Image: Pollack wasn't too happy with Randle

[GimmeTheBall!]

you are easily entertained. I bet you would bust a gut watching me chat up the chicks at the feed store or following around the meter maids in Grand Prairie (chickworld).

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

you are easily entertained. I bet you would bust a gut watching me chat up the chicks at the feed store or following around the meter maids in Grand Prairie (chickworld).

I feel like there is a SitCom somewhere in here.......

;-)

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

"All things are subject to interpretation, whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth"
- Friedrich Nietzsche

Yeah he always copied what I say. but he was not all that when we competed at the poetry and philosophy Slams in Ypres. He was known as Freddy the Flea and I was Gimme the Klugesman.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

I feel like there is a SitCom somewhere in here.......

;-)

Reality show with Gimme!

 

[Hoov]

i know your not trying to start an argument or point something out

heres the best article that says but doesnt say. Obviously we went from pass happy to keeping the ball on teh ground.

http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/...scott-linehan-to-offensive-coordinator-011515

will the organization come out and say it, no, But after Linehans hiring, using the same RB, and we produce that. Yes that hiring was not based just on Callahan. I wouldnt say 100 percent against Garrett, but all the moves we keep making is to take away anotehr excuse to throw at Garrett. Do i believe Linehan was the best we could have gotten, clearly not. Was it based soley on the detriot, dallas game, just because Linehan ripped us, no. Is it because Garrett and Linehan are buddies. possibly, is it because of the run game. Well for the stat guys, the stats wil do the talking.

That article says nothing at all about pass happy or run happy offense and says nothing at all about Garrett philospohy or about Linehan philospohy - just that garrett had enough confidence in linehan to let him call the plays without trying to override him and that with callhan that was not the case. Oh well. You are correct that i could care less about proving a point or getting into a debate, just not interested in that and its been done already quite a bit regrading pass happy Garrett - and i have complianed about the lack of running myself in the past - I just thought new information may have come out that I missed.

What Garrett or linehan wants to or doesnt want to do as far as run - pass, i dont think any one really knows for sure. It makes sense that the coaches would go with what they think is the strength of the team - but I am starting to wonder if the commitment to the run last year wasnt more about Tony's back and keeping the defense rested and less about an offensive philosophy to run more because either of them beleive in it. I just dont know. And now with Romo out and the defense depleted they are trying to run more - just not very successful. But if the defense gets going and Romo comes back i would not be suprised at all to see a very pass happy team. Linehan was a pretty pass happy guy in Detroit.

About Linehan - Romo seems to really like him so that is a plus, and weeden played well last week despite missing weapons in the passing game and having a subpar run game so that may say something about Linehan as well. Also I see that the Detroit offense has not played well after he left. So maybe he is a very good O coordinator.

 

[ShiningStar]

Wanting to win and being smart aren't necessarily related. Carelessness with the ball is going to get you in trouble with the coaches, and no, that's not something we yell at coaches for coming down on. Not sure what your argument is here. It was a careless play on Randle's part that happened to work out once. He keeps it up, and he won't be on the field, and rightfully so.

and not being careless is not going o stop the players from trying to strip away, as i stated early, you can do everything you are told, you can do everything you learned, sometimes, rarely, but sometimes, go with your gut. It worked. Had he done everyting and the ball was stripped, thats the game too. IM not saying he has to do it all teh time, im not advocating it, but sometimes take the chance. there was NOTHING wrong his play.

 

[ShiningStar]

That article says nothing at all about pass happy or run happy offense and says nothing at all about Garrett philospohy or about Linehan philospohy - just that garrett had enough confidence in linehan to let him call the plays without trying to override him and that with callhan that was not the case. Oh well. You are correct that i could care less about proving a point or getting into a debate, just not interested in that and its been done already quite a bit regrading pass happy Garrett - and i have complianed about the lack of running myself in the past - I just thought new information may have come out that I missed.

What Garrett or linehan wants to or doesnt want to do as far as run - pass, i dont think any one really knows for sure. It makes sense that the coaches would go with what they think is the strength of the team - but I am starting to wonder if the commitment to the run last year wasnt more about Tony's back and keeping the defense rested and less about an offensive philosophy to run more because either of them beleive in it. I just dont know. And now with Romo out and the defense depleted they are trying to run more - just not very successful. But if the defense gets going and Romo comes back i would not be suprised at all to see a very pass happy team. Linehan was a pretty pass happy guy in Detroit.

About Linehan - Romo seems to really like him so that is a plus, and weeden played well last week despite missing weapons in the passing game and having a subpar run game so that may say something about Linehan as well. Also I see that the Detroit offense has not played well after he left. So maybe he is a very good O coordinator.

it was more about taking teh same RB that garrett had, committing to the run and getting that result. It worked. If you are a stats guy, the stats are there. You are a thinker like me. All i know in my heart of hearts if Garrett believed in the run, there is no room for Linehan. The article does say Garrett was out of the equation, whether he did that himself or not, it worked. The one thing Garrett couldnt do was commit to the run. The orgaziation is not goign to say it, but i feel we all saw what happened.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Reality show with Gimme!

Exactly. I picture it to be a cross between How I Met Your Mother and Sanford and Son (SitCome, not Reality).

 

[ShiningStar]

The coaches are the ones that are irked and yes, they actually are the coaches.

The concept that it worked so it's OK to disregard the coaches orders is the dumbest concept I've seen on this board.

get a brain cell, im not putting all words and thoughts to each post, thats why they are posts. do i advocate every player not listen to the coach, no, do i need to spell out everything i feel in each post, no, but nothing is working for this team. And all we get is a shrug of shoulders and "its injuries" BS. if a player takes a gamble for the TD and get it, just be happy. You can do everything you are told and still lose the ball. IT happens, you are not winning every play. Sometimes Randle does stupid stuff, i mentioned this in another post, (NOT in every post) our coaches decided to go with Randle, this is what you live with. Farve was a gunslinger, albeit he got away with it because he was very good at it. Did the packers complain about it or rode with it? They rode with it. It happens.

Emmit Smith wasnt the fastest RB ever, but hes one of the best. It happens. you ride with what you gamble with. Randle is nto the smartest he made a gamble and it paid off. He goes to Vegas, Emmit ran a clinic, two different rbs.

 

[Idgit]

and not being careless is not going o stop the players from trying to strip away, as i stated early, you can do everything you are told, you can do everything you learned, sometimes, rarely, but sometimes, go with your gut. It worked. Had he done everyting and the ball was stripped, thats the game too. IM not saying he has to do it all teh time, im not advocating it, but sometimes take the chance. there was NOTHING wrong his play.

What's that got to do with anything? You protect the ball *because* players are going to try to strip it anyway.

And, no, don't go with your gut when your gut is stupid. Or when it's telling you to take a risk your coaches don't want you to take. The result is not what matters, and the ends do not justify the means in this case. Teams win football games by avoiding bad plays.

And, yes, there was something wrong with the play. That's why he got yelled at by his coaches, and it's why he might be in jeopardy of losing his shot at the starting job and, maybe, a lucrative second contract as a result.

And Randle was my guy coming into the season, for the record. I thought he had the best shot of the backs on the roster of being productive in the ZBS. But not taking sufficient care of the football is one strike for me. Not listening to his coaches is strike two. Since this isn't baseball and he's not enough better than the players behind him, that gets you a demotion in my book. Let him earn his reps back the hard way, or not.

These games without Romo are too tough to win on the road without your RB turning the ball over in a situation where you're almost guaranteed to score. The fact that he broke the plane before losing it means, literally, nothing to me.

 

[BAT]

get a brain cell, im not putting all words and thoughts to each post, thats why they are posts. do i advocate every player not listen to the coach, no, do i need to spell out everything i feel in each post, no, but nothing is working for this team. And all we get is a shrug of shoulders and "its injuries" BS. if a player takes a gamble for the TD and get it, just be happy. You can do everything you are told and still lose the ball. IT happens, you are not winning every play. Sometimes Randle does stupid stuff, i mentioned this in another post, (NOT in every post) our coaches decided to go with Randle, this is what you live with. Farve was a gunslinger, albeit he got away with it because he was very good at it. Did the packers complain about it or rode with it? They rode with it. It happens.

Emmit Smith wasnt the fastest RB ever, but hes one of the best. It happens. you ride with what you gamble with. Randle is nto the smartest he made a gamble and it paid off. He goes to Vegas, Emmit ran a clinic, two different rbs.

Putting Randle in same sentence with Emmitt is insane. Emmitt was no gamble.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

Exactly. I picture it to be a cross between How I Met Your Mother and Sanford and Son (SitCome, not Reality).

OK but i want artistic control and a buffet in the dressing room ever nite.

 

[ShiningStar]

Putting Randle in same sentence with Emmitt is insane. Emmitt was no gamble.

dear lords, now i have to consider who i put in my posts as well as explain each post with detailed percison on my take.

 

[ShiningStar]

What's that got to do with anything? You protect the ball *because* players are going to try to strip it anyway.

And, no, don't go with your gut when your gut is stupid. Or when it's telling you to take a risk your coaches don't want you to take. The result is not what matters, and the ends do not justify the means in this case. Teams win football games by avoiding bad plays.

And, yes, there was something wrong with the play. That's why he got yelled at by his coaches, and it's why he might be in jeopardy of losing his shot at the starting job and, maybe, a lucrative second contract as a result.

And Randle was my guy coming into the season, for the record. I thought he had the best shot of the backs on the roster of being productive in the ZBS. But not taking sufficient care of the football is one strike for me. Not listening to his coaches is strike two. Since this isn't baseball and he's not enough better than the players behind him, that gets you a demotion in my book. Let him earn his reps back the hard way, or not.

These games without Romo are too tough to win on the road without your RB turning the ball over in a situation where you're almost guaranteed to score. The fact that he broke the plane before losing it means, literally, nothing to me.

ill believe all this when i see you on the sideline giving back a td. Other than that, its nice malarkly, but thats all it is. the guy got a td, stop being pissed about it.

 

[BAT]

dear lords, now i have to consider who i put in my posts as well as explain each post with detailed percison on my take.

That happens when you talk out of your ace, your message may get obscured by the splatter of fecal matter. Defending Randle's insubordination and decision making is not just a slippery slope, it's a vertical drop off.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

OK but i want artistic control and a buffet in the dressing room ever nite.

You would have to have Artistic Control just to make everybody understand the lines. The Buffet could look like this:

 

[Idgit]

ill believe all this when i see you on the sideline giving back a td. Other than that, its nice malarkly, but thats all it is. the guy got a td, stop being pissed about it.

Fortunately for me, the hurdle for what's malarky and what's not doesn't happen to be what you find believable.

And the fact that I wouldn't give back a dangerous and improbable score doesn't make it any more dangerous or improbable. If I were coach and my RB told me that doing the opposite of what we'd repeatedly told him to do 'was still 6 points,' my answer would be 'yes, and that's still a bench. Put in McFadden.'

 

[CowboyStar88]

Fortunately for me, the hurdle for what's malarky and what's not doesn't happen to be what you find believable.

And the fact that I wouldn't give back a dangerous and improbable score doesn't make it any more dangerous or improbable. If I were coach and my RB told me that doing the opposite of what we'd repeatedly told him to do 'was still 6 points,' my answer would be 'yes, and that's still a bench. Put in McFadden.'

Thank god for the ignore feature! My head is spinning from the spin job on the defense of this play. It's simply mind blowing. The guy directly ignored the coaches and argued back! He had the nerve with this snotty remark "6 points" to the media. I know I'm not the only person who sees this guy for his bad attitude and me first plays. I mean lets not forget his bad mouthing of Dez after he got busted for stealing.

 

[Idgit]

Thank god for the ignore feature! My head is spinning from the spin job on the defense of this play. It's simply mind blowing. The guy directly ignored the coaches and argued back! He had the nerve with this snotty remark "6 points" to the media. I know I'm not the only person who sees this guy for his bad attitude and me first plays. I mean lets not forget his bad mouthing of Dez after he got busted for stealing.

This is a guy they've already had a lot of patience with. These things do add up.

He's got some ability, though, which is why they're giving him a chance. You know the media will ask him about it this week, so we'll probably get to hear him explain himself. That'll tell us a lot, too, whatever he says.

 

[ShiningStar]

Fortunately for me, the hurdle for what's malarky and what's not doesn't happen to be what you find believable.

And the fact that I wouldn't give back a dangerous and improbable score doesn't make it any more dangerous or improbable. If I were coach and my RB told me that doing the opposite of what we'd repeatedly told him to do 'was still 6 points,' my answer would be 'yes, and that's still a bench. Put in McFadden.'

i ll believe it when i see it.