My biggest gripe about Parcells...

[Juke99]

I've always had a problem with a coach who forces players to fit into his schemes rather than adapting his schemes to the players.

As Bum Phillips once said of Don Shula, "He can take his'n and beat your'n and he can your'n and beat his'n"

But that's only a framework for my biggest gripe..which is...Parcells almost fanatical obsession with "execution"

It seems to me that Coach Parcells feels that if his team executes every play perfectly, a win is guaranteed.

Even if such a thing was possible, ie, getting 11 players on each of 70-75 plays to execute perfectly, there is one thing that is overlooked.

There is ANOTHER team on the field who might be executing the play just as well.

If we break down each play into 11 component parts, one for each player, we'll see the pure folly of this approach.

We've seen that one player breaking down on a play can screw up the works. Now lets consider a one on one match up of a OT vs a DE. Our OT tackle executes his play perfectly. His presnap read is accurate, he takes his drop perfectly, his body is in perfect position to pass block, his balance is perfect.

Unfortunately, the player vs him executes his play just as perfectly..only difference is, he's physically superior to our player. He's a step faster, he's a bit stronger.

Advantage opponent. Play over.

Perfect execution + physical advantage= positive play.

Additionally, what if the defensive player is out of position? Perfect execution is based on knowing what your opponent is going to do.

The point is, there's ZERO tolerance for error. And in today's NFL, you simply cannot game plan in this manner. Eventually, superior athleticism, in today's NFL, will win out.

The other problem with running a vanilla offense based on perfect execution is that it gives the other team an advantage in game preparation. They simply have less to worry about..and more time to perfect THEIR execution against us.

The mind blower for me is that Parcells has had a player in the past who could blow up perfect execution on any given play. His name was Lawrence Taylor. And I'll guarantee you that LT didn't execute his plays anywhere near perfectly. LT is the perfect example of what superior athleticism can do to perfect execution. Now, there aren't many LT's but a player doesn't have to be. A DT can be very good and his advantage over a guy like Al Johnson will be almost Lawrence Tayloresque...and as a result, perfect exuction or not, the edge is going to go to the DT.

The biggest issue I have is that this reliance on perfect execution frames everything the team does; the systems we play; the game planning we do; and the plays we call.

This isn't 1966 with Vince Lombardi's Packers, who relied on executing a few plays perfectly and who btw, were vastly superior to other teams physically. In this new era, free agency, the cap etc has brought extremely varied talent levels within each roster. And any mediocre, or worse, player on the field, who matches up against a superior athelete across from him, is going to blow enough plays (perfect execution or not) to impact the game in a negative manner.

I'm not looking to start a battle over this. I truly am looking for opinions because I am befuddled over Parcells' obsession with "mistake free" football.

Oh and in second place to this gripe is Parcells playing games in an ultra conservative manner and then allowing a handful of plays to be called that are so risky that it boggles the mind, eg, that last pass play after the Pettitti hold.

 

[noshame]

Here's my .02.

Parcells ball was fine years ago; because you had offenses and defenses comprised of veterans who had played together for years in the same scheme.

It was a chess match, who ever made the first big mistake usually lost.

It does not fit in todays salary cap, FA, NFL. These guys make mistakes by the bunches, ergo, playing it close is not a good thing.

Not to mention teams are reading your offensive sets..grrrrrrr. but that's another topic

 

[THUMPER]

I've always had a problem with a coach who forces players to fit into his schemes rather than adapting his schemes to the players.

As Bum Phillips once said of Don Shula, "He can take his'n and beat your'n and he can your'n and beat his'n"

But that's only a framework for my biggest gripe..which is...Parcells almost fanatical obsession with "execution"

It seems to me that Coach Parcells feels that if his team executes every play perfectly, a win is guaranteed.

Even if such a thing was possible, ie, getting 11 players on each of 70-75 plays to execute perfectly, there is one thing that is overlooked.

There is ANOTHER team on the field who might be executing the play just as well.

If we break down each play into 11 component parts, one for each player, we'll see the pure folly of this approach.

We've seen that one player breaking down on a play can screw up the works. Now lets consider a one on one match up of a OT vs a DE. Our OT tackle executes his play perfectly. His presnap read is accurate, he takes his drop perfectly, his body is in perfect position to pass block, his balance is perfect.

Unfortunately, the player vs him executes his play just as perfectly..only difference is, he's physically superior to our player. He's a step faster, he's a bit stronger.

Advantage opponent. Play over.

Perfect execution + physical advantage= positive play.

Additionally, what if the defensive player is out of position? Perfect execution is based on knowing what your opponent is going to do.

The point is, there's ZERO tolerance for error. And in today's NFL, you simply cannot game plan in this manner. Eventually, superior athleticism, in today's NFL, will win out.

The other problem with running a vanilla offense based on perfect execution is that it gives the other team an advantage in game preparation. They simply have less to worry about..and more time to perfect THEIR execution against us.

The mind blower for me is that Parcells has had a player in the past who could blow up perfect execution on any given play. His name was Lawrence Taylor. And I'll guarantee you that LT didn't execute his plays anywhere near perfectly. LT is the perfect example of what superior athleticism can do to perfect execution. Now, there aren't many LT's but a player doesn't have to be. A DT can be very good and his advantage over a guy like Al Johnson will be almost Lawrence Tayloresque...and as a result, perfect exuction or not, the edge is going to go to the DT.

The biggest issue I have is that this reliance on perfect execution frames everything the team does; the systems we play; the game planning we do; and the plays we call.

This isn't 1966 with Vince Lombardi's Packers, who relied on executing a few plays perfectly and who btw, were vastly superior to other teams physically. In this new era, free agency, the cap etc has brought extremely varied talent levels within each roster. And any mediocre, or worse, player on the field, who matches up against a superior athelete across from him, is going to blow enough plays (perfect execution or not) to impact the game in a negative manner.

I'm not looking to start a battle over this. I truly am looking for opinions because I am befuddled over Parcells' obsession with "mistake free" football.

Oh and in second place to this gripe is Parcells playing games in an ultra conservative manner and then allowing a handful of plays to be called that are so risky that it boggles the mind, eg, that last pass play after the Pettitti hold.

Hmmm, that sounds vaguely familiar... Seems I wrote something very simialr earlier this morning in the Parcells vs Jimmy thread:

I've been saying that since Parcells got here, he plays "not to lose" rather than "playing to win" and it just doesn't work.

The one time this season we came out firing was against the Eagles and we crushed them. Every other game has been close as we have stuck with this methodical, predictable, conservative, ball-control junk that looks good on the stat sheet because we have held the ball all day and denied the other team many opportunities but the game is won by the team scoring the most points not who had the ball the longest. Parcells has yet to figure that out.

Parcells and many others keep blaming these losses on the players saying that if they would only execute correctly then we would be winning. Well that is true but it is also an impossible expectation and one which Bill should know is unreasonable.

This is essentially a young team either in terms of the experience in the NFL or with each other, they haven't played long together. To expect them to execute plays perfectly every time is not reasonable. With a young team you have to utilize their strengths which are energy, enthusiasm, and raw talent. When you force them to play conservatively you take their strengths away and they end up worrying more about making mistakes than about making plays.

A team full of veterans can play this conservative approach and be successful with it because they are disciplined and play within the structure of the scheme. Younger players haven't learned all the nuances of the scheme yet and need to be turned loose until they do otherwise you just waste their talent and squander opportunities.

I guess you could say that the more the players play in Parcells scheme the sooner they will become those veteran who can play it successfully but in the meantime we are losing games we should be winning and squandering yet another season.

What Parcells REALLY needs is a true OC who will run the offense while Parcells manages the team and stays out of the playcalling. Sean Payton isn't that guy.

Obviously I agree with you Juke.

 

[Juke99]

Hmmm, that sounds vaguely familiar... Seems I wrote something very simialr earlier this morning in the Parcells vs Jimmy thread:



Obviously I agree with you Juke.

There's a saying about great minds.

BTW, any plagiarism is purely coincidental.

 

[JackMagist]

I agree that our approach is all wrong in today's NFL. Of course there is nothing wrong with good execution; it is in fact still a thing to be very much desired. But you are correct in that it is not primarily the thing that wins games in this day and age.

The old saying "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance then baffle 'em with BS" is the order of the day. If you cannot match up physically at least even (or preferably superior) then you had better have some tricks up your sleeve. The use of misdirection plays, disguising plays and out thinking the opponent is more valuable than perfect execution today. And we disguise NOTHING in our schemes; the opponents always know what we are going to do and even superior physicality will not compensate when the opponent has your play calling wired.

 

[Juke99]

I agree that our approach is all wrong in today's NFL. Of course there is nothing wrong with good execution; it is in fact still a thing to be very much desired. But you are correct in that it is not primarily the thing that wins games in this day and age.

The old saying "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance then baffle 'em with BS" is the order of the day. If you cannot match up physically at least even (or preferably superior) then you had better have some tricks up your sleeve. The use of misdirection plays, disguising plays and out thinking the opponent is more valuable than perfect execution today. And we disguise NOTHING in our schemes; the opponents always know what we are going to do and even superior physicality will not compensate when the opponent has your play calling wired.

I couldn't have said it better.

Thanks.

I agree, of course a coach should focus on execution but reliance on it is another story all together.

 

[Alexander]

You have to execute no matter who is coaching.

It is the framework of the game and the tempo that makes the inevitable mistake either noticeable or not.

It is like betting on the home team to win everytime. Chances are, in the long run, you are going to win more than lose. But you are not going to make much money playing it safe.

 

[Juke99]

You have to execute no matter who is coaching.

It is the framework of the game and the tempo that makes the inevitable mistake either noticeable or not.

It is like betting on the home team to win everytime. Chances are, in the long run, you are going to win more than lose. But you are not going to make much money playing it safe.

I like the betting analogy. Well done.

 

[Billy Bullocks]

Honestly though, if we win this game (Cortez hits that 29 yarder and we do), does anyone gripe. Does anyone ahve a beef. Say we hold on here and in Washington. 6-1..is Parcells still out dated? Even at 5-2, would anyone complain. Tell me how outdated BP really is at 5-3 in the bye, if we win this week. You guys make some valid points though

 

[InmanRoshi]

Jimz31 claims that the problem is that Parcells adjusts too much from week to week, and lets the opponent dictate the strategy. Juke99 claims Parcells is too stubborn in his way, and doesn't adjust enough.

This is not the 66 Packers as far as predictability. I dare say you will have a hard time finding another team in the NFL that uses different formations on both sides of the ball as frequently as the Cowboys do.

 

[Hoov]

Parcells biggest thing with the offense is no negative plays. i think that is where we hear him discuss eliminating mental errors and preaching execution.

I guess when you have teams like green bay when brett favre was really good you could be real aggressive, have negative plays and overcome that. Favre did turn the ball over a lot, but then he would come back and drive 90 yards in 1:30 seconds for a td. They would get a penalty, then take a sack, then throw a td on 2nd and 30. Thats an extreme example of "not playing it safe, just going out there and lighting it up"

Parcells is at the other extreme. He wants No negative plays, no turnovers, no penalties, no sacks. and to play great defense and move it down field, eat up the clock, and selesctively open up here or there for a big play.

Most teams are usually somewhere in the middle of these two extremes, i would say you win more championships if you lean more toward the parcells way, but just dont take it to the xtreme that he does.

 

[wileedog]

The Patriots haven't been whipping the league the last 3 years with a huge playbook, exotic gameplans, or brilliant playcalling.

They win because their personnel evaluations are top notch, they have geat depth, and they execute, particularly in crunch time.

Pittsburgh sure as heck ain't doing anything fancy either, particularly on offense.

Yes, the era of teams like the Lombardi Packers or even the 90's Cowboys is gone. But Talent > ALL, even now.

The succesful teams in this age are the ones who constantly bring new talent to replace those that leave via free agency or are injured. They get the most from their drafts, know when to say goodbye to high-priced vets, make sure they have depth. They don't have guys in the last throes of their career like Larry Allen soaking up large chunks of cap space.

It is the personnel and scouting departments who are the heroes of Free-Agency area football, not the X's and O's guys.

Last year Bill was horrible shopping for the groceries. Most of us agreed this past offseason was a make or break one for Bill in Dallas, and aside from Marco Rivera and perhaps funbling the long-snapper issue he has done about as good as could be reasonably be expected in one offseason.

Perfect case-in-point is the defense. They are still running about as vanilla as a 3-4 you can think of, the blitzes are as basic as they come because half the players still don't know what the heck they are doing. If playcalling and exotic scheming made SO much difference, how is this defense shutting down 3 #1 offenses in a row?

On some level, I agree with you that playing a lot of 1-3 year players or old broken down vets and expecting perfect execution is not terribly realistic. But if my 1-3 year players are better than your 1-3 year players, its not completely necessary, and I'd still rather have a coach who stressed perfect technique and executions as relentlessly as Bill does to my young players than someone drawing up complicated gameplans and hoping to constantly fool the opposition. Eventually a more physical team is going to come along and just pop you in the mouth, and all your fancy plays go right out the window.

Could Bill do better? Definately. But a 'conservative' approach to the game is Bill's mantra and always has been. Its an approach that has proved more successful by more coaches in any era, not just pre-FA.

And if you look at the the entire package - not just the part that pissed you off this week - I think Bill is still doing a better job than 90% of the coaches in this league. I've had enough of the Switzers and Gaileys and Campos to know that just because Bill inexplicably tried to make something out of nothing at the end of one game, you don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Lookit, you can't just call 1-800-HOFCOACH you know....

 

[blindzebra]

The players need to execute the play that's a given.

The problems I'm seeing is we are not designing plays that fit our players strengths, nor are we going away from plays that are not working.

The Washington game and yesterday were both great examples.

From the middle of the 3rd quarter against Seattle it was like we were on a loop. Run left, get 5 yards, run right get stoned, 3rd and 4 and Bledsoe is locked on Glenn. It is not a coincidence that we picked up 20 on that first down with play action, too bad we only did it once.

First down at the 11 and where was that play action play to Polite?

The drag to Witten?

The fade that we got a TD on...THE ONLY TIME WE THREW IT IN THE ENDZONE...to Key?

A combo slant/corner with Glenn and Campbell?

You cannot even say anything about running time off either, because they had 3 timeouts plus the 2 minute warning to save enough time to get it back.

Nope we ran to get a sure 3 points and it bit us in the arse, just like it did against Washington.

And no, I'd be critical of the play calling even if we had won 10-3, or 13-0 or 7, because we were in position to win going away in both games and I know that eventually that type of play gets you beat.

 

[Zaxor]

The players need to execute the play that's a given.

The problems I'm seeing is we are not designing plays that fit our players strengths, nor are we going away from plays that are not working.

The Washington game and yesterday were both great examples.

From the middle of the 3rd quarter against Seattle it was like we were on a loop. Run left, get 5 yards, run right get stoned, 3rd and 4 and Bledsoe is locked on Glenn. It is not a coincidence that we picked up 20 on that first down with play action, too bad we only did it once.

First down at the 11 and where was that play action play to Polite?

The drag to Witten?

The fade that we got a TD on...THE ONLY TIME WE THREW IT IN THE ENDZONE...to Key?

A combo slant/corner with Glenn and Campbell?

You cannot even say anything about running time off either, because they had 3 timeouts plus the 2 minute warning to save enough time to get it back.

Nope we ran to get a sure 3 points and it bit us in the arse, just like it did against Washington.

And no, I'd be critical of the play calling even if we had won 10-3, or 13-0 or 7, because we were in position to win going away in both games and I know that eventually that type of play gets you beat.

Thank you and well said BZ

If I can call the next offensive play sitting in my chair and be over 90% accurate (I had a stretch in the 4th where I did not miss one for like 15 straight)then you can darn well bet Seattle knew what was coming...

think I'm joking try it yourself...you will amaze yourself with your psychic ability and if you claim to not be psychic than the play calling is pretty predictable

 

[rickwil61]

Fellas I think that during times like this it is good to step back and look at the big picture. Compare what this team was when Parcells took over to what it is now. Probably last season was a better indication of what we had than the first season. We've got a much better team this year than we did last year and I'd also say that there is more hope for the future this year than there was last year. All of the games this year have been really close and we've played some pretty good teams. I don't think that would have been the case if you would have been able to transport Dave Campo's Cowboys into this year. Do you think that team would have came back in the San Diego game?

Parcells is building something in this team that takes time...character. He's made it clear over and over that the more he trusts players then the longer their leash gets. I think the conservative calls have been an indication of where he thinks this team is at and how much he can trust them. Granted he is old school but I don't think that's a bad thing. He is not building a microwave team here where you just add water and cook for 2 minutes.

Remember Jerry tried the microwave technique after Jimmy left. I remember we were just always one superstar free agent signing from another superbowl. Somehow it just didn't pan out. I think the bottom line with Parcells is that he ain't done yet. I recall reading a story in a certain book that was told by a certain man who talked about two people who were building a house. One built on sand and the other built on a foundation. When the storm came the house built on sand fell but the house on the foundation stood.

The only problem with building on a foundation is that it takes longer but the results are longer lasting. I know of a certain team in New England that is still benefiting from a foundation the Tuna laid. I think we need to hang with him.

 

[Alexander]

The Patriots haven't been whipping the league the last 3 years with a huge playbook, exotic gameplans, or brilliant playcalling.

They win because their personnel evaluations are top notch, they have geat depth, and they execute, particularly in crunch time.

Pittsburgh sure as heck ain't doing anything fancy either, particularly on offense.

Yes, the era of teams like the Lombardi Packers or even the 90's Cowboys is gone. But Talent > ALL, even now.

The Patriots are an exception to the rule. They have had impeccable coaching and the best staff in the league for years.

I really wish people would stop using them as some sort of benchmark, because they are NOT the most talented. They are simply coached and prepared very well and have players that all buy into the system and know what they are supposed to do.

The succesful teams in this age are the ones who constantly bring new talent to replace those that leave via free agency or are injured. They get the most from their drafts, know when to say goodbye to high-priced vets, make sure they have depth. They don't have guys in the last throes of their career like Larry Allen soaking up large chunks of cap space.

You can blame Mister Jones for the Larry Allen situation. He has always been loyal and to a fault.

It is the personnel and scouting departments who are the heroes of Free-Agency area football, not the X's and O's guys.

The scouts only do their jobs well if first there is a direction that the entire organization is committed to. I cannot say if we have that type of focus. We keep changing from year to year and have no consistency.

One year, we are after veterans. The next, it is a youth movement.

 

[KingTuna]

I am for sure a PArcells supporter. Now, having said that, I do sometimes get the feeling that Parcells is handling this team like the 1990 Giants.

Grind out yards on the ground and play defense to win 10-3 every game...

Our players are NOT the 1990 Giants....We can be more explosive but I feel Parcells has really held back on a lot of the plays...

Let's see what happens this week..... :starspin

 

[diehard2294]

I never have been a big fan of 10-3 games, as Juke has stated one guy blows a coverage ,falls down,pass interference and all of a sudden your great defensive plan now turns into a situation where you may tend to do something you dont want too offensively. I have always believed when you are up at halftime,and you are getting the ball first,go up top. There just isn't much room for errors in close games,yesterday was a clear indication of that.

 

[big dog cowboy]

I am for sure a PArcells supporter. Now, having said that, I do sometimes get the feeling that Parcells is handling this team like the 1990 Giants.

Grind out yards on the ground and play defense to win 10-3 every game...

Our players are NOT the 1990 Giants....We can be more explosive but I feel Parcells has really held back on a lot of the plays...

Let's see what happens this week..... :starspin

We open up the offense like we did against the Iggles, we don't have to worry about those tight games decided by a FG in the last minute.

 

[zagnut]

Jimz31 claims that the problem is that Parcells adjusts too much from week to week, and lets the opponent dictate the strategy. Juke99 claims Parcells is too stubborn in his way, and doesn't adjust enough.

This is not the 66 Packers as far as predictability. I dare say you will have a hard time finding another team in the NFL that uses different formations on both sides of the ball as frequently as the Cowboys do.

Agree 100%. I'm just not seeing a guy locking players into archetypes or concrete philosophies. Parcells seems especially aware of each players' strengths and weaknesses - moreso than most coaches I've ever watched. The recent draft success isn't just about bringing in better players. It's also been about using those players in environments where they can succeed and using them for what they do well, not giving them too much, being attentive to their individual learning curve.

If there's anything I could point to with Parcells, it's that he goes to the statistical well too often at the expense of what he sees on the field. He sometimes seems obsessed with odds and percentages, not necessarily trusting his players. Maybe the trust will come and is undeserved at this point (or maybe I'm seeing things on the field that are not there).