Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dallas Cowboys Discussion

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by D-Unit
    Originally posted by UTPATS
    Originally posted by jetBLACK08
    Originally posted by D-Unit
    Originally posted by jetBLACK08
    If Henning actually does get hired. I would be happy. He has experience with All-Pro WRs [Smith] so Owens will actually be somewhat be a threat this time around.
    I hope he doesn't turn Romo into Jake Delhomme.

    Oh and... Terrell Owens had a much better year than Steve Smith last year. LOL!
    LOL, thats somewhat exagerrated don't you think?

    Terrell Owens
    G Rec Yds Avg TD
    16 85 1180 13.9 13

    Steve Smith
    G Rec Yds Avg TD
    14 83 1166 14 8

    Either way. I dont think Romo will turn into Delhomme because Romo has way more weapons and past veteran teachings.

    How many drops did they have??????
    How many broken fingers did TO have?

    Lack of focus and selfish had more to do with it than an excuse like a broken finger... I mean come out, its easy to catch a ball moving 50 to 60 mph while running full speed and getting hit by numerous defenders. Anyone can do it.... j/k

    Comment


    • Small question, but I figured I'd ask anyway.

      With Henry potentially being moved to FS, that leaves us with a gap at CB, obviously. What are the chances Jerry will pursue Nate Clements in free agency?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by BX
        Small question, but I figured I'd ask anyway.

        With Henry potentially being moved to FS, that leaves us with a gap at CB, obviously. What are the chances Jerry will pursue Nate Clements in free agency?
        I don't think we can afford it. If we get a replacement through FA, he'll be cheap. If we go through the draft, we might find better talent at a lessor price.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by D-Unit
          Originally posted by BX
          Small question, but I figured I'd ask anyway.

          With Henry potentially being moved to FS, that leaves us with a gap at CB, obviously. What are the chances Jerry will pursue Nate Clements in free agency?
          I don't think we can afford it. If we get a replacement through FA, he'll be cheap. If we go through the draft, we might find better talent at a lessor price.
          Agreed...if we did get a big time player through FA at the CB position...I think we'd rather go after Samuel with the type of player he is and the scheme he comes from. Even though NE is more zone based in their coverages it makes sense to go with a guy who has the knowledge in the defense.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by thule
            Originally posted by D-Unit
            Originally posted by BX
            Small question, but I figured I'd ask anyway.

            With Henry potentially being moved to FS, that leaves us with a gap at CB, obviously. What are the chances Jerry will pursue Nate Clements in free agency?
            I don't think we can afford it. If we get a replacement through FA, he'll be cheap. If we go through the draft, we might find better talent at a lessor price.
            Agreed...if we did get a big time player through FA at the CB position...I think we'd rather go after Samuel with the type of player he is and the scheme he comes from. Even though NE is more zone based in their coverages it makes sense to go with a guy who has the knowledge in the defense.
            I agree as well. I'm hoping that we choose a CB in the first 3 rounds. While Samuel would be a good get, it would cost us a fortune.


            "You know what charm is: a way of getting the answer yes without having asked any clear question."
            Albert Camus

            Comment


            • Originally posted by thule
              Originally posted by D-Unit
              Originally posted by BX
              Small question, but I figured I'd ask anyway.

              With Henry potentially being moved to FS, that leaves us with a gap at CB, obviously. What are the chances Jerry will pursue Nate Clements in free agency?
              I don't think we can afford it. If we get a replacement through FA, he'll be cheap. If we go through the draft, we might find better talent at a lessor price.
              Agreed...if we did get a big time player through FA at the CB position...I think we'd rather go after Samuel with the type of player he is and the scheme he comes from. Even though NE is more zone based in their coverages it makes sense to go with a guy who has the knowledge in the defense.
              Samuel is a nice player but given the other needs on the team I don't think it realistic Jerry and Bill will spend more CB type money against the cap. In fact, I don't see them being very active at all except for maybe OL resignings and maybe 1 high value PL FA from another team.

              If being speculative beyond OL, the money in FA would likely go to get a player to improve Front 7 pass rushing and overall D.

              Blowing 8-10MM per year on a CB does not really solve the pass defense problems versus the secondary receivers -- the tight ends and running back that killed us.

              In addition, getting a Samuels would force the Henry move to FS which in turn retards Watkins development and creates a backlog at safety. Roy, Henry, Watkins, Elam, Davis, Parrish. Wow.

              But, hot stove football is fun. Can not wait for Parcells to come back and announce his new staff.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by pocketaces
                Originally posted by DMWSackMachine
                Originally posted by pocketaces
                Originally posted by DMWSackMachine
                One thing that I've noticed is when a team struggles, the fans all of a sudden start clamoring for the head of the coordinator that coaches that side of the ball.

                For example, last year I was hearing tons of criticism for Payton and his play calling, saying he was a stupid ass and unimaginative etc etc. Well, a year later people are worshipping at his feet and proclaiming him to be the next Bill Walsh.

                It's just funny. Why can't people accept that its the PLAYERS who play the game? If your team sucks, its usually because your players aren't playing the game well. Eff.
                so i guess iyo we were average (9-7) because we have average players or is it that we have good players that only played average?
                Well, were we 8-4 because we had good players, or because we have average players that played good? Were we 3-3 because we had.....

                You get the point. If you want to analyze the play of this team, you break it down into 3 segments: the first 6 games, the middle 6 games, and the last 4 games - while evaluating the playoff loss by itself. We were "average" with Drew in there, playing at .500 ball, though in reality we were dreadfully inconsistent, and most of the 3 losses could be directly attributable to him and/or Pat Watkins.

                The next six games we were 5-1, with the one loss coming on a fluke set of circumstances, on a day when we vastly out played our opponent, but the key breaks went the other way. We dominated for most of this stretch, and I personally feel that it compares favorably with any 6 game stretch in the entire league. We were scoring, stopping people, creating turnovers while avoiding them ourselves, running the ball well....everything. Then the Saints game occurred...

                ...and the last four game stretch arrived, in which we were a horrible, horrible defensive team in every way, shape, and form. Combine that with a explosive, yet inconsistent offense that was turnover prone and a utter lack of pass rush, and you have the 3 out of 4 loss streak we went on.

                So, to answer your question, we were a talented team that was very inconsistent, and had one problem after another arise throughout the season. The end total adds up to be "just above average", but it's not the sort of non-descript, mediocre and ultimately boring type of average that is an indication of a lack of ability, but rather the peaks-and-valleys type of average, where there was exceptional play mixed in with bone-head, stupid, or inexperienced plays in crucial situations. Does that answer your question?

                And, yes, I see what your come back will be: "that's coaching".

                Not true, necessarily. Dumb players do dumb things. If there are dumb players out there, no coach in the world is going to make them into a Rhodes Scholar. The other thing is that Bill's teams have not demonstrated that type of tendency in all the years he's been here, they really haven't (with the exception of the '04 bunch that was a disaster all around), and this team only did that in the last 4 games - not all season. So, if you were to say that coaching is the problem, I would have to disagree with you there.
                i dont see how our players got dumb the last month of the season. so '04 was a disaster. o.k. '05 we went 7-9 AND LOST 4 OUT OF OUR LAST 6 GAMES. this year we are 8-4 AND LOSE 3 OUT OF OUR LAST FOUR. not to mention we didnt win a home game the month of december. notice a trend? if these players are dumb as you seem to imply, may i ask whos drafting these dumb players? every team has peeks and valleys thats part of the game. look no further than the colts. but i also believe alot of time you make your own breaks. now i have much respect for your football knowledge and very much injoy your posts. however i wonder if your silver and blue glasses sometimes cloud your veiw. to me we didnt reach our potintial because bill held us back. how do you go from scoring almost 28 pts. a game to 13 in seattle? we did not use our mismatches imo. as stated by jjt our defense was plain vanilla and unimaginative. i believe his word was simplistic. if in an extreme example we were facing a team ranked #1 in the nfl vs. the run and 30th against the pass and our coaches gameplaned for us to run the ball 30 times and we only throw it 15 times and we lose, is that not coaching? imo bottom line we should be playing N.O. this weekend and imo we are not because of coaching or lack there of.
                I wasn't saying necessarily that our players "got dumb" or would even qualify as "dumb players" on the whole, but rather that when players have mental breakdowns - especially players who have been on the field all year without displaying any particular propensity to do so - there is not much a coach can do. And it's not like there was one particular player that was a repeat offender, it changed from game to game.

                That is the thing that is the utterly most frustrating about this year's performance. We can't pinpoint the problem. Of course, the reactionary person, under such circumstances, simply calls for everyones head. That or they fabricate a problem that wasn't there or put too much emphasis/blow out of proportion a problem that did occur.

                Naturally, when all else fails, we simply blame the head coach upon the premise that "it's his job to find a way to make it work".

                Yes, it is true that each of the last two seasons our team fell apart. Yes, it's true that it also happened in 2003.

                That is a very strange thing to evaluate. You want to say just because the same bottom line thing happened in consecutive seasons that there is some fundamental problem with our coaching that is causing it? Well, what would that be? You can't just say "it is" and use our late season records as proof.

                There has been a different reason each time. Last year it was a combination of our FG kicker situation, and Bledsoe. In 2003, we just weren't that good, and it finally started to show. This year, we had mental breakdowns across the board, but different ones in each of our games.

                It so damn complicated, and so hard to sort out, we as fans can't possibly know what is the real problem and/or what to do about things. That's why WE are the fans and they are the millionaires getting paid to figure it out.

                That said, if Parcells comes out next year and we have yet another late season collapse - no matter the reason - then it will get harder and harder to argue with.

                Any way you slice it, all I try to do is bring a little bit of levity to some of the freak-out impulse opinions bandied about by some on this message board. Obviously, Barney is the main culprit, but he's definitely not the only one. All people remember at this point is the horrid play of December (and then try to suggest that it continued in the playoff game, which is not true) and don't recall any of the triumphs or successes of the first 12 games. I'm just as concerned as anyone, and I certainly don't want to have to go through that again, but some of the time things just need a little bit of time to develop. I feel that we need to give it one more year with everything that were trying to do remaining intact. If there is another case of a late-season fade, or recurring problems with mental mistakes and lack of discipline, then I will be with the anti-Parcells faction by mid-season. However, I actually think that we are going to be the best team in the conference next year, and have a great shot at making it to the SB, so right now all I want is a successful off-season with a nice draft. If that happens, we should be fine.
                Originally posted by 21ST
                He was protecting his self
                Originally posted by tjsunstein
                From what? His leg?
                Originally posted by Paranoidmoonduck
                That leg has had it out for him since day 1.
                "We're the quiet guys, the guys before the storm. And then we hit you."

                DeMarcus Ware

                Comment


                • First Mike Zimmer, then David Lee and now Bruce DeHaven might be leaving...

                  Is this a sign that Parcells is not returning and that they are trying to find their next jobs before the new regime brings in their own guys?

                  Comment


                  • Next Coach

                    Bill Cowher.....that why we should want BP to stay another year......................................

                    Comment


                    • Re: Next Coach

                      Originally posted by chrlopez1
                      Bill Cowher.....that why we should want BP to stay another year......................................
                      Cowher is cool, but he had a veeeeeeeeery long time to accomplish what he did.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Next Coach

                        Originally posted by chrlopez1
                        Bill Cowher.....that why we should want BP to stay another year......................................
                        A couple of quick ones....

                        1) I know folks are disappointed with BP but Cowher had some serious ups and downs in his years too. He Schottenheimer II before last year run.

                        2) Cam Cameron is now in Miami. Does this mean Dom Capers might be interested once again in the Dallas spot? Rumor had it somewhere he said no but that was before he was passed by in Miami.

                        3) Anyone going to the Senior Bowl?

                        Comment


                        • I want Mike Singletary first.

                          Wade Phillips second.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by DMWSackMachine
                            Originally posted by pocketaces
                            Originally posted by DMWSackMachine
                            Originally posted by pocketaces
                            Originally posted by DMWSackMachine
                            One thing that I've noticed is when a team struggles, the fans all of a sudden start clamoring for the head of the coordinator that coaches that side of the ball.

                            For example, last year I was hearing tons of criticism for Payton and his play calling, saying he was a stupid ass and unimaginative etc etc. Well, a year later people are worshipping at his feet and proclaiming him to be the next Bill Walsh.

                            It's just funny. Why can't people accept that its the PLAYERS who play the game? If your team sucks, its usually because your players aren't playing the game well. Eff.
                            so i guess iyo we were average (9-7) because we have average players or is it that we have good players that only played average?
                            Well, were we 8-4 because we had good players, or because we have average players that played good? Were we 3-3 because we had.....

                            You get the point. If you want to analyze the play of this team, you break it down into 3 segments: the first 6 games, the middle 6 games, and the last 4 games - while evaluating the playoff loss by itself. We were "average" with Drew in there, playing at .500 ball, though in reality we were dreadfully inconsistent, and most of the 3 losses could be directly attributable to him and/or Pat Watkins.

                            The next six games we were 5-1, with the one loss coming on a fluke set of circumstances, on a day when we vastly out played our opponent, but the key breaks went the other way. We dominated for most of this stretch, and I personally feel that it compares favorably with any 6 game stretch in the entire league. We were scoring, stopping people, creating turnovers while avoiding them ourselves, running the ball well....everything. Then the Saints game occurred...

                            ...and the last four game stretch arrived, in which we were a horrible, horrible defensive team in every way, shape, and form. Combine that with a explosive, yet inconsistent offense that was turnover prone and a utter lack of pass rush, and you have the 3 out of 4 loss streak we went on.

                            So, to answer your question, we were a talented team that was very inconsistent, and had one problem after another arise throughout the season. The end total adds up to be "just above average", but it's not the sort of non-descript, mediocre and ultimately boring type of average that is an indication of a lack of ability, but rather the peaks-and-valleys type of average, where there was exceptional play mixed in with bone-head, stupid, or inexperienced plays in crucial situations. Does that answer your question?

                            And, yes, I see what your come back will be: "that's coaching".

                            Not true, necessarily. Dumb players do dumb things. If there are dumb players out there, no coach in the world is going to make them into a Rhodes Scholar. The other thing is that Bill's teams have not demonstrated that type of tendency in all the years he's been here, they really haven't (with the exception of the '04 bunch that was a disaster all around), and this team only did that in the last 4 games - not all season. So, if you were to say that coaching is the problem, I would have to disagree with you there.
                            i dont see how our players got dumb the last month of the season. so '04 was a disaster. o.k. '05 we went 7-9 AND LOST 4 OUT OF OUR LAST 6 GAMES. this year we are 8-4 AND LOSE 3 OUT OF OUR LAST FOUR. not to mention we didnt win a home game the month of december. notice a trend? if these players are dumb as you seem to imply, may i ask whos drafting these dumb players? every team has peeks and valleys thats part of the game. look no further than the colts. but i also believe alot of time you make your own breaks. now i have much respect for your football knowledge and very much injoy your posts. however i wonder if your silver and blue glasses sometimes cloud your veiw. to me we didnt reach our potintial because bill held us back. how do you go from scoring almost 28 pts. a game to 13 in seattle? we did not use our mismatches imo. as stated by jjt our defense was plain vanilla and unimaginative. i believe his word was simplistic. if in an extreme example we were facing a team ranked #1 in the nfl vs. the run and 30th against the pass and our coaches gameplaned for us to run the ball 30 times and we only throw it 15 times and we lose, is that not coaching? imo bottom line we should be playing N.O. this weekend and imo we are not because of coaching or lack there of.
                            I wasn't saying necessarily that our players "got dumb" or would even qualify as "dumb players" on the whole, but rather that when players have mental breakdowns - especially players who have been on the field all year without displaying any particular propensity to do so - there is not much a coach can do. And it's not like there was one particular player that was a repeat offender, it changed from game to game.

                            That is the thing that is the utterly most frustrating about this year's performance. We can't pinpoint the problem. Of course, the reactionary person, under such circumstances, simply calls for everyones head. That or they fabricate a problem that wasn't there or put too much emphasis/blow out of proportion a problem that did occur.

                            Naturally, when all else fails, we simply blame the head coach upon the premise that "it's his job to find a way to make it work".

                            Yes, it is true that each of the last two seasons our team fell apart. Yes, it's true that it also happened in 2003.

                            That is a very strange thing to evaluate. You want to say just because the same bottom line thing happened in consecutive seasons that there is some fundamental problem with our coaching that is causing it? Well, what would that be? You can't just say "it is" and use our late season records as proof.

                            There has been a different reason each time. Last year it was a combination of our FG kicker situation, and Bledsoe. In 2003, we just weren't that good, and it finally started to show. This year, we had mental breakdowns across the board, but different ones in each of our games.

                            It so damn complicated, and so hard to sort out, we as fans can't possibly know what is the real problem and/or what to do about things. That's why WE are the fans and they are the millionaires getting paid to figure it out.

                            That said, if Parcells comes out next year and we have yet another late season collapse - no matter the reason - then it will get harder and harder to argue with.

                            Any way you slice it, all I try to do is bring a little bit of levity to some of the freak-out impulse opinions bandied about by some on this message board. Obviously, Barney is the main culprit, but he's definitely not the only one. All people remember at this point is the horrid play of December (and then try to suggest that it continued in the playoff game, which is not true) and don't recall any of the triumphs or successes of the first 12 games. I'm just as concerned as anyone, and I certainly don't want to have to go through that again, but some of the time things just need a little bit of time to develop. I feel that we need to give it one more year with everything that were trying to do remaining intact. If there is another case of a late-season fade, or recurring problems with mental mistakes and lack of discipline, then I will be with the anti-Parcells faction by mid-season. However, I actually think that we are going to be the best team in the conference next year, and have a great shot at making it to the SB, so right now all I want is a successful off-season with a nice draft. If that happens, we should be fine.
                            Longish post but there are some positions we could use new personnel to overcome some weaknesses. With salary cap increase and the draft we should go for it.

                            Not sure the "give it one more year with everything that were trying to do remaining intact" is exactly anymore rational then the "freak-out impulse opinions bandied about by some."

                            I think that juxtaposition of concepts (black and white) is no more valid now then a few weeks back in the Bledsoe (INTACT) versus Romo (FREAK-OUT) arguments. People on both sides making the same black versus white arguements.

                            Lots of grey area to discuss and honestly the change in QB is as drastic as it could be, as controversial as it could be, as expensive as it could be and yet .... Romo looks pretty good and no one is lamenting Bledsoe money wasted.

                            So there is something to being a little "radical" when making changes for the best.

                            Comment


                            • Anyone have an idea if Bledsoe was given a signing bonus in 2005 or what his contract amount was? I was curious if their is a cap hit on him assuming he goes.

                              I know you can amortize bonuses as you see fit over the life of a contract so maybe this is already done.

                              Forget it -- I have the data ..... here it is

                              "three-year, $14 million contract 10 days ago. The deal included a $2 million signing bonus"

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by D-Unit
                                I want Mike Singletary first.

                                Wade Phillips second.
                                That's just plain sick. The last thing we need is another 60 year old coach, my god.
                                "Red Ball"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X

                                Debug Information