I'm ready for a change

[wileedog]

We are so vanilla with our blitz packages ....well let me just say it would not take a rocket scientist to figure out how to block them.

This is great.

The same people complaining that our rookies are "thinking too much" because of Bill also want to make our defense more complicated.

Then when they blow assignments all over the field, you can start some threads complaining they weren't "prepared", or weren't "motivated"

Win/win!!

 

[Cbz40]

Well thats part of it, sure. But then again it was just a week ago where we managed to score 31 points. Obviously the Chiefs musta not "read the book" on us.

And no matter how much the wheels seem to have come off as of the other day, do we not believe that if we were to play the Giants and Skins yet again in our yard the next 2 weeks that we very likely would find a way to win those games? I dont doubt we could.

After the Denver game I posted "that I thought this team could beat anyone in the NFL." now I'm not so sure. I was so impressed by the way this team played with heart and with a never giveup attitude.

The KC game we gave up 500yds of O......I chalked it up to a great KC OL and offense. Yes we scored 31 on a very subpar defensive team as we witnessed last week in the Giant game..

The NY game & now the Washington game......Where was that heart, the intensity, the game plan, the adjustments........???????????? I saw a team not ready to play. The coaches should have had this team leaving the locker room ready to chew nails........but what did we see ..... a group of players with that "Deer in the headlights look".

In big games on the road with a young team it's the coaches responsibility to promote confidense, motivate, and give them a plan that gives them a chance to win.

 

[Cbz40]

This is great.

The same people complaining that our rookies are "thinking too much" because of Bill also want to make our defense more complicated.

Then when they blow assignments all over the field, you can start some threads complaining they weren't "prepared", or weren't "motivated"

Win/win!!

:bang2: ummm so you are either saying we drafted a group of morons or we have coaches that can't teach........which is it?

 

[wileedog]

:bang2: ummm so you are either saying we drafted a group of morons or we have coaches that can't teach........which is it?

I'm saying expectations are pretty out of whack for a team that just switched to a 3-4 this year which most of the team has never played in and has several rookies even in starting positions who have never played it before. Our #1 pick never even played LB before.

It's Week 15. At what point between gameplanning and practicing for the next game should the coaches be teaching all these new defensive schemes to these guys? Maybe they can pick it all up on Thursday over lunch?

 

[Cbz40]

I'm saying expectations are pretty out of whack for a team that just switched to a 3-4 this year which most of the team has never played in and has several rookies even in starting positions who have never played it before. Our #1 pick never even played LB before.

It's Week 15. At what point between gameplanning and practicing for the next game should the coaches be teaching all these new defensive schemes to these guys? Maybe they can pick it all up on Thursday over lunch?

My expectations as far as W&L have almost been met this year......I was expecting 9-7 or 10-6. Not out of wack so far.

I usually consider myself to be a very patient individual.....and after offering a couple of observations I'm still of the same opinion.

Who said anything about changing the entire Defensive scheme? I certainly did not. The coaches gameplan each and every week for their opponent. During practice they put in plays & schemes they think will be successful against said opponent. For the life of me I cannot understand how difficult it would be to teach a couple of blitzes that are diguised or different from what we have been doing......every team in the NFL can do it ....why can't we?

If this expectation is wacky.......then so be it.

 

[rcaldw]

Great Post Nav22

I wonder where all these knee jerk experts were last week when Bledsoe had an elite performance. The Oline gave him time and he delivered.

Charles, you can go back and read my views for 2 years now. I'm not knee jerk and my opinions haven't changed.

 

[jimmy40]

So you dont think scheduling played a role here (and in 03 for that matter too)? I mean I understand when you're a really good team then things such as that dont matter. But we're not a really good team yet and we knew that coming in.

But when you get all 3 of your divisional foes at home early, a 49er team.. an Arizona and Detroit etc.. isnt that a little easier row to hoe than when you flip flop the divisional games, swap out Denver and KC for Zona and the Lions and then visit Carolina instead of the Niners?

I realize that could just be an excuse.. where in fact we do just fade for whatever reasons.. but then again we do "already" have 8 wins and theres about 15 other teams in the league that might not end up with that many when it's all said and done.

Funny how no one wanted to talk about this when we were winning earlier. Parcells warned everyone that it was fixing to get tougher but no one listened. Except for a few of us "haters".

 

[jimmy40]

Great Post Nav22

I wonder where all these knee jerk experts were last week when Bledsoe had an elite performance. The Oline gave him time and he delivered.

They were here, saying no way Washington could beat us.

 

[CF74]

If we start getting pummeled in the 1st quarter, then put romo in.

 

[Rogerthat12]

"Bledsoe wanted to stay on the field: Parcells said he considered inserting backup quarterback Tony Romo in the third quarter, but said Drew Bledsoe lobbied to stay in the game.

"He didn't seem too inclined to do that," Parcells said of Bledsoe's response.

Bledsoe threw three interceptions, fumbled once and was sacked seven times in Sunday's game. After the game, Romo sounded disappointed he didn't get the opportunity to play.

Instead, the Commanders' defense continued to tee off on Bledsoe. "

Another proof that Parcells has his boys.

1. Drew picks and chooses if he plays
2. Romo has the freedom to express his disappointment at not playing

How long do you think Henson would have gotten away with that last year?

I know I'm in the minority on this, and I really don't care, I want Parcells stubborn rear end out of town. I wish I could say I feel differently, but I would just be dishonest. I'm ready for Parcells to be gone.

Most on this board say, "who else would you rather have?"

I would rather have Charlie Weiss
I would rather have Jimmy Johnson (I know, wishful thinking)
I would rather have ANYONE will a little willingness to move beyond old favorites. (Vinny, Bledsoe, Keyshawn, and anyone else he can import from his past teams)

Go get a good young coach with some creativity (maybe a Gary Kubiak type), and lets move onto the next chapter in Cowboys history.

I'm tired of play not to lose football
I'm tired of excuses for why he can't play young players in opportune times.

Heck, I'm not a Romo fan by ANY stretch, but I would have welcomed even seeing HIM last Sunday when it was out of hand.

So, Parcells lovers, enjoy, looks like he is here for a long time. But I, for one, wish it were different.

I am with you on the QB logic but you aware we are starting a lot of ROOKIES and YOUNG fellas at skill positions save QB right???

 

[Concord]

Yeah and I wanted the Cowboys to play like they had a pair!

Who gives a **** what Bledsoe wants!

Romo should have played and Henson too.

Oh I forgot we were going to come back and Bledsoe gave us the best chance at doing that.

 

[rcaldw]

I am with you on the QB logic but you aware we are starting a lot of ROOKIES and YOUNG fellas at skill positions save QB right???

Absolutely. I agree with you on that.

 

[Echo9]

Maybe Parcells was thinking of putting Romo in. But then maybe after seeing the way our OL was doing everything it could to make sure Bledsoe got abused and our running would not work that Parcells let Bledsoe stay in.

Maybe it was not Bledsoe who talked Parcells into it. Maybe it was Parcells did not want to bring Romo into his 1st NFL game to something like that where the man had no protection at all. Maybe he was letting Bledsoe have his way so Romo didnt get totally ruined out there.

Im pretty sure if we were losing to a crappy team with no pass rush..you know a pass rush almost as bad as ours...that Parcells woulda let Romo play.


Parcells woulda been crazy to send Romo in there with the ZERO protection our OL was giving.

Do some of you even THINK??????

Wolv...

I have to tell you there are number of things you've posted in the past that I disagree with.

This is not one of them. You hit the nail on the head here. Romo may have ended up hosptialized the way the line played on Sunday.

 

[kartr]

"Bledsoe wanted to stay on the field: Parcells said he considered inserting backup quarterback Tony Romo in the third quarter, but said Drew Bledsoe lobbied to stay in the game.

"He didn't seem too inclined to do that," Parcells said of Bledsoe's response.

Bledsoe threw three interceptions, fumbled once and was sacked seven times in Sunday's game. After the game, Romo sounded disappointed he didn't get the opportunity to play.

Instead, the Commanders' defense continued to tee off on Bledsoe. "

Another proof that Parcells has his boys.

1. Drew picks and chooses if he plays
2. Romo has the freedom to express his disappointment at not playing

How long do you think Henson would have gotten away with that last year?

I know I'm in the minority on this, and I really don't care, I want Parcells stubborn rear end out of town. I wish I could say I feel differently, but I would just be dishonest. I'm ready for Parcells to be gone.

Most on this board say, "who else would you rather have?"

I would rather have Charlie Weiss
I would rather have Jimmy Johnson (I know, wishful thinking)
I would rather have ANYONE will a little willingness to move beyond old favorites. (Vinny, Bledsoe, Keyshawn, and anyone else he can import from his past teams)

Go get a good young coach with some creativity (maybe a Gary Kubiak type), and lets move onto the next chapter in Cowboys history.

I'm tired of play not to lose football
I'm tired of excuses for why he can't play young players in opportune times.

Heck, I'm not a Romo fan by ANY stretch, but I would have welcomed even seeing HIM last Sunday when it was out of hand.

So, Parcells lovers, enjoy, looks like he is here for a long time. But I, for one, wish it were different.

I agree that Parcells leaving could be a good thing, but no qb on our roster is worth anything. I would rather see all of them go before Parcells. If Jerry would bring in a 'real gm' to handle personnel, we would be okay. As much as I dislike Bledsoe, I would rather see him in there than his backups. Their ability to read defenses and run a team would pale horrifically compared to Bledsoe and the games would get so out of hand quickly, that the game would be over before halftime, even against the Jets or Texans. Think about what happened when Arizona put in John Navarre against the Texans.

 

[DLCassidy]

I'm no football guru but this board is truly comical to read sometimes. The truth is even with all the things that have changed in the NFL over the last 60 years, it still USUALLY comes down to:

1) running the ball
2) stopping the run
3) pressuring their QB
4) protecting your QB

This whole "they didn't come to play" mantra, the "play calling sucks" refrain is about as trite as "have a nice day". The games we've lost this year have been lost at the LOS on both sides of the ball, with the exception of the Denver game and the 1st Commanders game which we should have won. If the coach was Alonzo Knute Lombardi Walsh Bellichick, and the QB was Johnny Graham Montana Marino Brady, we would've gotten our ***es handed to us Sunday.

Read above again slowly if this is confusing. Deal with it.