton to "lay down on the couch and have some warm milk." Romo said he didn't know much about Payton's discussions with Parcells. "At least someone wanted me," Romo said. Payton's fixation on Romo didn't occur suddenly. Payton rallied for Parcells to draft the former Eastern Illinois quarterback during the 2003 NFL Draft. Rallied may not be a strong enough verb. "By the sixth round that year, Sean was practically standing on the table, telling us to take Romo," former Cowboys player personnel director Larry Lacewell

WHo is begging about Romo, who is fixated about Romo, and who is Romo referring to when he stated:

"At least someone wanted me."

COuld it be Sean Payton?

If Bill Parcells was fixated on Romo, was begging for Romo and so on, I'm sure it wouldn't have even gotten to round 5...

 

[iceberg]

How so?

nevermind. please keep asking for more poridge.

 

[Stautner]

You really do need a class in logic. How does any of this negate the fact that Sean is the one who FOUND Tony? How does this negate the point that Sean was begging Dallas to draft Tony when he was still available in the 6th round? Really, is this more side-tracking?

Of course the QB coach is going to work with the QB more... That is why it is called the QB coach...

And how is that relevant to your contention about Parcells? uh, let me guess... absolutely no relevance..

You have really turned tail and started running away from your other comments about Parcells not liking Romo and not wanting him to play.

Get over this "who found Romo thing" ....... that was over 5 years ago and means nothing. Scouts find players all the time, and Payton may have had more to do with bring Romo to Dallas than PArcells.

PArcells is still the one that had to have enough faith in him to keep him around as the heir apparent to the position.

 

[khiladi]

nevermind. please keep asking for more poridge.

I will repeat one more time:

"By the sixth round that year, Sean was practically standing on the table, telling us to take Romo,"

You would think with all the potential of Tony Romo that Bill allegedly saw in him, that it would be Bill practically standing on the table telling the Cowboys to take Romo...

 

[Dave_in-NC]

You have really turned tail and started running away from your other comments about Parcells not liking Romo and not wanting him to play.

Get over this "who found Romo thing" ....... that was over 5 years ago and means nothing. Scouts find players all the time, and Payton may have had more to do with bring Romo to Dallas than PArcells.

PArcells is still the one that had to have enough faith in him to keep him around as the heir apparent to the position.

And not to mention, Parcells let Romo develop. For that I for one am grateful.

 

[iceberg]

I will repeat one more time:

You would think with all the potential of Tony Romo that Bill allegedly saw in him, that it would be Bill practically standing on the table telling the Cowboys to take Romo...

you can repeat all you want - but were you in the room? were you in the meetings pre-draft? what inside info do you have to validate your info anymore than anyone elses? then in the end - WHO CARES?

wait till romo write a biography and hit the FAQ and see if that takes care of it.

your "arguments" have been turned into shredded wheat and handed back to you and you just stir in some milk and go "but you didn't consider..." when in fact it was considered.

it's like in 6th sense but instead it's like "i see beaten people...they don't even know they're beaten...."

 

[khiladi]

You have really turned tail and started running away from your other comments about Parcells not liking Romo and not wanting him to play.

Get over this "who found Romo thing" ....... that was over 5 years ago and means nothing. Scouts find players all the time, and Payton may have had more to do with bring Romo to Dallas than PArcells.

PArcells is still the one that had to have enough faith in him to keep him around as the heir apparent to the position.

1.

Turned tail? Where did I say Parcells didn't like him? What I stated is Parcells hand was forced into startign Romo, and he never wanted him to be the starting in the first place. The fact that he stayed way too long with Bledsoe in the first place is proof of this. The fact that he even brought in Bledsoe, after taking Vinny, is proof of this.

I stated that Sean Payton is MORE OF A REASON that Tony is with the Cowboys than Parcells.

2.

Your the one that inserted yourself in the argument about who was repsonsible for Tony, meaning it was YOU that brought up an irrelevant issue. The discussion was simply initiated because somebody claimed that Tony Romo was a product of Bill Parcells. I did not bring it up.

3.

Of course, no doubt Payton FOUND HIM, which is what this whole issue was ABOUT. Payton was on his jock for the whole time he was there. And there was a reason for it.

 

[khiladi]

you can repeat all you want - but were you in the room? were you in the meetings pre-draft? what inside info do you have to validate your info anymore than anyone elses? then in the end - WHO CARES?

That is a direct quote from Larry Lacewell who was in the meetings on draft day, meaning it is from a guy who WAS THERE...

It's not proof from a blog...

How is that shredded wheat? If you can't even read a quote properly which I have quoted like 4 times to understand that this statement was from a guy who was there in the meetings on draft day, and at the same time, your claiming that the facts were considered, really...

 

[iceberg]

1.

Turned tail? Where did I say Parcells didn't like him? What I stated is Parcells hand was forced into startign Romo, and he never wanted him to be the starting in the first place. The fact that he stayed way too long with Bledsoe in the first place is proof of this. The fact that he even brought in Bledsoe, after taking Vinny, is proof of this.

I stated that Sean Payton is MORE OF A REASON that Tony is with the Cowboys than Parcells.

or the fact that romo wasn't ready is proof of why parcells had to do a patchwork job.

like you, i'd have preferred to see romo on the field before he was allowed to play and he had many opportunties to do so. but romo wasn't the one we had our "great hope" in - it was henson. romo had to first earn a roster spot then earn backup duties then take over as our starter.

parcells brought him along in how he felt appropriate and it's working so far. that's all we know. everything is speculation and that alone is fine - i do it too and think romo could have hit the field sooner.

but he didn't and when he did, he was 100% ready to do so.

regardless of how he got here parcells *and company* got romo that ready - along with romo for being a good student when that was his job.

why people get so hell-bent on who gets ultimate credit is beyond me. parcells won't get a smaller paycheck now (well, he doesn't get one now) and payton won't have another $ put into his retirement fund and romo will still in the end sign an unheard of contract $ wise for a UDFA.

credit romo for picking the cowboys to do to when other teams wanted him also.

just get off the soapbox as no one is really even listening anymore cause it's the same old WAH post after post.

 

[Dave_in-NC]

1.

Turned tail? Where did I say Parcells didn't like him? What I stated is Parcells hand was forced into startign Romo, and he never wanted him to be the starting in the first place. The fact that he stayed way too long with Bledsoe in the first place is proof of this. The fact that he even brought in Bledsoe, after taking Vinny, is proof of this.
I stated that Sean Payton is MORE OF A REASON that Tony is with the Cowboys than Parcells.

2.

Your the one that inserted yourself in the corner, meaning it was YOU that brought up an irrelevant issue. The discussion was simply initiated because somebody claimed that Tony Romo was a product of Bill Parcells. I did not bring it up. If your going to talk about me,

3.

Of course, no doubt Payton FOUND HIM, which is what this whole issue was ABOUT. Payton was on his jock for the whole time he was there. And there was a reason for it.

How are those facts?

Couldn't it also be fact that Romo came from a small school and needed time to develop? Parcells never once stated he didn't want Romo to ever be the starter. Care to show a link to that quote?
Maybe Parcells knew a little some thing on proper development of what now became a pro bowl QB.

 

[khiladi]

Simms came back before they went that far and Parcells stuck with Hostetler DESPITE the fact that Simms was a proven Super Bowl winner.

What are you talking about? Simms broke his foot in December and was out the season. Hostetler took them to the Super Bowl and won. Ray Handley took over as coach, and Hostetler won the job in competition.

 

[Stautner]

1.

Turned tail? Where did I say Parcells didn't like him? What I stated is Parcells hand was forced into startign Romo, and he never wanted him to be the starting in the first place. The fact that he stayed way too long with Bledsoe in the first place is proof of this. The fact that he even brought in Bledsoe, after taking Vinny, is proof of this.

I stated that Sean Payton is MORE OF A REASON that Tony is with the Cowboys than Parcells.

2.

Your the one that inserted yourself in the argument about who was repsonsible for Tony, meaning it was YOU that brought up an irrelevant issue. The discussion was simply initiated because somebody claimed that Tony Romo was a product of Bill Parcells. I did not bring it up.

3.

Of course, no doubt Payton FOUND HIM, which is what this whole issue was ABOUT. Payton was on his jock for the whole time he was there. And there was a reason for it.

You have said that Parcells didn't want him to play. You have said that PArcells only thought of him as a backup.

Save your argument about who originally found Romo for someone else - I personally find that to be a ridiculous argument that doesn't mean crap.

Whether the head coach or owner or GM or a scout or a college connection or an assistant coach initially likes a guy is irrelevent to anything - that can come from too many sources and what matters is that the team and coaches and GM recognize the talent when presented to them and make a deal.

But Parcells clearly liked Romo - he said from the beginning and chose to keep him even when he looked like a frightened animal in his first preseason.

 

[Doomsday101]

1.

Turned tail? Where did I say Parcells didn't like him? What I stated is Parcells hand was forced into startign Romo, and he never wanted him to be the starting in the first place. The fact that he stayed way too long with Bledsoe in the first place is proof of this. The fact that he even brought in Bledsoe, after taking Vinny, is proof of this.

I stated that Sean Payton is MORE OF A REASON that Tony is with the Cowboys than Parcells.

2.

Your the one that inserted yourself in the argument about who was repsonsible for Tony, meaning it was YOU that brought up an irrelevant issue. The discussion was simply initiated because somebody claimed that Tony Romo was a product of Bill Parcells. I did not bring it up.

3.

Of course, no doubt Payton FOUND HIM, which is what this whole issue was ABOUT. Payton was on his jock for the whole time he was there. And there was a reason for it.

Payton may have known about Romo, may have like him but Parcells was still the HC and the one calling the shots not Payton. When Payton wanted Romo to go to NO did Romo go? You may not like Parcells but as HC he controlled who was on the team and who got cut not Payton

 

[Stautner]

What are you talking about? Simms broke his foot in December and was out the season. Hostetler took them to the Super Bowl and won. Ray Handley took over as coach, and Hostetler won the job in competition.

If my recollection of the facts on this point are wrong I appologize.

OF course, that gives you no excuse for ignoring the facts surrounding Romo.

 

[khiladi]

or the fact that romo wasn't ready is proof of why parcells had to do a patchwork job.

So Bill Parcells has a track record of preferring his OWN players has nothing to do with it? You mean Bill thought his getting Vinny and Bledsoe were 'patchwork' jobs, and not what he thought was the best chance for them to win? If that was the case, than why did Jerry say that the benching of Bledsoe was pretty much deflating their high expectations if it was just a patchwork job?

You mean Tony Romo was raw for four years, and finally Bill decided to start him?

like you, i'd have preferred to see romo on the field before he was allowed to play and he had many opportunties to do so. but romo wasn't the one we had our "great hope" in - it was henson. romo had to first earn a roster spot then earn backup duties then take over as our starter.

Parcells didn't even play Henson when the Cowboys were eliminated from the play-offs and there was absolutely no reason for starting Vinny. Parcells wanted to start his players. He did the same thing with Bledsoe.

parcells brought him along in how he felt appropriate and it's working so far. that's all we know. everything is speculation and that alone is fine - i do it too and think romo could have hit the field sooner.

That is an assumption based upon the fact that Parcells was simply doing a 'patchwork' job until Romo was ready. 4 years is a hell of a lot of time.

but he didn't and when he did, he was 100% ready to do so.

Again, he made the change because Bledsoe was not the answer and it became apparently obvious to everybody in Dallas, and the rest of the world. Bledsoe was getting slammed in the media, and he couldn't avoid a rush. It had nothing to do with the issue of being 100 percent ready, more than it had to do with the fact that Bledsoe was absolutely stinking up the joint. Romo in year 3 could have been better than Bledsoe was for us.

regardless of how he got here parcells *and company* got romo that ready - along with romo for being a good student when that was his job.

why people get so hell-bent on who gets ultimate credit is beyond me. parcells won't get a smaller paycheck now (well, he doesn't get one now) and payton won't have another $ put into his retirement fund and romo will still in the end sign an unheard of contract $ wise for a UDFA.

credit romo for picking the cowboys to do to when other teams wanted him also.

just get off the soapbox as no one is really even listening anymore cause it's the same old WAH post after post.

I have maintained fromt he very beginning that Parcells did an AVERAGE job here. I never said he absolutely sucked, and my responses are primarily aimed at the Parcells is 'god' club, and those who feel the need to bash on Jerry in the context of Dave Campo.