We All Know BP Is Staying

[philo beddoe]

You keep saying that, but you never seem to offer anything to back it up... I hate to tell you this, but your credibility on this board is a long way from the point where your opinion is accepted without question, just because it comes from you...

Frankly, all you're doing is ranting because you're pissed off... however, there is an entertainment factor to your rants, it's always funny watching somebody rant on and on and on and on and on and... well, you get the picture...

How about I back it up with our 9-8 record? Two playoff losses in four years? We're spinning our wheels with Parcells. Open your eyes, man. We've gone nowhere.

 

[superpunk]

How about I back it up with our 9-8 record? Two playoff losses in four years? We're spinning our wheels with Parcells. Open your eyes, man. We've gone nowhere.

We haven't gotten where we want to go. That's alot different than "gone nowhere."

But, I hear that overexaggerating makes you look smart - so you might as well keep that going.

 

[silverbear]

I've been reading this board for some time and have not posted until recently and I don't think longevity and volume necessarily equals credibility.

No, it doesn't... it's the content of your posts that either gives you credibility among the regulars, or denies you that credibility...

Hey, I'm PO-ed about the season and results...aren't you?

Nope, mostly I'm just befuddled and a LITTLE depressed... if you're seriously still angry after all this time, I'm worried a little about your mental health...

Just because you don't want Bill gone that doesn't make you right and vice versa.

Having been a Cowboys fan for 46 years now, I have seen the benefits of being PATIENT with your coaches, and with your players... my arguments come from base... like I said, if we weren't PATIENT with Tom Landry, he wouldn't be in the Hall of Fame today, and the same is true for Troy Aikman... I could offer you any number of such examples; for example, if the Cowboys weren't PATIENT, they never would have drafted Roger Staubach...

As the great historian George Santayana once said, those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it... and history has shown us that the best, most reliable way to build a winner is to build a coaching staff that sticks around a while... conversely, changing coaches every year or two a la the Raiders is a recipe for freakin' disaster...

I can have an honest disagreement with you and I don't have to "back it up," nor do you.

Actually, if you're gonna enter into a football debate, and wish to "win" the argument, it is incumbent on you to back up your arguments with facts... as is the case with all debates, the one with the most facts almost always wins...

I'm not asking anything of you that I don't demand of yourself... that's precisely why I've developed this point/counterpoint style of arguing online, wherein I quote only the passage I'm debating at the moment, respond to it in full, then quote the next passage I consider up for debate... I find this is the most responsive way to engage a fellow poster in debate...

But like I said, you seemed to want to argue/debate with me, only you never really addressed any of the points I raised at all... of course, you can do that if you choose, but I then have the right to point out that you're being nonresponsive...

This is all a big of waste time, but when I read insults and quotes about "mediocre minds," I am reminded of the quote: "Blessed is the man, who having nothing to say, abstains from giving wordy evidence of the fact."

If you take that sig seriously, there's something wrong with you... I have had a number of sigs like that, all of them taken from bumper stickers that have cracked me up in the past... other sigs I've used included:

Don't sweat the petty things, pet the sweaty things...

I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy...

Those who think you know it all are truly annoying to those of us who do...

There are very few personal problems that cannot be solved by a suitable application of high explosives...

I liked the Einstein quote that I'm currently using because to me it sounds like a classy way of saying "it's hard to soar with the eagles when you're surrounded by turkeys"... IOW, because I found it FUNNY...

Oh, I'll sling insults when provoked, but because the mods in here want me to go easy on that kind of stuff (and they've been quite patient with me over the years), I do tend to wait until provocation rears its ugly head (in the form of insults from others, as when Philo called those who disagree with him "rock heads")...

 

[philo beddoe]

Oh yes, BP has been very impressive these last 4 years. LOL

 

[Billy Bullocks]

Any coach would have turned that roster over, so Parcells shouldn't get the credit for doing that. Look at the roster his second year, and see how much it has improved. Then check the third year. But don't be blinded by "potential" Simply analyze the roster based upon results.

That's really funny. Now I'm not hailing Parcells as the greatest coach in the league right now, in fact I disagree with alot of his gameday decisions, but that's an absurd statement.

Sure Parcells has had his draft day scrweups (Peterman, Jacobs, etc.), but at least he hit on some prospects. If anyone could have turned the roster over, please tell me why in the world the roster ever got to that point at all?

Chan Gailey got us to the playoffs, sure. But that was with Aikman, Emmitt, and alot of left overs from a team that was so good (the early 90's), that even when they started to age, they were still good enough for 10-6. The team progressive has gotten worse from the day that Jimmy Johnson left. Sure we won a SB with Switzer, but it's not like we were drafting that well. We just had enough talent built up to where you'd have to be an idiot to screw it up.

Please list the coaches who would have done so well? Besides the coaches in the Playoffs, most of the coaches have done jack.

If there's one thing you cannot fault BP for, it's setting up this organization for teh future. Weather or not they turn the corner with him, or at all is anotehr question. But let's not forget a few things here. We might finally have our QB of the future. RB may not be what it was in the Emmitt days, but at least we have a threat that isn't named Troy Hambrick (lol, Troy Hambrick and threat).

 

[silverbear]

Chan Gailey-

2 games above .500
2 playoff appearances
0 playoff wins
1 division title
0 losing seasons

Bill Parcells-

2 games above .500

2 playoff appearances
0 playoff wins
0 division titles
1 losing season

An entirely bogus comparison, given that Gailey took over a Super Bowl contender, while Parcells took over a team coming off three straight 5-11 seasons...

Well this team needs a coach where it doesn't take a month every offseason to decide if he's coming back...

Why?? Who's being hurt??

Jerry agreed to that stipulation in Parcells' contract, apparently HE doesn't see it as a big deal...

think about it, just what kind of message does that send the team? How are we to expect them to not quit when every season they don't know if their coach is going to quit too?

Uhhhh, the desire to have those big paydays continue?? You think those players are gonna get the same money on the open market if they get reps as quitters??

 

[silverbear]

BP apologist.

Knee-jerk BP hater...

But once again, your "rebuttal" is utterly lacking in substance...

 

[Hostile]

An entirely bogus comparison, given that Gailey took over a Super Bowl contender, while Parcells took over a team coming off three straight 5-11 seasons...

Gotta disagree with that. We were 6-10 in Barry's last year and nowhere near a Championship contender. Gailey was 10-6 in his first year.

 

[silverbear]

How about I back it up with our 9-8 record? Two playoff losses in four years? We're spinning our wheels with Parcells. Open your eyes, man. We've gone nowhere.

From 15-33 in the Campo era to 34-30 in the Parcells era...

Clearly, to say "we've gone nowhere" is nothing less than asinine...

 

[silverbear]

Oh yes, BP has been very impressive these last 4 years. LOL

Once again, you bring a lot of smoke, but no real heat...

Sorry, but a snarling, negative 'tude is not an adequate substitute for some FACTS...

 

[silverbear]

Gotta disagree with that. We were 6-10 in Barry's last year and nowhere near a Championship contender. Gailey was 10-6 in his first year.

And the nucleus of the team that won the Super Bowl the season before was still pretty much intact... that 6-10 record was largely the result of Switzer letting the inmates run the asylum, not an indication the Cowboys had suddenly fallen off the cliff (talent-wise)...

 

[Hostile]

And the nucleus of the team that won the Super Bowl the season before was still pretty much intact...

Yes, but they never were Championship caliber again. I just don't see them as anywhere close to a Super Bowl contender when Gailey took over.

 

[YosemiteSam]

How about I back it up with our 9-8 record? Two playoff losses in four years? We're spinning our wheels with Parcells. Open your eyes, man. We've gone nowhere.

Well, lets see Parcells is a proven coach. Has taken every team he has coached to the conference championship except the Cowboys. (3-4) He has drafted a lot of very good players and brought very good players to the Cowboys. Let me remind you what it was like before he arrived. When our #1 draft picks were drafting players like Kavika Pittman (was a #2, but our first pick), Shante Carver, Sherman Williams (also a #2, but our first pick), etc. We stopped giving away all of our #1 and actually started drafting players in the first round. Although they did do it in 2004 and ended up with Marcus Spears. There are only two players that were drafted close to the PJ Loseman pick that I *might* have taken over Spears. Stephen Jackson and Chris Snee. If I had to choose one, I would have taken Chris Snee. Running backs are a dime a dozen if you have a great offensive line.

 

[blindzebra]

Gailey inherited Emmitt Smith, Troy Aikman, Michael Irvin, Daryal Johnston, Herschel Walker, Larry Allen, Nate Newton, Mark Tuinei, Erik Williams, Tony Casillas, Leon Lett, Deion Sanders, Brock Marion, Darren Woodson, Tony Tolbert, Chad Hennings, and Bill Bates.

Gailey took a team with many superbowl players and won zero playoff games. His short career as an NFL head coach wasn't anything to write home about. He sank with the ship. He was 10-6 his first year and dropped to 8-8 his second and final year. (making him 4 games over 500 not 2) The best players he drafted were Greg Ellis (zero pro-bowls) and Flozell Adams. While Flozell did make the pro-bowl, he has in no way every proved to be a great player over time. He also drafted Dat Nguyen, but he was more a fan favorite than a great player.

He inherited a declining: Emmitt Smith, Troy Aikman, Michael Irvin, Daryal Johnston, Herschel Walker, Larry Allen, Nate Newton, Mark Tuinei, Erik Williams, Tony Casillas, Leon Lett, Deion Sanders, Brock Marion, Darren Woodson, Tony Tolbert, Chad Hennings, and Bill Bates.

We were a cap strapped team that couldn't add younger stars because our older ones had so much cap tied to them...hell AZ could have fielded their entire team from the salaries of Aikman, Emmitt, Irvin, Allen and Deion.

The comparison is still a valid one...Parcells is still producing at a level equal to one of the 3 stooges Jerry hired after Jimmy, and at one barely higher than another.

So go ahead and defend him when he's behind Switzer, tied with Gailey and just ahead of Campo...for a HOF coach that isn't like he's on a list with Landry, Lombardi and Knoll.

 

[silverbear]

Yes, but they never were Championship caliber again. I just don't see them as anywhere close to a Super Bowl contender when Gailey took over.

Well, we seem to be involved in a semantic debate here, so how 'bout I rephrase the argument??

Let's say instead that Gailey took over a much better, more talented team than Parcells took over when he came to Valley Ranch...

Will you meet me that far, Hos?? If so, then the rest of my argument stands as stated...

 

[stealth]

why did aikman hate gailey so much? I get the switzer thing but didn't aikman hate gailey too? or am I just making something up in my head.

 

[blindzebra]

An entirely bogus comparison, given that Gailey took over a Super Bowl contender, while Parcells took over a team coming off three straight 5-11 seasons...



Why?? Who's being hurt??

Jerry agreed to that stipulation in Parcells' contract, apparently HE doesn't see it as a big deal...



Uhhhh, the desire to have those big paydays continue?? You think those players are gonna get the same money on the open market if they get reps as quitters??

That's the best you can do?

Typical, the comparison is valid.

A coach is supposed to lead his team, the team usually follows the personality of their coach...you follow sports at all or do you just play internet tough guy?

 

[Billy Bullocks]

Yes, but they never were Championship caliber again. I just don't see them as anywhere close to a Super Bowl contender when Gailey took over.

I agree they weren't nessecarily SB caliber, but Gailey had alot of pieces in place when he stepped in. BP came in here with Carter and Hutchinson as his QB's. Aikman in '97ish was still good. You still had Irvin. Emmitt wasn't nessecarily as good as he once was, but you still had a guy who was giving you 1200+ yards and 10+ TD's.

And I give Switzer credit for winning that SB, but let's not kid ourselves. He was outcoached alot of the time.

I don't make any excuses about why we lost our last game of the season this year and last, but if you look at it. We really should have gone 10-6 both years.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Gotta disagree with that. We were 6-10 in Barry's last year and nowhere near a Championship contender. Gailey was 10-6 in his first year.

I see it like this. Both coaches stunk as head coaches. Many times when a new head coach comes in (from outside the org) the teams tend to play harder and that could have been the reason for the 10-6 season. Ala, Parcells first year after the team had 3 straight 5-11 seasons.

Parcells is a proven NFL head coach, Gailey, Switzer, and Campo were not. It doesn't mean that Gailey can't be as he didn't exacly have free reign here in Dallas. And Mr. Jones kept trading away all of Dallas first round draft picks.

 

[silverbear]

That's the best you can do?

Yeah, I've always found the truth is a real effective weapon in these debates...

Typical, the comparison is valid.

No, it isn't... Gailey took over a better team, naturally he'd have more success early in his tenure...

you follow sports at all or do you just play internet tough guy?

I'll bet I'm the only one in this argument who ever got PAID for his athletic ability...

FWIW, I'm not "playing tough guy", I pretty much am one... got the scars to prove it, too... LOL...

I know lots of people come online and pretend to be something they're not, but those folks tend to be disappointed with who they really are, so they NEED to engage in self-aggrandizement... but me, I like who I am just fine, and don't feel the need to pretend to be anything I'm not...

In real life as on the internet, if I'm approached with civility and respect, I give civility and respect back... but I do not suffer fools gladly, never have, never will...

And you're pretty much stuck with that...