Grizz: It's still about Bill

[Vintage]

Superpunk, you are wrong.

Wade's magic wand cures all.

-----------

Its simple, and I've said it before. You have to produce. I don't care what the scheme is. Produce. I am tired of hearing players use the scheme and coaches as an excuse.

You either produce; or don't.

And in the case of Spears, James, and Jones, the latter has been the case.

 

[Alexander]

Wade's magic wand cures all.

Eventually someone will realize he's not the fairy godmother.

And it not really fair to him.

I can see it now:

HE WAS BROUGHT HERE TO FIX THE DEFENSE!

 

[superpunk]

Superpunk, you are wrong.

What else is new?

I agree. Maybe you're in the stupidest scheme imaginable. You still play the hell out of it and impress for your own self.

An innovative and complex scheme is good for maybe confusion, and hiding deficiencies of some of your players. It doesn't make them any better. They're still the same sucky player - they're just given less responsibilties so you don't notice as much. The down side is that your stars are called upon to step up even more to cover for them

There is no substitute for execution. And there is no scheme that can completely hide talent. Grizz put into print most of what I've been thinking for the past month - nice job, I say.

 

[NoLuv4Jerry]

what has become of a once very proud organization/fan base when we have people apoliging for a guy who is NOT a true Cowboy and a guy who did NOT win a playoff game. Parcells in Dallas is much like Chan Gailey in Dallas. Some good. Some bad. I guess some of you have a hard time calling it like you saw it because you feel it is wrong to criticize a HOF coach. There is a HOF coach in Washington right now that looks like a "ball in high grass". So we need to stop acting like these legends are above reproach. Bill did us a favor by stepping aside. We stumbled down the strectch 4 straight seasons...that is not a coincidence...it is who were were under Parcells. Thank him for restoring us back to respectability, but we have not been to the most Super Bowls, won the most playoff games, had the most consecutive seasons in appearing in the playoffs by accepting the state we are in right now. That state is the longest drought in franchise history without winning a playoff game. 4 years was long enough to do something about it...HE DID NOT GET IT DONE. Onto the next guy......

 

[Mr Cowboy]

The players are responsible for playing their hearts out on every play. But they can be playing as hard as ever, but if the defense they are playing gets exposed, and nothing is done to make adjustments, then no matter how well or hard they play, it will not make a difference.

That is (IMO) what happened this past year. NO exposed them, no adjustments were made, and other teams continued to do the same things. The players lost confidence in the system and eventually quit. Don't forget that Zimmer pretty much said the same thing soon after he left to Atlanta, (or do you consider him another underachieving whiner?).

It was almost like BP saying, we are getting exposed, but you guys continue playing the same way and beat your man and everything will be OK. Next thing you know some scrub QB named Kitna is laughing at you and saying how easy it was to beat this vanilla defense.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Some people seem to think we could have a 1950s high school wing-t offense that has about four plays in the playbook. Let's see, we could have an off-tackle handoff, a pitchout, a QB keeper, and one pass play.

After all, it's all about execution. If a fullback dive drawn up the on the chalkboard doesn't work on the field, it must be the players' fault, right? Easy.

 

[Vintage]

Some people seem to think we could have a 1950s high school wing-t offense that has about four plays in the playbook. Let's see, we could have an off-tackle handoff, a pitchout, a QB keeper, and one pass play.

After all, it's all about execution. If a fullback dive drawn up the on the chalkboard doesn't work on the field, it must be the players' fault, right? Easy.

Oh, way to go to the extremes.

Some here think Wade is going to turn Marcus Spears into Reggie White; Terrence Newman into Deion Sanders; Demarcus Ware into Lawrence Taylor; Chris Canty into Bruce Smith; and Anthony Spencer into Carl Banks.

If they don't play at that level, it must be the scheme and coaching, right?

Easy.

 

[Jarv]

Some people seem to think we could have a 1950s high school wing-t offense that has about four plays in the playbook. Let's see, we could have an off-tackle handoff, a pitchout, a QB keeper, and one pass play.

After all, it's all about execution. If a fullback dive drawn up the on the chalkboard doesn't work on the field, it must be the players' fault, right? Easy.

I played in that offense, high school in the 70's!

You forgot the waggle....

 

[superpunk]

Some people seem to think we could have a 1950s high school wing-t offense that has about four plays in the playbook. Let's see, we could have an off-tackle handoff, a pitchout, a QB keeper, and one pass play.

After all, it's all about execution. If a fullback dive drawn up the on the chalkboard doesn't work on the field, it must be the players' fault, right? Easy.

You're being overlysimplistic. What they were doing clearly worked for most of the year.

And then.....what? Did the scheme just suddenly become archaic? Was it some "Expired by" date none of us knew about? We're getting by for 12 games, playing pretty well even without Ellis, and suddenly Sean Payton knows something noone else does and relays it to our remaining opponents? Did he forget to forward it to Seattle? How could so many fantastic offensive coordinators miss what Payton knew, and then Atlanta and Detroit found it while Seattle missed it? Did the offensive scheme change in the playoffs? Or did Julius just sac-up and run harder and better?

There's really only one option that makes logical sense. The other requires too much hocus pocus and flights of fancy.

 

[superpunk]

Oh, way to go to the extremes.

Some here think Wade is going to turn Marcus Spears into Reggie White; Terrence Newman into Deion Sanders; Demarcus Ware into Lawrence Taylor; Chris Canty into Bruce Smith; and Anthony Spencer into Carl Banks.

If they don't play at that level, it must be the scheme and coaching, right?

Easy.

I think my favorite part of last year was when we switched offensive schemes at Carolina and suddenly became a far more effective unit. Thank goodness for adjustments! Otherwise Tony Romo might still be schlepping it out in that scheme that made Drew Bledsoe one of the league's worst QBs.

 

[theogt]

I think my favorite part of last year was when we switched offensive schemes at Carolina and suddenly became a far more effective unit. Thank goodness for adjustments! Otherwise Tony Romo might still be schlepping it out in that scheme that made Drew Bledsoe one of the league's worst QBs.

To counter the sarcasm and point, what about when we changed defensive schemes playing Indianapolis? That worked out pretty well. We shut down a Super Bowl winning, then undefeated, #1 rated QB having offense (without Greg Ellis, mind you).

 

[superpunk]

To counter the sarcasm and point, what about when we changed defensive schemes playing Indianapolis? That worked out pretty well. We shut down a Super Bowl winning, then undefeated, #1 rated QB having offense (without Greg Ellis, mind you).

It wasn't a huge change. We did some different things with Ware (which we continued doing - only after that, whenever they trotted the WR into the slot, and Ware still blitzed, whoever was supposed to handle the flat had a hard time with it. Not so against Indy). But in that game, our players came up huge. Glenn and Burnett, along with Ware took Manning on and made him pay for some bad throws. The coaching staff could have come up with whatever plan they wanted to. If the players hadn't executed, it wouldn't have been worth a hill of beans.

Unless we're suggesting that Zimmer is a more innovative defensive mind than Bill Bellichick (whose team couldn't control Peyton Manning in the palyoffs). And that's just silly.

 

[Alexander]

Some people seem to think we could have a 1950s high school wing-t offense that has about four plays in the playbook. Let's see, we could have an off-tackle handoff, a pitchout, a QB keeper, and one pass play.

After all, it's all about execution. If a fullback dive drawn up the on the chalkboard doesn't work on the field, it must be the players' fault, right? Easy.

The Packers ran a simplistic offense in the 1960s. Nobody was surprised or tricked.

The Cowboys ran a fairly small set of plays to perfection in the 1990s.

Execution made them champions. The scheme didn't fool anyone. And I am sure that Wade Phillips will preach execution as well.

You see teams that aren't as talented still get "coached" up. So is execution not a part of that? Of course it is.

But what many don't want to hear is that at the end of the day, it is still the very same players involved. No magic wand is going to make them perform to the appropriate level to win.

 

[Vintage]

Nice to know our players didn't perform merely just because the scheme didn't fit them.

When the going gets tough; quit. That's what I always say.

This team is tough...oh yeah...we'll win a Super Bowl in the near future with that kind of attitude.

 

[theogt]

It wasn't a huge change. We did some different things with Ware (which we continued doing - only after that, whenever they trotted the WR into the slot, and Ware still blitzed, whoever was supposed to handle the flat had a hard time with it. Not so against Indy). But in that game, our players came up huge. Glenn and Burnett, along with Ware took Manning on and made him pay for some bad throws. The coaching staff could have come up with whatever plan they wanted to. If the players hadn't executed, it wouldn't have been worth a hill of beans.

I believe we used more 1-gap assignments and told the D-line to just get after the QB. A couple of the players commented recently on the changes just for that game. Whether it was the changes or the players had a shot of adrenaline for that game, whatever it was it worked. It's quite a coincidence that the scheme change that everyone has been screaming for occurred in that game and that happened to be the most successful game for the defense.

Unless we're suggesting that Zimmer is a more innovative defensive mind than Bill Bellichick (whose team couldn't control Peyton Manning in the palyoffs). And that's just silly.

Honestly, I think our defensive personnel are better than the Patriots, so it wouldn't surprise me if we performed better in the exact same scheme.

 

[Alexander]

To counter the sarcasm and point, what about when we changed defensive schemes playing Indianapolis? That worked out pretty well. We shut down a Super Bowl winning, then undefeated, #1 rated QB having offense (without Greg Ellis, mind you).

What can you tell me about how we made these wholesale changes schematically?

We copied some things that Belichick did against Manning, but all in all, we didn't get exotic.

The Colts, if anything, were not concerned about matchups. They lined up in the same spots, did the same things and dared you to physically match up and play physical football. They did and we happened to get the win because they played us very much straight up. Go back and listen to Coach Parcells' comments before and after that game. It isn't rocket science.

We played them physically and knocked both Manning and their receivers around. That alone is what was different. We played an intense brand of defensive football. We weren't allowing them to dictate the tempo. If you want to call that "scheme" go right ahead. But that's a very poor characterization.

They didn't exploit, nor were they aware of many of the things that Payton knew about and capitalized upon.

 

[theogt]

What can you tell me about how we made these wholesale changes schematically?

We copied some things that Belichick did against Manning, but all in all, we didn't get exotic.

The Colts, if anything, were not concerned about matchups. They lined up in the same spots, did the same things and dared you to physically match up and play physical football. They did and we happened to get the win because they played us very much straight up. Go back and listen to Coach Parcells' comments before and after that game. It isn't rocket science.

We played them physically and knocked both Manning and their receivers around. That alone is what was different. We played an intense brand of defensive football. We weren't allowing them to dictate the tempo. If you want to call that "scheme" go right ahead. But that's a very poor characterization.

They didn't exploit, nor were they aware of many of the things that Payton knew about and capitalized upon.

The scheme changed. It worked. Bottom line.

 

[Alexander]

The scheme changed. It worked. Bottom line.

The philosophy changed. It worked. Bottom line.

If you want to show how "scheme" changed, go to the Falcon game or the Lions game. That is scheme.

But please, continue on with your blanket generalizations.

 

[David276]

so the philosophy had spears playing one gap more than he ever did in the entire season ?

 

[Dhragon]

Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree. Nobody seems to be able to convince the others of their POV.

I'm just wondering if Bill was so great and it was all the players fault, who drafted or brought in all those lazy bastids. Couldn't of been Parcell's. I've been told he's great.