Parcells - Romo

[EPL0c0]

I actually hope you are right Sultan, but my feeling is that if he really thought that Romo was "all that", this would have been the absolute time to make the switch. You have Bledsoe coming off a bad performance, you would have had Romo's first game at home against a very weak defense in the Texans, and his next game a home matchup against the Giants.

You couldn't ask for a better scenario IF YOU REALLY BELIEVE that he is THAT CLOSE to unseating Bledsoe. The only conclusion I'm left with is that Parcells doesn't really consider the two to be that close at the moment.

If this were another coach, would they have pulled the trigger on Bledsoe already, or is Bill just that unwilling to do anything negative to Bledsoe?

CowboyL0c0

 

[Portland Fanatic]

I have to wonder if BP has this deep fear that Bledsoe will retire if he makes the switch...leaving us with NO backup.

Gotta wonder...

 

[Stautner]

I have to wonder if BP has this deep fear that Bledsoe will retire if he makes the switch...leaving us with NO backup.

Gotta wonder...

There is already an entire thread devoted to this topic.

 

[5Stars]

I have to wonder if BP has this deep fear that Bledsoe will retire if he makes the switch...leaving us with NO backup.

Gotta wonder...

If Bledsoe were to do something like that, then he would be remembered as not being a team player for the rest of his life...that would really be an embarassing moment if he did something like that...

 

[rcaldw]

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

Nah, I think I'll post what I want if that is ok by you. And if you think all of the posts on this board represent reality, in fact, if you think all of YOUR posts represent reality, then.... well...what more can be said? I think I prefaced the first post of the thread with OPINION in all caps. As in, "not saying this is a FACT." As in, "this post is not based, necessarily, in reality."

Thus, all who respond to the post should know in advance that it is something thrown out for discussion. Which is what I enjoy about this discussion board. We have permission to do that.

We have a good mixture of breaking news, opinions, humor and debate. Makes it all fun. So, even though I think you got down to insult a little bit quickly, I still enjoyed our discussion and I hope we can be civil in our next one too.

 

[Stautner]

Nah, I think I'll post what I want if that is ok by you. And if you think all of the posts on this board represent reality, in fact, if you think all of YOUR posts represent reality, then.... well...what more can be said? I think I prefaced the first post of the thread with OPINION in all caps. As in, "not saying this is a FACT." As in, "this post is not based, necessarily, in reality."

Thus, all who respond to the post should know in advance that it is something thrown out for discussion. Which is what I enjoy about this discussion board. We have permission to do that.

We have a good mixture of breaking news, opinions, humor and debate. Makes it all fun. So, even though I think you got down to insult a little bit quickly, I still enjoyed our discussion and I hope we can be civil in our next one too.

Opinions can be based in reality you know .....

But you're right, it's an open forum, but I'm just too stubborn to not make a smart*** comment when someone treats hindsight knowledge as a basis for opinion about a past action ........

Come on, your opinion was that Parcells had an ulterior motive for playing Brunner, and your only basis for that opinion is that we know now, after the fact, with the benefit of hindsight, that Brunner wasn't a good QB - suggesting that Parcells must have known the same thing then that we all know now.

Are you really surprised that someone would call you on that?

 

[Jarv]

If Bledsoe were to do something like that, then he would be remembered as not being a team player for the rest of his life...that would really be an embarassing moment if he did something like that...

If he did that, he could kiss away any chance he may have had for a HOF consideration. I think that means a lot to guys who have played as long as he did.

 

[rcaldw]

Opinions can be based in reality you know .....

But you're right, it's an open forum, but I'm just too stubborn to not make a smart*** comment when someone treats hindsight knowledge as a basis for opinion about a past action ........

Come on, your opinion was that Parcells had an ulterior motive for playing Brunner, and your only basis for that opinion is that we know now, after the fact, with the benefit of hindsight, that Brunner wasn't a good QB - suggesting that Parcells must have known the same thing then that we all know now.

Are you really surprised that someone would call you on that?

Well, first the Brunner comment came in way after the original post. But, let me also say, that the only reason I offered Brunner up, along with Ray Lucas, is that at times Bill Parcells seems to go against conventional wisdom, and with a guy that isn't, shall we say, "pedigree"?

Simms comes to the Giants with a bit of a reputation, (1st round pick 79) Brunner has no reputation. (6th round pick 1980)

Look at Simms numbers in 1981
1981 nyg | 10 | 172 316 54.4 2031 6.4 11 9 | 19 42 0

Then he was out for 1982.

Look at Brunner's numbers in 1981-82

1981 nyg | 16 | 79 190 41.6 978 5.1 5 11 | 14 20 0 |
| 1982 nyg | 9 | 161 298 54.0 2017 6.8 10 9 | 19 27 1 |

There is nothing in those numbers that would have given Parcells the impression that Brunner was SUPERIOR to Simms.

This was HINDSIGHT for Bill Parcells in 1983.

So, he goes with Brunner. It so angered Simms that 6 weeks into the season he is asking for a trade, PUBLICLY. Parcells stays with Brunner.

The results?

Scott Brunner 1983
1983 nyg | 16 | 190 386 49.2 2516 6.5 9 22 | 26 64 0

And the rest is history.

So I guess my question is, what makes him lean toward a Brunner in that situation? And with that kind of performance in 1983, what makes you stay with him that long?

Now, I grant you, I DON'T KNOW what motivated Parcells, but I would simply say that my speculative observation isn't COMPLETELY outside the realm of reality.

PS. In 1982 Ray Perkins was the coach, 1983 was Parcell's first year. Simms was Perkins' QB.

 

[sf49rh8r]

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

He's smarter than everyone.....what was braindead was to mention Aikman and Simms in the same post. :bang2: :bang2:

 

[sf49rh8r]

He's smarter than everyone.....what was braindead was to mention Aikman and Simms in the same post. :bang2: :bang2:

And Elway and Marino weren't the same type of QB either.

 

[Ben_n_austin]

We should bring back the 'ol one look wonder ...





:laugh2:

 

[JMead]

I completely disagree...this is exactly what we have in Bledsoe. He will put up great numbers against below .500 teams and kill us against teams over .500 or teams with a good pass rush. His history more then proves this over and over again.

Maybe you should add " his teams history ". The QB isnt the one doing the blocking if you didnt notice.

Geez you cracktards are like broken records.