What has Parcells done?

[Stautner]

Well let's see

Best receiving corps since Irvin and Harper

Best QB since Aikman

Best Corners since Sanders and Smith

Best LBers since the SB years

Best pair of running backs (the key word being pair) since Walker and Dorsett in 1986

Four solid drafts in a row

Now maybe you would prefer the three straight 5-11 seasons under Campo. I know I don't.

Good post. While I understand the disappointment that we aren't playing like we hope to play, it isn't very hard to see the improvements made since Parcells arrived.

 

[kartr]

Some people may have "loved him when he came", but there are a minority here who knew what we were getting when Jones signed the drama queen.

He's always had a problem with QBs because he can't stand that someone else may get the credit and love when things go right. Plus he can always find someone else to blame when things go wrong.

I think you may be right. In 2003, all the credit for that season was given to Parcell's for making Q Carter play better and making the defense number 1, but most of the defensive players were already here and Carter went on to help the Jets make the playoffs the following year. Testeverde couldn't get the Jets to the playoffs in 2003 or 2005 when Pennington went down or help us get to the playoffs in 2004, yet Carter helped us get to the playoffs in 2003 and the Jets in 2004 and Bledsoe hasn't gotten a team to the playoffs since '98, with or without the Cowboys. From that, I surmise, that Q Carter was the one constant in both the Jets and Cowboys getting to the playoffs of late, not Parcells, maybe that's why Parcells hated to let him go, and maybe that's why Parcells chose to come to Dallas instead Detroit with 1st round qb,Harrington or the 9'ers with pro bowl qb,Garcia. Think about it, he called up Jerry to ask him about coming here. Any of a dozen gm's would have gladly fired their head coaches at thought of getting Parcell's as their head coach. What was the attraction here?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Delhomme is mediocre without Steve Smith. We should have traded Galloway for Smith.

What do you think he would be with Owens, Glenn and Witten?

 

[burmafrd]

We are LIGHT YEARS ahead of where we were in January of 2003. Look down the roster and we are better in probably 12-16 positions as regards starters. Our depth on the D line and at LB is superb. The Best secondary since the SByears (despite sunday). Better WR and TE since the SB years. Despite yesterday a much better QB then Q or Hutch or Leaf or- you get the point.
Now it is arguable at a couple of positions like guard if the Kosier of today is better then the LA of 2003; and of course Woody was a much better FS. But show me other then there where the starter in the last game of 2003 is as good as the starter in 2006. (the hotel and Roy are exempt of course).

 

[burmafrd]

kartr, will you please dry up and blow away. Only a complete moron would give Q any credit for the Jets playoff year. AND YOU DO REMEMBER THAT HE QUIT on them in the end?

 

[StanleySpadowski]

Well let's see

Best receiving corps since Irvin and Harper

Best QB since Aikman

Best Corners since Sanders and Smith

Best LBers since the SB years

Best pair of running backs (the key word being pair) since Walker and Dorsett in 1986

Four solid drafts in a row

Now maybe you would prefer the three straight 5-11 seasons under Campo. I know I don't.

Saying that Bledsoe is the best QB since Aikman is like saying she's the prettiest girl in Canada. May sound nice but not much to brag about. Besides, comparing QB ratings, it's not so clear cut that Bledsoe's any better than Carter or Testaverde despite having superior talent around him.


Dallas' drafts since he's been here haven't been that great either. A little luck has kept them from being pisspoor. If the Jets would have passed on Robertson in '02, we wouldn't have Newman and remember Detroit took Kevin Jones before Dallas could move back up after him.

 

[kartr]

I have to disagree. Vinny was brought in to start. I thought so as soon as he was signed. Quincy was not the answer at QB and Bill thought his old timer could hold the fort while he developed a young guy on the side. He was wrong. That is why Vinny is no longer around. If Vinny was such a great back up, he would have stuck around in Dallas as the back up.

Actually, you're right about Vinny being brought in here to start, but wrong about Quincy not being the answer, cause Bill has had a losing record without him and Quincy won 2 thirds of starts with the Jets and probably should have been 3-0 if not for Paul Hacketts screwup. Q also finished that year with a 98 qb rating. Since he left here, this is the 3rd consecutive year that there's been a qb controversy, so that's not an improvement. We had stability with BP and Q together and BP knew right away Jerry's insane championing of Chad Hutchinson was a mistake cause the guy just couldn't play. That's why when asked if he were surprised that both Q and Hutch were out of the league, he said, yes and no. He meant yes that Carter wasn't on a roster and no he wasn't surprised about Hutch.

 

[peplaw06]

I think you may be right. In 2003, all the credit for that season was given to Parcell's for making Q Carter play better and making the defense number 1, but most of the defensive players were already here and Carter went on to help the Jets make the playoffs the following year. Testeverde couldn't get the Jets to the playoffs in 2003 or 2005 when Pennington went down or help us get to the playoffs in 2004, yet Carter helped us get to the playoffs in 2003 and the Jets in 2004 and Bledsoe hasn't gotten a team to the playoffs since '98, with or without the Cowboys. From that, I surmise, that Q Carter was the one constant in both the Jets and Cowboys getting to the playoffs of late, not Parcells, maybe that's why Parcells hated to let him go, and maybe that's why Parcells chose to come to Dallas instead Detroit with 1st round qb,Harrington or the 9'ers with pro bowl qb,Garcia. Think about it, he called up Jerry to ask him about coming here. Any of a dozen gm's would have gladly fired their head coaches at thought of getting Parcell's as their head coach. What was the attraction here?

You my friend, are . Q Car the constant between the playoff runs?? Q Car the reason that the 2004 Jets made the playoffs?? Don't make me laugh.

Carter was the backup for the 2004 Jets. Chad Pennington led the Jets to a 6-1 start. In the 8th game he got hurt in the second half. Carter comes in and in the 4 games he played in before Pennington came back they were 2-2 with wins over the vaunted Browns and Cardinals by the scores of 10-7 and 13-3 respectively. Pennington comes back and the Jets go 2-3 in the last 5, and make the playoffs with a 10-6 record.

And QCar was the reason? Your man love for all things Quincy is downright ridiculous.

The Cowboys made the playoffs in 2003 because they had the number 1 defense and Bill made sure Quincy didn't blow it like he blew his career.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Saying that Bledsoe is the best QB since Aikman is like saying she's the prettiest girl in Canada. May sound nice but not much to brag about. Besides, comparing QB ratings, it's not so clear cut that Bledsoe's any better than Carter or Testaverde despite having superior talent around him.


Dallas' drafts since he's been here haven't been that great either. A little luck has kept them from being pisspoor. If the Jets would have passed on Robertson in '02, we wouldn't have Newman and remember Detroit took Kevin Jones before Dallas could move back up after him.

You know there is an old saying about the word "if".

BTW, what is your problem with Canada, you never pass up a chance to take a shot at us.

 

[Jarv]

And QCar was the reason? Your man love for all things Quincy is downright ridiculous.

The Cowboys made the playoffs in 2003 because they had the number 1 defense and Bill made sure Quincy didn't blow it like he blew his career.

Wish he would just do the same with Bledsoe.

 

[Stautner]

Saying that Bledsoe is the best QB since Aikman is like saying she's the prettiest girl in Canada. May sound nice but not much to brag about. Besides, comparing QB ratings, it's not so clear cut that Bledsoe's any better than Carter or Testaverde despite having superior talent around him.


Dallas' drafts since he's been here haven't been that great either. A little luck has kept them from being pisspoor. If the Jets would have passed on Robertson in '02, we wouldn't have Newman and remember Detroit took Kevin Jones before Dallas could move back up after him.

Robertson, jones ..... huh?

A good draft is a good draft - it doesn't become a bad draft based on "what if's".

Now, look at the drafts before and after Parcells came - see if you can't tell a difference.

The thing I think guys like you would benefit from is looking at everyone's draft over several years - you would learn that nobody is hitting home runs with all there picks and that it is VERY rare for a single team to string together multiple years where the majority of picks become contributors.

 

[Maikeru-sama]

The Cowboys made the playoffs in 2003 because they had the number 1 defense and Bill made sure Quincy didn't blow it like he blew his career.

The Quarterback at least deserves some credit when the team has a decent year and that year, based on the talent and the expectations, that was a pretty good year.

If you are going to rip Quincy a new one for being utterly miserable when the team didnt do well, you kind of have to give him some credit for winning.

The funny thing about it is, our defense is head and shoulders better then it was in 2003. So why cant "Bill" make sure Bledsoe doesn't blow it and get us into the Postseason?

- Mike G.

 

[SultanOfSix]

Saying that Bledsoe is the best QB since Aikman is like saying she's the prettiest girl in Canada.

I don't know man...I think you used a bad analogy because Canada has some pretty girls, including one who used to be in my sig.

 

[Maikeru-sama]

Dallas' drafts since he's been here haven't been that great either. A little luck has kept them from being pisspoor. If the Jets would have passed on Robertson in '02, we wouldn't have Newman and remember Detroit took Kevin Jones before Dallas could move back up after him.

Really?

Bill's draft have been exceptional because he is able to find talent in the late rounds.

If Bill Parcells ever leaves the Cowboys, (wont happen) I would love for the Cowboys to have him as a consultant during the drafts (except for OLs).

- Mike G.

 

[Alexander]

If you are going to bash Parcells at least use rational arguments.

Assuming that he could have signed anyone he wanted to at any time is irrational.

Who says Vinatieri, Hutchingson, Wahle etc. were even all that interested in Dallas. And at least in the case of the kicker the price tag would have been higher - or don't you think money is an object?

Treating the Testeverde signing as Parcells "experiment" is irrational.

Testeverde was never signed to be "THE MAN" - he was signed as insurance in case Quincy bombed - which he did. He was never meant to be anything more than a back-up plan.

Saying we shouldn't have gone after TO because WR wasn't a problem, then turning around and saying we screwed up by not drafting a WR is irrational.

Make up your mind.

Saying we screwed up by not drafting a QB is irrational.

This could prove to be true, but it isn't a worthy comment until we see how Romo works out.

Saying we should have drafted some unknown "someone" who could be active on game day rather than Carpenter is irrational.

No one throws perfect games on draft day - a LOT of much higher picks than Carpenter don't pan out, and that happens with every team. Besides, it's 4 games into his rookie year - rational minds understand that sometimes players take time to develop.

All your hindsight "I told you so's" are irrational.
Emmit had a huge salary and little production - using this hindsight arrogance about how you knew Hambrick wouldn't work out is bogus - it's not even the point of why Emmitt was let go.

Same for Eddie George - you are missing the point. He was never signed to be our stud and carry the team, he was signed as another RB with the hope that there was some chance of him returning to form.

Contrary to your apparent belief, Ladanian Tomlinsons don't grow on trees.


BOTTOM LINE: Obviously we aren't where we hoped we would be, but obviously we are much better than the team Parcell's inherited that had gone 5-11 for THREE straight seasons. I can understand dissatisfaction, but the hostility and the manufactured reasoning is laughable.

 

[Stautner]

The Quarterback at least deserves some credit when the team has a decent year and that year, based on the talent and the expectations, that was a pretty good year.

If you are going to rip Quincy a new one for being utterly miserable when the team didnt do well, you kind of have to give him some credit for winning.

The funny thing about it is, our defense is head and shoulders better then it was in 2003. So why cant "Bill" make sure Bledsoe doesn't blow it and get us into the Postseason?

- Mike G.

Here we go again - blind fans not understanding something as simple as the difference between potential and production.

I'll try to explain it in simple terms.

This defense is NOT head and shoulders above 2003 because this defense hasn't proved anything yet. In fact, it's well behind the 2003 defense.

The thing you fail to realize is that so far this defense appears to have great potential with a lot of guys who seem to have great talent, but to date it hasn't resulted in the same production as 2003.

The production is what counts, not the potential. Actual production beats the hell out of all the potential in the world every time.

The reality is that the 2003 defense performed above and beyond it's supposedly moderate potential and became the Number 1 defense. Until this defense lives up to it's potential then it can't be discussed in the same breath as 2003.

 

[Alexander]

Here we go again - blind fans not understanding something as simple as the difference between potential and production.

I'll try to explain it in simple terms.

This defense is NOT head and shoulders above 2003 because this defense hasn't proved anything yet. In fact, it's well behind the 2003 defense.

The thing you fail to realize is that so far this defense appears to have great potential with a lot of guys who seem to have great talent, but to date it hasn't resulted in the same production as 2003.

The production is what counts, not the potential. Actual production beats the hell out of all the potential in the world every time.

The reality is that the 2003 defense performed above and beyond it's supposedly moderate potential and became the Number 1 defense. Until this defense lives up to it's potential then it can't be discussed in the same breath as 2003.

The defense's production against Philadelphia is what I found the most unnerving. It was our first true test and we failed to achieve a passing grade. I appreciate the fact the offense put them in a ten point hole, but we surrendered deep throws to a team on play action when we had no business biting on a run fake. It just seemed like a poor defensive plan overall, and even worse execution.

 

[Maikeru-sama]

Here we go again - blind fans not understanding something as simple as the difference between potential and production.

I'll try to explain it in simple terms.

This defense is NOT head and shoulders above 2003 because this defense hasn't proved anything yet. In fact, it's well behind the 2003 defense.

The thing you fail to realize is that so far this defense appears to have great potential with a lot of guys who seem to have great talent, but to date it hasn't resulted in the same production as 2003.

The production is what counts, not the potential. Actual production beats the hell out of all the potential in the world every time.

The reality is that the 2003 defense performed above and beyond it's supposedly moderate potential and became the Number 1 defense. Until this defense lives up to it's potential then it can't be discussed in the same breath as 2003.

This whole Nostalgia thing with the 2003 Defense kills me.

The 2003 Cowboys Defense was the number 1 defense overall, but I dont think anyone felt they were "really" the best defense in the entire NFL.

It has only been 4 Freakin games into the Season and the 2006 Cowboys Defense is behind the 2003 defense?

Let me try to explain this as simple as I can.


The 2003 Cowboys opened up against a Vickless Falcons team, eventual 4-12 Giants team in which they surrendered 32 points, and eventual 6-10 Jets team, The Cardinals (do I need to say anything), and Eagles (who won the East), Lions? Tampa Bay (7-9).

The 2003 Cowboys benefited from a very Cush and Easy Schedule and gave up 30+ points twice in a season and almost that much in our Playoff Blowout. The 7 out of the first 8 opponents the 2003 Cowboys played didnt even make the playoffs and only 3 out of 16 of the 2003 opponents even made the playoffs (You can count Miami I guess, they were 10-6 but the AFC was strong and you saw what happened on TG).

The 2006 Cowboys have played 2 teams that will probably make the Playoffs (Jags would if they were in the NFC) and still may in the AFC.

2003 > 2006 and I am a blind fan Man please...

The only thing that was better about the 2003 Defense is the philosophy. Zimmer (or Parcells depending on who you want to believe) was extremely aggressive that year even though we had inexperience in the secondary.

- Mike G.

 

[Stautner]

This whole Nostalgia thing with the 2003 Defense kills me.

The 2003 Cowboys Defense was the number 1 defense overall, but I dont think anyone felt they were "really" the best defense in the entire NFL.

It has only been 4 Freakin games into the Season and the 2006 Cowboys Defense is behind the 2003 defense?

Let me try to explain this as simple as I can.


The 2003 Cowboys opened up against a Vickless Falcons team, eventual 4-12 Giants team in which they surrendered 32 points, and eventual 6-10 Jets team, The Cardinals (do I need to say anything), and Eagles (who won the East), Lions? Tampa Bay (7-9).

The 2003 Cowboys benefited from a very Cush and Easy Schedule and gave up 30+ points twice in a season and almost that much in our Playoff Blowout. The 7 out of the first 8 opponents the 2003 Cowboys played didnt even make the playoffs and only 3 out of 16 of the 2003 opponents even made the playoffs (You can count Miami I guess, they were 10-6 but the AFC was strong and you saw what happened on TG).

The 2006 Cowboys have played 2 teams that will probably make the Playoffs (Jags would if they were in the NFC) and still may in the AFC.

2003 > 2006 and I am a blind fan Man please...

The only thing that was better about the 2003 Defense is the philosophy. Zimmer (or Parcells depending on who you want to believe) was extremely aggressive that year even though we had inexperience in the secondary.

- Mike G.

Frankly, I am not nostalgic for the 2003 defense at all - I personally think it was a fluke that we performed that well.

But that's not the point - or actually it is the point. We performed. It doesn't matter that the talent wasn't really that strong, and it doesn't matter that no one believed we would do that well. All that matters is that we did.

Like I said, performance is what counts, not potential.

 

[Maikeru-sama]

Frankly, I am not nostalgic for the 2003 defense at all - I personally think it was a fluke that we performed that well.

But that's not the point - or actually it is the point. We performed. It doesn't matter that the talent wasn't really that strong, and it doesn't matter that no one believed we would do that well. All that matters is that we did.

Like I said, performance is what counts, not potential.

Agreed.

You put the 2003 Defensive Philosophy with the 2006 Defensive Players and I think we are as good as the Bears. Some may say that is crazy, but I think that 2003 Aggresiveness really scared alot of teams. That defense, in particular, the games before the NE Game on ESPN (which I think after that game we stop being aggressive) was hell on wheels and would send the house on any given down.

For now, the 3-4 version is stuck with "read and reactive" very passive styles.

- Mike G.