GRIZZ: Zimmer discusses the December collapse

[MetalHead]

so all the blaming of zimmer should have been for parcells and it should still be going on...nothing has changed!

Nothing until Duane leaves town.

 

[theogt]

I didn't think it was possible, but Bill may leave this team in worse shape than when he got here.......................that's an exaggeration of course..........but not much of one, which is sad.

In my opinion, anyone who thinks this is just grinding away at their ax.

 

[burmafrd]

Some posts here are really stupid. Leave the boys worse then when he got here. NOW THAT IS DUMB. We have A LOT MORE TALENT now. GOOD GOD. We had Q and Hutch and Hambone and many other total losers when he got here. JUST PLAIN STUPID.

 

[Sarge]

Some posts here are really stupid. Leave the boys worse then when he got here. NOW THAT IS DUMB. We have A LOT MORE TALENT now. GOOD GOD. We had Q and Hutch and Hambone and many other total losers when he got here. JUST PLAIN STUPID.

Hmmmm, what part of "that's an exaggeration of course" didn't you get???

Point is, we may have better talent now, but we're still sitting home this weekend are we not? If you have talent, you need to know how to USE it (ie: dropping D. Ware back into coverage).

having said that, we're still in need of serious OL help, DL help, safety help, LB help, CB help, WR help, possible QB help............

It is what it is...........not pretty.

 

[big dog cowboy]

It is what it is...........not pretty.

Lucky for us we are in the NFC.

 

[Sarge]

Lucky for us we are in the NFC.

Is it lucky? If we were in the AFC, Bill would have been fired by now.

 

[Doomsday]

"Well, we couldn't cover anybody for four weeks," Zimmer added. "Teams were spreading it out on us, and we were attempting to stay in base coverage."

Why? After a long pause, Zimmer said, "I don't have an answer for that."

While I'm glad that Zimmer is gone, what i got from this quote was that Parcells made him play that base coverage but he didnt want to throw a HOF coach under the bus because he knew he would look bad so he said "i dont have an answer for that." thats just IMO...

I get the samething from those comments. It is kind of interesting that Nate Jones was on the field vs Seattle more then he was all year. Makes you wonder if BP finally caved in and let Zimmer put more DBs on the field.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Is it lucky? If we were in the AFC, Bill would have been fired by now.

Very good point.

 

[burmafrd]

Anyone not aware of just how much more talent we have now then in 2002 is a real loser.

 

[Sarge]

Anyone not aware of just how much more talent we have now then in 2002 is a real loser.

I would agree. Having said that - any local Pee Wee team has as much talent as the Cowboys '02 team. Even a nitwit could upgrade the talent of that team.

 

[Chuck 54]

Am I the only person who thinks "I have no answer for that" was an indication that it wasn't his choice to be in that basic coverage, that it was his boss's call? If it was his choice, he'd have said what "we" were trying to do with it.

 

[Sarge]

Am I the only person who thinks "I have no answer for that" was an indication that it wasn't his choice to be in that basic coverage, that it was his boss's call? If it was his choice, he'd have said what "we" were trying to do with it.

No - there are others including myself that have already pointed that out Wayno - agreed. It can't be on manboobs though because he's a Hall of Famer...............

 

[burmafrd]

I think its more the case of what people WANT it to mean; same with the writer.

 

[slick325]

"Well, we couldn't cover anybody for four weeks," Zimmer added. "Teams were spreading it out on us, and we were attempting to stay in base coverage."

Why? After a long pause, Zimmer said, "I don't have an answer for that."

While I'm glad that Zimmer is gone, what i got from this quote was that Parcells made him play that base coverage but he didnt want to throw a HOF coach under the bus because he knew he would look bad so he said "i dont have an answer for that." thats just IMO...

I'm glad I decided to read more posts in this thread because I nearly wrote the same thing. I got the same thing from that quote. That sounds like a veiled shot at the Coach.

Zimmer had to go and I was of the camp that supported him. He lost the players at the end and also his own confidence was gone thus he had to go.
However, let us not ever make the mistake of not realizing this is Coach Parcells defense and he should be held responsible. Coach Parcells is the 3-4 expert so if adjustments needed to be made and the DC didn't know what to do, the 3-4 expert should have the solution or Coach Parcells should have wrested the defensive playcalling from Zimmer like Fassel did to Payton in New York.

 

[TEK2000]

Combine the "I don't have an answer for that" with Terrence Newman's comments about "I like Todd Bowles. He understands that you have to changes things from week to week. You can't just run the same thing every week because it will get you beat."

Now think about whether he was "trying not to throw BP under the bus" or if he actually didn't have an answer for it... because one of his best defensive players is pretty much saying that he didn't change things from week to week.

 

[Doomsday]

Now think about whether he was "trying not to throw BP under the bus" or if he actually didn't have an answer for it... because one of his best defensive players is pretty much saying that he didn't change things from week to week.

Alot of people, including me had the same complaint about Zimmer before BP got here. It just seems odd to me that BP wouldnt step in and play a bigger role in the defensive game plan if this was the case.

 

[StanleySpadowski]

Am I the only person who thinks "I have no answer for that" was an indication that it wasn't his choice to be in that basic coverage, that it was his boss's call? If it was his choice, he'd have said what "we" were trying to do with it.

I'm with you. I would have loved to hear the inflection in his voice on that quote.

Could have been "I have no answer" or it could have been "I have no answer".

I'd bet on the latter but I may be prejudiced because I already understand that Parcells' heart was never in Dallas and he was simply trying to cash a last paycheck.

 

[Jarv]

BP didn't fire him or overide Zimmer, either way its BP's fault. You know what runs downhill ad the buck stops here...The man at the top is at fault.

You are what you are, BP made bad coaching decisions or bad personal decisions aquiring coachs and players, you make the choice of which, either way BP is responsible.

 

[locked&loaded]

But in that playoff ouster, [Roy] Williams was beaten twice in coverage for touchdowns, and on one of those, [Bradie] James was also burned.


go to the reed vs. roy debate. i said he got burnt for touchdowns acouple times and i was told over and over he got beat once. hahahahah this is amazingly hilairous. :laugh2: :laugh2:

 

[Da Hammer]

Not sure how you could understand it otherwise. As some suspected, therefore, the culprit seems to be the HC's stubborn unwilligness aproach football as a game of chess. For him it's about brute force which means the teams is screwed if the players aren't clearly superior to those on the opposing team. Not sure I condone that approach.

its a plain idiotic approach!!!! players on every team now a days are all strong maybe not the same but nearly as strong. In the 80's Parcells Giants teams were clearly among the top 3 most physical teams while most of the opposition was weak and so they just plain dominated the opposition. But Now you cant just win with brute force, you gotta be able to outsmart your opponent with creative D and O which is something Parcells doesnt believe and for that 1 reason he deserves to get fired