Parcells - Romo

[sf49rh8r]

Well, I cringe to give my honest opinion on this one. I'm still of the school of thought that Bill Parcells delights in the idea that he is smarter than everyone else. You can see it in the way he deals with players, the way he deals with the media, and even with the way he deals with the jobs he has taken and refused.

I'm not saying I blame him. If you can do it YOUR way, why not? But I really do think he delights in "finding the gem" that no one else "saw".

I also think that he vastly underestimates the value of a franchise QB. I know that is has been debated adnausium on this board before, so I'll spare the details, but suffice it to say, I'm not sure (despite his stated desire to have played for Parcells) how Troy Aikman would have ever done under Bill Parcells.

So, I think this would explain WHY FORCE A ROMO ON JERRY.

Having said that, I TOO HAVE SEEN INDICATIONS THAT ROMO MIGHT BE ABLE TO ACTUALLY DO THE JOB.

I still have my doubts. I believe that a guy making it from a division II school is definitely the EXCEPTION not the rule, but maybe Romo will be the exception.

I for one would like to find out.

Me too....bottom line is Drew isn't getting the job done and we can't afford to fall too far behind. I hate to admit this but I have to agree with a scenario laid out be Saulsbury. Let the kid have his day against the Titans. Unless he totally stinks up the place we should be able to handle this team if the rest of the players step their games up. This preps him somewhat for the G-Men. I honestly think that he can't be any worse than what we've been seeing from Drew....

As a note...the intelligence level on this page is unbelievable. Adnausium and suffice....nice vocabulary. Great post

 

[superpunk]

Troy Aikman was much more talented than Phil Simms. And do I think that Parcells will take a guy with NO TALENT and try to make something of him just to prove a point? OF COURSE NOT.

What I am suggesting, and do believe, is that if you give Parcells a choice of two fairly equal guys, and one represents the conventional wisdom, and the other has the potential to make him look smarter than you, he will choose the underdog time after time. You would dispute that?

How would you explain him taking the strong, big-armed QB out of Washington with the first pick in the 1993 draft and starting him right away?

Was he bucking convention to make himself look smarter with that one?

I don't buy that he elaborately sets things up so he looks smart. It's obvious Romo is better than Henson was. I was a huge henson guy, and even I can admit that. The best players play - always.

 

[sf49rh8r]

Well, I cringe to give my honest opinion on this one. I'm still of the school of thought that Bill Parcells delights in the idea that he is smarter than everyone else. You can see it in the way he deals with players, the way he deals with the media, and even with the way he deals with the jobs he has taken and refused.

I'm not saying I blame him. If you can do it YOUR way, why not? But I really do think he delights in "finding the gem" that no one else "saw".

I also think that he vastly underestimates the value of a franchise QB. I know that is has been debated adnausium on this board before, so I'll spare the details, but suffice it to say, I'm not sure (despite his stated desire to have played for Parcells) how Troy Aikman would have ever done under Bill Parcells.

So, I think this would explain WHY FORCE A ROMO ON JERRY.

Having said that, I TOO HAVE SEEN INDICATIONS THAT ROMO MIGHT BE ABLE TO ACTUALLY DO THE JOB.

I still have my doubts. I believe that a guy making it from a division II school is definitely the EXCEPTION not the rule, but maybe Romo will be the exception.

I for one would like to find out.

Come on - you really expect anyone to believe Parcells has pushed Romo out of some ego trip to show he can outsmart everyone .......?

As for delighting in finding the "gem" that no one else saw - that"s Jerry Jones territory (ie. Quincy Carter).

I'm not saying Parcells doesn't think highly of his ability to find a gem (a better term might be "judging talent" rather than sounding like it's just a fluke to find one), but do you really think that Parcells is merely trying to prove something without any foundation for believing it?

Doesn't the fact that you admit that you see the potential in Romo disprove what you are saying - at least to some degree? After all the 8 consecutive strong preseason performances by Romo haven't just been a promotional gimmick by Parcells - they actually happened.

As for Aikman - he would have been an ideal Parcells QB. I don't at all think Parcells underestimates the value of a franchise QB - he just has a different definition. To him a franchise QB isn't one who puts up huge numbers, but is one who guides the ship, provides leadership, doesn't do things to undermine the offense, runs the offense with precision and as designed, makes the necessary plays - basically Phil Simms. Aikman was very much the same type of QB.

I agree for the most part but you ruined it by comparing Simms to Aikman. Simms couldn't hold Aikman's jock.

 

[Stautner]

Troy Aikman was much more talented than Phil Simms. And do I think that Parcells will take a guy with NO TALENT and try to make something of him just to prove a point? OF COURSE NOT.

What I am suggesting, and do believe, is that if you give Parcells a choice of two fairly equal guys, and one represents the conventional wisdom, and the other has the potential to make him look smarter than you, he will choose the underdog time after time. You would dispute that?

You're going to get pissed about the Aikman/Simms analogy?

Geez, get of your high horse. I didn't suggest they were exactly the same talent level - I said they were the same type of QB. That isn't a controversial statement. The statistics back it up and if you watched the two play it's obvious. Aikman WAS stronger and bigger than Simms - probably WAS somewhat more talented, but arm strength and size and basic talent weren't what made either great. If you think that you're mind is unable to comprehend what you see. The leadership and abilty to run the offense with precision were the strong points of both.

As for the two fairly equal guys situation - frankly i don't know. Maybe Parcells would favor the underdog. If so, what's your point - it has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH THIS DISCUSSION.

We weren't talking about Parcells pushing Romo over an equal talent - we were talking about Parcells pushing A backup QB to appease Jerry Jones and the fans.

You injected an entirely different scenario as if it is somehow relevant.

 

[rcaldw]

How would you explain him taking the strong, big-armed QB out of Washington with the first pick in the 1993 draft and starting him right away?

Was he bucking convention to make himself look smarter with that one?

I don't buy that he elaborately sets things up so he looks smart. It's obvious Romo is better than Henson was. I was a huge henson guy, and even I can admit that. The best players play - always.

SP, I'm not saying that Parcells would NEVER take a franchise QB in a draft, or that he would NEVER go with conventional wisdom (see Demarcus Ware), I'm simply saying that he seems to place less emphasis on the QB position than most coaches I've paid attention to. And I am also saying that I have noticed, and I don't think I'm alone on this one, that he likes the "underdog" in his evaluation of players.

 

[superpunk]

SP, I'm not saying that Parcells would NEVER take a franchise QB in a draft, or that he would NEVER go with conventional wisdom (see Demarcus Ware), I'm simply saying that he seems to place less emphasis on the QB position than most coaches I've paid attention to. And I am also saying that I have noticed, and I don't think I'm alone on this one, that he likes the "underdog" in his evaluation of players.

I just think he likes the best players. Maybe players perceived as underdogs work harder - something highly valued by Parcells.

 

[rcaldw]

You're going to get pissed about the Aikman/Simms analogy?

Geez, get of your high horse. I didn't suggest they were exactly the same talent level - I said they were the same type of QB. That isn't a controversial statement. The statistics back it up and if you watched the two play it's obvious. Aikman WAS stronger and bigger than Simms - probably WAS somewhat more talented, but arm strength and size and basic talent weren't what made either great. If you think that you're mind is unable to comprehend what you see. The leadership and abilty to run the offense with precision were the strong points of both.

As for the two fairly equal guys situation - frankly i don't know. Maybe Parcells would favor the underdog. If so, what's your point - it has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH THIS DISCUSSION.

We weren't talking about Parcells pushing Romo over an equal talent - we were talking about Parcells pushing A backup QB to appease Jerry Jones and the fans.

You injected an entirely different scenario as if it is somehow relevant.

Who said I was upset? I simply disagreed with the comparison of a guy who really was a bus driver (Simms) and a guy who was much more than that. (Aikman) And even then, Bill Parcells nearly drove Phil Simms out of his mind and made him battle it out with Scott Brunner and later Jeff Hostetler.

And honestly Staut, this last post of yours sounded much more like a high horse to me. All I did was disagree with you.

I'll be the very first to admit, you may be perfectly right. (I already acknowledged this with Sultan) It may be as simple as Bill Parcells really believing (rightly) that Tony Romo "has it", and his only hesitancy is "am I right, and is this the right time?"

I'm simply looking for "If you really believe that, and you already 'leaked' the idea to your buddies Peter King and Chris Mortenson, and you are looking for the right time this year to spring our future QB on us, why not now?"

Wouldn't this be the perfect time? The Texans... at home? With another home game right behind them?

 

[Stautner]

I agree for the most part but you ruined it by comparing Simms to Aikman. Simms couldn't hold Aikman's jock.

Is this thread the home of the brain dead?

I said they were the same TYPE of QB, not the same talent level.

Neither Aikman or Simms were the same TYPE QB as Favre or Elway or Marino ...... big numbers aren't what made them outstanding.

They both were outstanding because of leadership skills and an ability to run their offense with precision and efficiency - that was what set them apart and why they were successful (THAT'S WHAT I MEAN BY SAME "TYPE"),

Although it's possible that you may actually think Aikman has numbers similar to the big production guys in NFL history and are just too blinded by homerism to see the truth.

 

[rcaldw]

I just think he likes the best players. Maybe players perceived as underdogs work harder - something highly valued by Parcells.

So when he liked Scott Brunner better than Simms for a while, where did Brunner go after the Giants?

When he went with Ray Lucas as his backup QB in New York, where did Lucas thrive after that?

Listen, I'm not saying Parcells doesn't know how to evaluate talent. It is clear he does. But just like I would be batty to suggest he doesn't know talent, in my opinion, you are turning a blind eye not to recognize that Parcells makes decisions sometimes that seem to go against conventional wisdom and might be driven just a little by ego.

 

[Stautner]

So when he liked Scott Brunner better than Simms for a while, where did Brunner go after the Giants?

When he went with Ray Lucas as his backup QB in New York, where did Lucas thrive after that?

Listen, I'm not saying Parcells doesn't know how to evaluate talent. It is clear he does. But just like I would be batty to suggest he doesn't know talent, in my opinion, you are turning a blind eye not to recognize that Parcells makes decisions sometimes that seem to go against conventional wisdom and might be driven just a little by ego.

Brunner was a mistake - plain and simple. But if you look at Simms first few years you can see that he didn't exactly light it up - and in fact played poorly. THAT's why Brunner got the chance, not because he was the underdog.

 

[superpunk]

So when he liked Scott Brunner better than Simms for a while, where did Brunner go after the Giants?

When he went with Ray Lucas as his backup QB in New York, where did Lucas thrive after that?

Listen, I'm not saying Parcells doesn't know how to evaluate talent. It is clear he does. But just like I would be batty to suggest he doesn't know talent, in my opinion, you are turning a blind eye not to recognize that Parcells makes decisions sometimes that seem to go against conventional wisdom and might be driven just a little by ego.

Ot by who was performing well at the time. Look how Simms was performing before Parcells put Brunner in. Look at how the Giants were performing. It was the right move, and his move to put Simms back in was even better, as they went on with great success. As for Ray Lucas, wasn't thata result of injury?

 

[rcaldw]

Ot by who was performing well at the time. Look how Simms was performing before Parcells put Brunner in. Look at how the Giants were performing. It was the right move, and his move to put Simms back in was even better, as they went on with great success. As for Ray Lucas, wasn't thata result of injury?

Well, I understand this perspective, but I guess I would argue that it wasn't the right move. Scott Brunner was NEVER going to take the Giants where Parcells wanted to go. It was a complete waste of time. And in terms of Ray Lucas, yes, it was because of injury and Lucas actually performed pretty decently that year, but Ray Lucas was never a legitimate, long term QB prospect, not even for the backup position, which is why he never was able to duplicate that one year's success. Parcells liked him, as you say, liked his effort and his "moxie" (forgive me ) but Lucas was never going to make it as a QB beyond what he did.

 

[superpunk]

Well, I understand this perspective, but I guess I would argue that it wasn't the right move. Scott Brunner was NEVER going to take the Giants where Parcells wanted to go. It was a complete waste of time.

Or, it could have just pushed the right buttons on Simms, let him know he needed to step it up. We can't be sure. Ultimately - it was the right move, and it worked out well for everyone.

And in terms of Ray Lucas, yes, it was because of injury and Lucas actually performed pretty decently that year, but Ray Lucas was never a legitimate, long term QB prospect, not even for the backup position, which is why he never was able to duplicate that one year's success. Parcells liked him, as you say, liked his effort and his "moxie" (forgive me ) but Lucas was never going to make it as a QB beyond what he did.

well, I don't think Lucas is a good example, then. Parcells went to him because Vinny was hurt. It's not like he picked him because he wanted to make him successful and stroke his ego. He had no choice.

MOXIE!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Stautner]

Well, I understand this perspective, but I guess I would argue that it wasn't the right move. Scott Brunner was NEVER going to take the Giants where Parcells wanted to go. It was a complete waste of time. And in terms of Ray Lucas, yes, it was because of injury and Lucas actually performed pretty decently that year, but Ray Lucas was never a legitimate, long term QB prospect, not even for the backup position, which is why he never was able to duplicate that one year's success. Parcells liked him, as you say, liked his effort and his "moxie" (forgive me ) but Lucas was never going to make it as a QB beyond what he did.

Of course Brunner was not the guy and wasn't going to take the Giants where they wanted to go ...... isn't it amazing how much smarter you are with the benefit of hindsight than Parcells was at the time?

 

[rcaldw]

Of course Brunner was not the guy and wasn't going to take the Giants where they wanted to go ...... isn't it amazing how much smarter you are with the benefit of hindsight than Parcells was at the time?

Nah, what's so amazing is how much smarter you are than me.

 

[Stautner]

Nah, what's so amazing is how much smarter you are than me.

Thanks - I'm so pleased you noticed.

Now if only I could figure out the difference between Cover 2 and Wishbone offense - I've been stuck on that one for years.

 

[rcaldw]

Thanks - I'm so pleased you noticed.

Now if only I could figure out the difference between Cover 2 and Wishbone offense - I've been stuck on that one for years.

Always happy to confirm a man's prejudices

 

[Jack-Reacher]

You guys kill me.

The let's bench Bledsoe talk cannot possibly be serious can it? I mean come on, surely you guys cannot want an unproven and for that matter an unknown QB at the helm? Don't come to me with his stellar preseason performances against vanilla defenses who did not game plan for him. The guy has not, repeat not, started a game when it counts. I agree that Bledsoe had a bad game, and has a propensity to have bad games, but who is to say that Romo will be any better? I understand that argument that he needs experience and that the team needs to know if he can be the guy, but are you really ready to throw in the towel on your season after 4 games? As soon as you start him you are telling the team we aren't going anywhere so let’s use this year as another rebuilding year. This team has some talent, and if they manage to find their stride can be scary good.

Drawing comparisons to Bledsoe's play against teams over .500 is a valid point, but of those teams over .500 how many have a good pash rush? When Bledsoe has time in the pocket does he not make some fantastic throws? We knew when they signed him that he wasn't mobile, this shouldn't come as a shock to anyone, so what we should be screaming for is better Offensive Line play. Flozell got worked against the eagles, the interior line looked bad at well. I don’t care who you are, if the defensive line is in your mug every throw you are going to make some bad throws.

I for one would rather have Bledsoe at the helm, with him you know exactly what you have, and regardless of what many of you guys think he is still a very good QB. I think that this team could be sitting at 4-0 and some of you would be complaining that we haven't put up 50 points every game.

Sheesh!!

Jon

By the way, SuperPunk, your sig rocks out loud!!

 

[Stautner]

Always happy to confirm a man's prejudices

That's a cute one - but you might try posts that are based in reality next time.

 

[superpunk]

Thanks MTRS...

The only thing I don't agree with in your post is that putting Romo in signifies the end of the road, or giving up. If we put him in now - at 2-2, when we could easily be better than that, without giving Bledsoe adequate time to prove that this guy we're seeing isn't the real Bledsoe, then you lose the team.

If he keeps it up, I think the team is confident enough in Romo that they would know the change is necessary, no matter how much they like Bledsoe - and they do. At that point, they're happy about the prospects Romo brings, and not resentful that Bledsoe wasn't given the proper shot.

Timing is everything.