superpunk said:
Galloway gave us no reason to believe he would ever break out of his funk, or actually make it through a full season. He represented everything that was wrong with the late 90s early 00s Cowboys. I think he needed to be off the team. It wasn't a sure thing, that Key was going to be released, either, If I remember correctly. And who's to say we would have gotten him had he been released? The trade solved getting rid of Galloway, and replacing him with a player who performed better, and had a similar salary. Going back to that time, it just made sense. Hindsight is 20/20, though.
It is still just a swap of WRs instead of actually gaining something. We spent two 1st round picks on him, then swapped him straight across. Sorry, it galls me.
The first two years, yes, I'm extremely disappointed with. Looking back, we should have blown the team up, playoffs or not. Again, with the hindsight...But last year, I can't be disappointed with. I considered it our first season of rebuilding in earnest, and to go 9-7, with the crap we had to endure (kickers, injuries), is quite the step in the right direction. Rome wasn't built in a day.
We're just wired different. I think we had opportunities to be a lot better than we are and they date back to 2003's off season. Some of it is about blowing up the team. Some isn't.
Again, how do you know it WAS handed to them? You're assuming that, Hos, and I know how much you hate assumptions.
Articles and interviews reported it for almost every player. yes, some of them were better, but not all of them were the best options on the market.
At the time, I believed it. I thought there was no way Parcells was stupid enough to want Vinny over Carter. Now, I'm not so sure. I have my own "conspiracy theories" about the 2004 season, that sound alot better INSIDE my head.
I knew in March Vinny would be the starter. Long before August, and even June when he was acquired.
I can't think of anyone I would have chosen over the players Parcells chose, from his former squads. The biggest issue I had was with Rivera. The rest made sense to me.
Not to me. Not all of them. There were other options.
Drew Brees or Daunte Culpepper. It's an age preference with me as much as anything else. We won't even consider them. That bothers me a bit. Even if I know in the back of my mind it means Henson gets no real shot.
The only time I see that as a legitimate choice, is if you intend to continue running said player out there. If you're talking about putting him in during garbage time, for a game he's not prepared as starter for, and the other team can tee off on him, I really don't see how that's going to dipel ANY jitters that player might have. Especially, if you just plan on putting him back on the shelf the next game.
I can't imagine a world without a movie like Rudy.
I think playing starters in garbage time is ignorant. What point does it serve?
Missed it. And forgot I wrote it. My bad. I was just expounding upon my personal hopes for Henson, as an example why people might resent Bledsoe. I know I did, when he was first signed. I was stoked to see the future this year! It seems the future isn't ready, and Bledsoe impressed me. So, I'm content to stick with Bledsoe for now. I think he's got a decent amount left in the tank. Doesn't remove my hope's for Henson, but I'm not going to resent Bledsoe, or Parcells, based solely on my own expectations. There's more than one way to skin a cat, and I can see Parcells' way working. I have high hopes for this upcoming year. Much higher than I did going into last season, or the one before.
No problem and I hope so too.
