Give Parcells credit for this...

[iceberg]

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?



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.



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.



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.



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.

as we went into the last year, romo was the talk of the town and it was rumored if bledsoe was "bledsoe" romo would play. i'm one of the bigger parcells bashers here but whatever road he took for romo appears to have worked, so i'll shut up and be thankful a major need/question appears to have been filled/answered.

it's amazing to me you won't allow speculation but yet you speculate that romo was ready in year 3.

maybe he was. but to say so is speculation and like i said - at this point it's all you can do but just because you "feel it in your bones" doesn't mean it's true. it's simply speculation. nothing more, nothing less and all anyone else is doing.

i'm gonna go look for cavities in a hampsters tooth now. this is gotten boring.

 

[5Stars]

i'm gonna go look for cavities in a hampsters tooth now. this is gotten boring.

Give it up, Iceberg and Stauntner...this guy clearly does not want any credit given to anybody regarding Romo except Peyton, who actually wanted to take Romo to NO, but yet, who refused to give him up?

Let him win...let him grow...let him learn, because right now he's getting spanked by you guys!

 

[Dodger12]

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?

Without going back and re-reading this mess, let me say this. You introduced the who found Tony Romo angle to this thread and you're going to hold onto it for dear life, while your fingers bleed, because you feel it adds some sort of twisted validity to the rest of you dimented argument.

Lets just say that Payton "found" Romo and or supported drafted Romo, which very well may be the case. How does that show that Payton was the "FORMATIVE INFLUENCE" in keeping Romo around with the Cowboys when he couldn't even convince BP/Jerry/Ireland to spend a 6th round draft pick, all the while standing on the draft table to show how much he wanted Romo? Payton had so much influence on who the Cowboys kept, yet couldn't convince the team to spend a late second round pick on a QB. Of couse, Payton was the "FORMATIVE INFLUENCE" in keeping Romo around, so much so that when Payton became a HC, Parcells wouldn't consider trading Romo to the Saints.

Give it a rest.

 

[Stautner]

as we went into the last year, romo was the talk of the town and it was rumored if bledsoe was "bledsoe" romo would play. i'm one of the bigger parcells bashers here but whatever road he took for romo appears to have worked, so i'll shut up and be thankful a major need/question appears to have been filled/answered.

it's amazing to me you won't allow speculation but yet you speculate that romo was ready in year 3.

maybe he was. but to say so is speculation and like i said - at this point it's all you can do but just because you "feel it in your bones" doesn't mean it's true. it's simply speculation. nothing more, nothing less and all anyone else is doing.

i'm gonna go look for cavities in a hampsters tooth now. this is gotten boring.

Your words that I have highlighted in bold speak volumes.

I was certainly ready for us to make a head coaching change, but I find this trend to bash Parcells for everything imaginable to be absurd. If a player cut himself shaving last year it wasn't Parcells fault for not providing electric shavers .......

When Parcells could have or should have first started Romo is pure speculation, but the facts that we know are that he kept Romo and developed him for 4 years and that the end result looks pretty good so far.

These facts override all the speculation in the world.

 

[khiladi]

as we went into the last year, romo was the talk of the town and it was rumored if bledsoe was "bledsoe" romo would play. i'm one of the bigger parcells bashers here but whatever road he took for romo appears to have worked, so i'll shut up and be thankful a major need/question appears to have been filled/answered.

I'm glad that it happened that Romo being with the Cowboys was a goal mine so far, but that still doesn't change the fact that Parcells brings in his OWN players, and chooses to start them and not his rookies.

In the case of Bledsoe, your right. But considering Bledsoe has been in this league way over ten years, there was no reason to assume he was going to be anything other than Bledsoe. Yet, Bill still played him despite rumblings all over that Romo was lighting it up. Do you think Bledsoe would have started anywhere other than where Bill was coaching in year 4?

it's amazing to me you won't allow speculation but yet you speculate that romo was ready in year 3.

This whole debate started with an assertion that if it weren't for Parcells, we would still be in our Henson development project stages. If it weren't for Sean Payton, not Bill Parcells, we'd be in year 5 of some other veteran bum that Parcells likes. Besides the fact that this speculates that Jerry doesn't adapt to new situations, learning from them, which he clearly does.

Parcells started Vinny and Bledsoe because that is how he runs his teams. he brings in his OWN PLAYERs, because he believes that is the best chance for him to win.

 

[InmanRoshi]

Sweet Lord, are you ever dense.

 

[khiladi]

Give it up, Iceberg and Stauntner...this guy clearly does not want any credit given to anybody regarding Romo except Peyton, who actually wanted to take Romo to NO, but yet, who refused to give him up?

Let him win...let him grow...let him learn, because right now he's getting spanked by you guys!

Here comes the cheerleaders... Do you guys dress up in minny skirts for them as well to give some weight to their argument?

Actually, the center of this discussion is giving way more credit to Parcells than he really deserves... you seem to forget we had Vinny and Bledsoe as our QBs, and they were nothing but Bill Parcell GUYS... he didn't get them because they were 'patchwork' but because he thought they could get the job done adequately...

 

[khiladi]

Without going back and re-reading this mess, let me say this. You introduced the who found Tony Romo angle to this thread and you're going to hold onto it for dear life, while your fingers bleed, because you feel it adds some sort of twisted validity to the rest of you dimented argument.

Did I introduce this mess? So when somebody says that if it weren;t for Parcells, we'd be in year whatever of the Drew Henson project, it doesn't correlate to Tony Romo?

If I say it weren't for Sean Payton, we'd be in year whatever of our veteran aging QB who can't avoid a blitz it isn't relevant?

Lets just say that Payton "found" Romo and or supported drafted Romo, which very well may be the case. How does that show that Payton was the "FORMATIVE INFLUENCE" in keeping Romo around with the Cowboys when he couldn't even convince BP/Jerry/Ireland to spend a 6th round draft pick, all the while standing on the draft table to show how much he wanted Romo? Payton had so much influence on who the Cowboys kept, yet couldn't convince the team to spend a late second round pick on a QB. Of couse, Payton was the "FORMATIVE INFLUENCE" in keeping Romo around, so much so that when Payton became a HC, Parcells wouldn't consider trading Romo to the Saints.

Give it a rest.

They would have made a terrible mistake... But Parcells was smart enough to keep listening to the consistent urging of Payton to get Tony Romo... You get a QB as an undrafted free agent to back-up people like Vinny and Drew... Bill wasn't paying gold for him... And considering that Tony Romo had the talent that Sean said he had, only an idiot would trade him, especially for what they were paying him.. and while Parcells may suck at coaching, he is definitely not an idiot...

BTW, who would have been the back up for the Cowboys if Romo was traded to the Saints?

But I guess that isn't relevant either...

 

[khiladi]

Sweet Lord, are you ever dense.

More ad hominem arguments... surprising... was Bledsoe and Vinny part of the Jerry Jones project of resurrecting a Super Bowl team?

 

[InmanRoshi]

Here comes the cheerleaders... Do you guys dress up in minny skirts for them as well to give some weight to their argument?

Actually, the center of this discussion is giving way more credit to Parcells than he really deserves... you seem to forget we had Vinny and Bledsoe as our QBs, and they were nothing but Bill Parcell GUYS... he didn't get them because they were 'patchwork' but because he thought they could get the job done adequately...

And here comes the clown. Do you dress up in floppy shoes and a big red ball for a nose? You're certainly singlehandedly entertaining everyone in this thread. And by everyone, I mean everyone. Does anyone in this thread agree with you? Of course not, and they don't want to be associated with you. The guy who squeegees my windshield in the underpass makes more coherent and rational arguments than you.

So he brought in Vinny to win a Superbowl ... except for the fact that Vinny was brought into be a backup, and was only forced into playing when QC was released from the team for failing a drug test. Then, Vinny wasn't asked to return the following year. Yep, sounds like BP was absolutely in love with him. Then Bledsoe was signed to be "the guy" except, he was signed to a meager contract and benched BY PARCELLS in the middle of year 2. Yep, BP was really behind him do or die. And who started year 1 of Parcells? Oh yeah, Quincy Carter. Because he had a long history with Parcells ... except that he had none at all. In fact, Parcells didn't bring in a single veteran QB to compete with Quincy or Chad, did he? Correct me if I'm wrong.

You prefer to ruin a young QBs because you can't see the forrest from the trees. You just throw them out there, and don't care if they can handle it or not. Just ruin them for the heck of it. That's the Jerry way, and it's proven to be completely incompetent time and time again ... but that's fine, but that's your basic lack of football knowledge. Don't project your complete ignorance of the game into the motivations of others.

P.S. Without Parcells, there is no Tony Romo as a Cowboy. Fact.

 

[Stautner]

Here comes the cheerleaders... Do you guys dress up in minny skirts for them as well to give some weight to their argument?

Actually, the center of this discussion is giving way more credit to Parcells than he really deserves... you seem to forget we had Vinny and Bledsoe as our QBs, and they were nothing but Bill Parcell GUYS... he didn't get them because they were 'patchwork' but because he thought they could get the job done adequately...

I haven't forgot that - except that it's pretty ridiculous to believe that PArcells viewed a 40 year old Testeverde or 35 year old Bledsoe as anything more than short term solutions.

What I don't get though is your point.

Romo was an undrafted FA who Parcells said early on had a lot of talent and could have a very good future after he develops, and that's exactly how Parcells treated him.

Parcells gave Romo more and more TC, practice and preseason time every year, even playing Romo considerably more that Bledsoe in the last two preseasons.

Everything he did suggests that he was bringing Romo along slowly just as he publically said was his plan.

 

[superpunk]

More ad hominem arguments... surprising... was Bledsoe and Vinny part of the Jerry Jones project of resurrecting a Super Bowl team?

That wasn't an argument so much as it was an insult - or in this case, an astute observation.

 

[khiladi]

I haven't forgot that - except that it's pretty ridiculous to believe that PArcells viewed a 40 year old Testeverde or 35 year old Bledsoe as anything more than short term solutions.

What I don't get though is your point.

Romo was an undrafted FA who Parcells said early on had a lot of talent and could have a very good future after he develops, and that's exactly how Parcells treated him.

Parcells gave Romo more and more TC, practice and preseason time every year, even playing Romo considerably more that Bledsoe in the last two preseasons.

Everything he did suggests that he was bringing Romo along slowly just as he publically said was his plan.

You mean backup QBs get more time and reps in Training Camp every year , especially when they move up from 3rd to 2nd string QB? And the QBs tat are ahead of them are the likes of Drew Henson? It's unheard of...

 

[5Stars]

And here comes the clown. Do you dress up in floppy shoes and a big red ball for a nose?

I don't think he needs to dress up...he could be naked and it would still show.

 

[Stautner]

You mean backup QBs get more time and reps in Training Camp every year , especially when they move up from 3rd to 2nd string QB? And the QBs tat are ahead of them are the likes of Drew Henson? It's unheard of...

Trying to divert attention with a weak attempt at being cute.


you know very well that every backup doesn't get the reps and preseason playing time that Romo got ..... it was very clear he was being groomed.

In fact, only a blind man couldn't see it. He was THE QB that got the lions share of the focus last year, and even to a large degree the year before.

 

[khiladi]

And here comes the clown. Do you dress up in floppy shoes and a big red ball for a nose? You're certainly singlehandedly entertaining everyone in this thread. And by everyone, I mean everyone. Does anyone in this thread agree with you? Of course not, and they don't want to be associated with you. The guy who squeegees my windshield in the underpass makes more coherent and rational arguments than you.

Some people surely like to imitate.. Imitation is the cheapest form of flattery.. So I say dressing up as cheerleaders, you try talk about dressing up as a clown.. wow... original...

So he brought in Vinny to win a Superbowl ... except for the fact that Vinny was brought into be a backup, and was only forced to play him when QC was released from the team for failing a drug test. Then, Vinny wasn't asked to return the following year. And Bledsoe was signed to be "the guy" except, he was signed to a meager contract and benched BY PARCELLS in the middle of year 2 of his contract. Yeah, you can tell Parcells was all about these guys, do or die. And who started year 1 of Parcells? Oh yeah, Quincy Carter. Because he had a long history with Parcells ... except none at all. In fact, Parcells didn't bring in a single veteran QB to compete with Quincy or Chad, did he?

1. I'll give you Vinny, despite the fact he continued to play even after the Cowboys being eliminated from the play-offs. Ironically, Quincy Carter getting kicked off the team suddenly happens to coincide with Vinny signing with Dallas.

2. So Drew Bledsoe is released and available, and Parcells getting one of his better, for it's worth, PLAYERS in place of one of his grandpa players supports your opinion? How does this prove that Parcells didn't want HIS PLAYERS? The guyw as released because he was a bum in Buffalo, and he started two years with Dallas after his being a bum. He was a bum for over a decade that just had good statistics.

3. QUincy Carter was the starter before Parcells came, and during his first year he went 10-6. He was the declared starter, and you expect Parcells to be so dumb as to immediately bench Carter for his aging veteran without any reason other than he thinks his man is better than Carter?

4. Drew Bledsoe totally stinks up the joint, Bill is getting criticized in the press for keeping Bledsoe, everybody is complaining about Bledsoe including the team, and Bill sitting him proves he wanted to play Romo?


You people make it seem as if this was all the working of the all-knowing Parcells, who did everything according to the minutest details... he lucked out with Romo...

You prefer to ruin a young QBs because you can't see the forrest from the trees. You just throw them out there, and don't care if they can handle it or not. Just ruin them for the heck of it. That's the Jerry way, and it's proven to be completely incompetent time and time again ... but that's fine, but that's your basic lack of football knowledge. Don't project your complete ignorance of the game into the motivations of others.

Vine Young, Marino, John Elway, they were all ruined, because their coaches couldn't see the forst from the trees. Hell, it took what, a half a season for Fisher to start Young...

 

[5Stars]

Vine Young, Marino, John Elway, they were all ruined, because their coaches couldn't see the forst from the trees. Hell, it took what, a half a season for Fisher to start Young...

Well, he would have started him earlier, but he was being pushed to start him "by the press"...yeah that's the ticket! :laugh2:


Parcells or any other coach with balls is not going to play a player because the "press" is getting angry!

And the hole is getting deeper and deeper...

 

[iceberg]

I'm glad that it happened that Romo being with the Cowboys was a goal mine so far, but that still doesn't change the fact that Parcells brings in his OWN players, and chooses to start them and not his rookies.

and this is another argument which has NOTHING to do with when romo was ready. now i'm not sure what 3rd world country you were tormenting last year, but NO ONE was more vocal in their displeasure of how parcells *ignored* the backup qb's when given several opportunities were present to ALLOW them to play. the last 3 games when vinnie was here is a prime example of when i turned against parcells and "his good old boy" routine.

i don't care how much you hated parcells for that, i hated him just as much PLUS ONE - so you're arguing with someone ON YOUR SIDE here.

but to say romo was ready a year, two or even 3 earlier just because you wanna say is is idiocy in motion. why? it simply can't be proven. YES i wanted to see romo sooner. YES i wanted to nailgun my privates to a 2x4 before bringing in bledsoe - and yes, i got sick and tired of every "pisano" and "son of a former player" coming in and out of camp.

none of that makes a difference when it comes to romo's progression *and* that when he got his shot - he did very well. and like others have said - if parcells was so wrapped up in "his boys" like bledsoe - we'd have given romo to payton and NO for a high round draft pick they'd likely have given us.

or we'd have traded him to the jets for what - a 3rd rounder that was offered?

if we didn't make those trades and parcells was the coach, don't you think the coach would think we have something here in this player?

as for starting rookies - and? many rookies don't start right away. VERY FEW UDFA's ever see the field much less start right away. tell you what - before we go on - name me 5 UDFA's who started in their rookie year at QB. hell, any "key" position like WR, RB or even CB.

can't. can you. so you're inventing an argument when it appears to be natural occurance. but i jump ahead and should give you that time to see what past UDFA's have done.

In the case of Bledsoe, your right. But considering Bledsoe has been in this league way over ten years, there was no reason to assume he was going to be anything other than Bledsoe. Yet, Bill still played him despite rumblings all over that Romo was lighting it up. Do you think Bledsoe would have started anywhere other than where Bill was coaching in year 4?

again - i never wanted bledsoe so asking me this question is rather stupid and shows a void of past history here on the board of the long time posters and their long time "very vocal" views.

pay attention.

This whole debate started with an assertion that if it weren't for Parcells, we would still be in our Henson development project stages. If it weren't for Sean Payton, not Bill Parcells, we'd be in year 5 of some other veteran bum that Parcells likes. Besides the fact that this speculates that Jerry doesn't adapt to new situations, learning from them, which he clearly does.

Parcells started Vinny and Bledsoe because that is how he runs his teams. he brings in his OWN PLAYERs, because he believes that is the best chance for him to win.

and why would a coach start a player who he believed "wasn't" his best chance to win. disagreeing with parcells doesn't make you right. it never made me right no matter how i did it. but when romo turned out fine - i "man'd up" and admitted parcells did what he had to do despite my impatience to see our future - sooner.

and i also am a proponant of jones and his ability to learn and adapt. so we agree on a lot of things but i totally disagree on whatever path you're on.

or is it my apathy kicked in and that's all i care about now?

oh well. back to hampster dentistry.

 

[iceberg]

Here comes the cheerleaders... Do you guys dress up in minny skirts for them as well to give some weight to their argument?

Actually, the center of this discussion is giving way more credit to Parcells than he really deserves... you seem to forget we had Vinny and Bledsoe as our QBs, and they were nothing but Bill Parcell GUYS... he didn't get them because they were 'patchwork' but because he thought they could get the job done adequately...

and why else would you get a player?

being wrong isn't the same as being dense. but since you're 30' down in both at this point, i guess that is hard to see.

 

[khiladi]

Well, he would have started him earlier, but he was being pushed to start him "by the press"...yeah that's the ticket! :laugh2:


Parcells or any other coach with balls is not going to play a player because the "press" is getting angry!

And the hole is getting deeper and deeper...

So what does the press have to do with this? The argument by your hero is that young quarterbacks are ruined if they start within the first 4 years of their careers, and that I am missing the forst from the trees...

this belies overwhelming evidence, considering rookies succeed all the time when they start within four years.. Was Troy Aikman ruined because he had absolutely no offensive line his first few years? Was Marino, Aikman, Elway, Vince Young?

Yet, Parcells has a track record of starting his own players and being stubborn, even if he is wrong... he refused to even let his back-ups play when they were eliminated from the play-offs with Vinny... I guess he was looking out for Chad Hutchinson, Drew Henson and Romo's interests as well during that time...