Wow, we got a lot of good young players...

[Apollo Creed]

This just goes to show that BP can really develop players, hes a master psychologist, and that list of players goes to show how special he is as a coach. If those guys were on the Browns about half of them would've made the squad and contributed.

 

[Chuck 54]

Unfortunately, Parcells and the scouting department have been more successful on day 2 of the draft than on day 1.

Imagine the talent we'd have if they'd hit on more of their day 1 picks where the players are expected to become starters if not stars....

Oh well, you can't have everything.

 

[DipChit]

It's all well and good but it doesnt mean much. It only means something if they're good enough to help get us to a championship. Because the teams that do win championships have their own lists of guys like that.

It's like when talking about how a rookie class must be good if X number of them made the roster and/or are starting. That doesnt prove anything.. a team is in their own control of that.. than can keep and play as many of them as they want.

 

[dogunwo]

Great stuff.

I think you could add Columbo to that list.

While he was drafted in the first round by the Bears we grabbed him off the scrap heap and the guy is getting better every friggin game.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

 

[Stautner]

Some of you guys are WAY overanalyzing this.

All the article said was that Parcells has had success with undrafted FA's and late draft picks. It didn't claim Parcells was the ONLY coach that has done that or that the players are superstars or that they will lead us to a Super Bowl championship. The point was only that Parcells has done a nice job in that regard - period.

 

[the kid 05]

These guys are good role players but do not fit the mold of superstar. They're names wouldn't be mentioned w/out the high impact players. Who would know them if they played for say Cleveland or Tennessee?

you can have all the super stars in the world, but if they dont play the gamelike the greats, then i dont want them, i want people on the team like romo, have confidence and believe in their selfs

 

[DipChit]

Some of you guys are WAY overanalyzing this.

All the article said was that Parcells has had success with undrafted FA's and late draft picks. It didn't claim Parcells was the ONLY coach that has done that or that the players are superstars or that they will lead us to a Super Bowl championship. The point was only that Parcells has done a nice job in that regard - period.

I suppose.

But I also suppose one could argue that a nice job was done with that before he even got here or theres no possible chance that his best W-L record would've occured in his very first year.

 

[Stautner]

I suppose.

But I also suppose one could argue that a nice job was done with that before he even got here or theres no possible chance that his best W-L record would've occured in his very first year.

You still don't have a point, because the article wasn't trying to say we didn't do a good job of drafting in the late rounds or bringing in undrafted FA's before Parcells, it was only saying Parcells has done a good job since he's been here.

Once again this is overanalyzing and trying to dispute the article based on something the article didn't say or suggest.

Even so, one could only make the argument you mention if they went back and looked at the players from that team. That isn't something you can just assume.

We were an older team then so the chances are that we didn't have as many young undrafted FA's and late round draft picks making real contributions as we do now. But you can't assume that either.

 

[sf49rh8r]

You still don't have a point, because the article wasn't trying to say we didn't do a good job of drafting in the late rounds or bringing in undrafted FA's before Parcells, it was only saying Parcells has done a good job since he's been here.

Once again this is overanalyzing and trying to dispute the article based on something the article didn't say or suggest.

Even so, one could only make the argument you mention if they went back and looked at the players from that team. That isn't something you can just assume.

We were an older team then so the chances are that we didn't have as many young undrafted FA's and late round draft picks making real contributions as we do now. But you can't assume that either.

Is your head getting sore?:bang2: :bang2: :bang2: :bang2:

And don't forget some of the late rounders and FA on other squads like the Saints that are contributing. We just didn't have room for them all.

 

[Stautner]

Is your head getting sore?:bang2: :bang2: :bang2: :bang2:

And don't forget some of the late rounders and FA on other squads like the Saints that are contributing. We just didn't have room for them all.

Yes, my head is getting sore. Why couldn't the article be taken at face value rather than reading a bunch of crap into it that just wasn't there?

Good point about their being other former Cowboys that fit into this category that are contributing elsewhere after we couldn't find room for them.

Heck, I would think Romo and McBriar alone would be cause for fans to celebrate the job we do with undrafted FA's.

 

[sf49rh8r]

Yes, my head is getting sore. Why couldn't the article be taken at face value rather than reading a bunch of crap into it that just wasn't there?

Good point about their being other former Cowboys that fit into this category that are contributing elsewhere after we couldn't find room for them.

Heck, I would think Romo and McBriar alone would be cause for fans to celebrate the job we do with undrafted FA's.

And of course we take a lot of pride in what Matt has doing considering he played his college ball here. I can't wait until he master's that punt that has backspin like a balata golf ball.

 

[DipChit]

Yes, my head is getting sore. Why couldn't the article be taken at face value rather than reading a bunch of crap into it that just wasn't there?

Because he used the phrases "the results are staggering".. and "big rewards", thats why. I'm just trying to figure out from what perspective he'd use that particular wording.

Besides, the roster has to be made up of *someone* so if it's made up of those kind of guys what does it say about all the guys who you actually did draft ahead of them. Which isnt here nor there because it's not an exact science anyway.

Bout the only thing staggering here is that Romo fits into that undrafted category. All the rest, especially the ones picked after the 4th round, are just unheralded guys playing roles (if they're playing at all) not unlike you find on most every other team.

Wanna talk staggering when it comes to the contributions unheralded players make.. look to Elways last SB teams. The skill players with him. Ed McCaffery 3rd round. Rod Smith, undrafted. Terrell Davis 6th round, Shannon Sharpe 7th round.

So forgive me if our list doesnt exactly have me staggering like I just took a left hook from Tyson.

 

[Stautner]

And of course we take a lot of pride in what Matt has doing considering he played his college ball here. I can't wait until he master's that punt that has backspin like a balata golf ball.

We've heard a lot about that punt, although less this year, but we have yet to see it work very often.

I can't remember what college game I was watching a few weeks ago, but the punter was one of the best in the country and he held the ball with the point aiming straight down at his toe when he was trying to get the ball close to the goalline. It worked too.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

It's amazing how a couple of wins change everything. Just few weeks ago all of our draft picks were crap.

And those were the good draft picks.

 

[Stautner]

Because he used the phrases "the results are staggering".. and "big rewards", thats why. I'm just trying to figure out from what perspective he'd use that particular wording.

I'll grant you that the word "staggering" might be something of an exxageration, but it would be hard to argue that Romo and McBriar aren't providing "big rewards". A few of the other players (James, Barber, Ratliff et al) are providing significant rewards as well.

Nevertheless, I have no problem with you questioning the writers use of those discriptive words because he actually used those words. Its the people that are reading words and language into the article that just aren't there that I take exception with.

Frankly I personally have one argument with the article, and that's his inclusion of 4th rounders in the mix. While obviously the odds of a 4th rounder being successful are less than with a 1st or 2nd rounder, I personally don't consider it a "late round" pick, or a pick in which there shouldn't be at least a reasonable chance of finding a successful player. Teams have to be able to find some players in Round 4 and even Round 5 to a degree. To me those are middle rounds, not late rounds.

Anything found in Rounds 6 and 7, however, as well as any undrafted free agents, are a different story - those guys just aren't expected to be successful, they are considered long shots and it's the exception when they work out well.

 

[Garland powerplay]

No doubt Parcells maximizes a players ability. A coaches job is to bring out the best in the best players & the worst.
The high impact players must continually develop which Coach is very good at it. All the way down the line to special teams (except the kicker) which must can't be done. The guy should be kicking field goals past midnight until gameday. Repitition & maybe hire a successfull ex-kicker to help coach this guy w/ the mental side. He needs to be mentally tough & focus on his next kick & erase the misses.

 

[Dale]

Jay Ratliff has quickly become one of my favorite Parcells picks. It's amazing to me that a 7th round pick would adequatley replace -- if not even outperform -- La'Roi Glover.

 

[Aikbach]

I just hope free agency doesn't ravage depth like it did in the 90s especially after Romo starts winning those Super Bowls.