blindzebra;1348226 said:
Yeah, like nobody said a word to those questioning Parcells...total and complete BS.
We have several posters who do nothing but post negatively about anything Cowboys...they know who they are.
We have several more that go out of their way to take on anyone with a strong voice...you know who you are.
Now we have several posters who have almost no post counts, that have been members for quite some time, that have now become very vocal...I suspect they are trolls.
The first I have no clear way of knowing what motivates them, but it does seem unhealthy to be a fan of something that causes you so much pain.
The second have low self esteem and need to feel superior.
The third always come out of the woodwork when something major happens.
Being a long-time member with a low post count and an almost certain troll, I probably should withhold any comment. After all, any true Dallas Cowboys fan or follower surely can find the time to rack up a more impressive posting record, regardless of his circumstances. A low post count is undeniable evidence of a lack of football knowledge or Cowboys interest. The real test of the former is the ability to compare Norv Turner to Bill Belicheck. The latter: I'm still working on it.
I have never been particularly anti-Jerry Jones. I appreciate that the aggressive approach he took when he purchased the team helped to create a great Cowboys dynasty. I've certainly never been anti-Cowboys, having been a fan from the days of Gaechter, Green, Renfro and Bishop to the days of Williams, Watkins, Newman and Henry, but I thought Parcells' tenure in Dallas was more successful than some judged it. Fine. There is room in the world for more than one opinion.
Jason Garrett's hire, I thought, was premature, but I understood there were mitigating circumstances. My feeling was and remains that, if the idea is for him to develop into the coach of the Cowboys, the smartest thing to do was to go ahead and name him to the position. I think even the appearance that a "lame duck" coach might be in place, somehow training his own successor, is a mistake.
But I can't look at a decision to hire Turner as anything other than a clear move by Jones to reassert his total dominance in the franchise, and I think it's a bigger mistake. I could be dead wrong. But I have yet to see any compelling evidence to suggest that I should think otherwise. The fact is, Jones' determined dominance of the franchise helped to cause a major slide in Cowboys' fortunes, post-Jimmy Johnson. It wasn't the only contributing factor, but it was substantial.
Now it appears that Jones is returning to that path, and I truly hope that I am wrong. But I can't imagine a reason to turn over the coaching duties to a guy who has, under three separate owners, in two separate cities, had such a dismal track record. Familiarity seems to be the major argument for making such a move, and I take that as evidence that Jones is, once again, determined not to have a strong head coach.
If that opinion makes me a troll, so be it. If having a low post count makes me a dolt, I have to live with it. If having an opinion makes me borish, that's life.
If Norv Turner is hired as coach of the Cowboys, I will wish with whatever portion of my heart belongs to football that he enjoys tremendous success, that he has the opportunity, one day, to be compared favorably to Belicheck. I will cheer as vigorously for the Cowboys as I did when Landry was the coach, and Johnson, and Switzer, and Gailey, and Campo, and Parcells.
I think Turner is a good man and has a good offensive mind. Friends who know Norv speak fondly of him. I do not think he has proven to be a good head football coach, and I think the odds are low that he will turn it around in Dallas. I think it will be especially difficult if Jones, once again, is the dominant figure in the franchise, including in the on the field product.
I do not mean to demean anyone by having that opinion. It's just my opinion, low post count, long membership, trollish tendencies and all.
