The Vatican Hitsquad Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Is that so......I guess it was a simple grammar problem, huh? Maybe you meant "without either Parcells and Romeo", along with "anything" instead of "anythign"? 1395862[/snapback] Are you really pointing out a typo on a NFL message board? Is that the best you can do? Maybe you are right, maybe it's Romeo, and because Romeo was with Parcells in his NY - NE - NY stints, it should be Parcells or Belichick have never won without Romeo. Cleveland fans, according to the Hitsquad, you've hit the jackpot. 1395862[/snapback] Point is, for every statement like "Parcell's never won without Bellichick" you can make the exact same statement with "Bellichick has never won without Romeo". It's true, he hasn't has he? And so far, Bill flopped on the other team he ran solo on. And yes, in fact, I do indeed believe Cleveland hit the jackpot with Romeo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charty Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Are you really pointing out a typo on a NFL message board? Is that the best you can do?Point is, for every statement like "Parcell's never won without Bellichick" you can make the exact same statement with "Bellichick has never won without Romeo". It's true, he hasn't has he? And so far, Bill flopped on the other team he ran solo on. And yes, in fact, I do indeed believe Cleveland hit the jackpot with Romeo. 1396038[/snapback] You said Belichick never won without Parcells or Romeo on his staff. Considering someone that has always been a head coach would never be "on" Belichick's staff, there is no other interpretation but to read it as you in fact thought Belichick hasn't won without Parcells. You are basically trying to find something that has been with Belichick during his winning years, and using that as a "Bellichick hasn't won with....." argument. Maybe it's Weis, maybe its Vinatieri, maybe it's a pair of lucky red sox Belichick threw out last year, and now we're really screwed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 The crazy thing is that neither Parcells or Belichick is even the best "Bill" coaching in football today. Relax, I was just kidding, however, I do think the 3 "Bill's" will all be in Canton. My personal opinion is that the only coach that I would take over Cowher right now is Belichick. I think he is simply the best there is right now. The Super Bowl win definitely improves Cowher's resume though: Cowher's 14 Year Career: Overall = 153 - 92 - 1 Regular = 141 - 82 - 1 Playoff = 12 - 9 - 0 SB = 1 - 1 - 0 10 Playoff Appearance 8 Division Championships 6 AFC Championship Game Apearances 2 AFC Championships 1 Super Bowl Title 1395916[/snapback] you're kidding right?Cowher?The biggest cheerleader in the NFL today?I remember watching a super bowl XXX recap on ESPN where the steelers special teams coach comes up to Cowher after they scored and suggests an on side kick.Cowher makes a weird face and then asks,I believe,Chan Gailey on his headset if he should do it.Gailey obviously says yes so he does it and they get it.Then Cowher walks up to the ref and says"boy that was a gutsy call I made there,huh?" with his stupid grin on his face.Anyone that spends any time watching the steelers knows that he's not the best coach out there. Not even top 5.Menudo,how many times in the last 5 years have you been pissed at Cowher when they get a lead and he sits on it and they win by the skin of their teeth?And I don't wanna hear about his super bowl win.Any coach can win one.Ask Barry Switzer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menudo Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 (edited) you're kidding right?Cowher?The biggest cheerleader in the NFL today?I remember watching a super bowl XXX recap on ESPN where the steelers special teams coach comes up to Cowher after they scored and suggests an on side kick.Cowher makes a weird face and then asks,I believe,Chan Gailey on his headset if he should do it.Gailey obviously says yes so he does it and they get it.Then Cowher walks up to the ref and says"boy that was a gutsy call I made there,huh?" with his stupid grin on his face.Anyone that spends any time watching the steelers knows that he's not the best coach out there. Not even top 5.Menudo,how many times in the last 5 years have you been pissed at Cowher when they get a lead and he sits on it and they win by the skin of their teeth?And I don't wanna hear about his super bowl win.Any coach can win one.Ask Barry Switzer. 1396085[/snapback] Of course the sitting on the lead thing has frustrated me, but, he has learned from his mistakes. He went for the jugular this year thorughout the playoffs. Also, his record when leading by 10 or more in the 2nd half is like 85-1-1. Hard to argue with those numbers. You obviously don't like him, but his record speaks for itself. I wasn't on the Steeler bandwagon of ripping him during the somewhat down years. I've always liked him and stuck by him. I don't think you can ignore his accomplishments. You call him a 'cheerleader', I call him passionate. The players love him and he has gotten the most out of them, imho. Edited March 31, 2006 by Menudo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fitzkek Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 I really like how this thread has nothing to do w/MeO anymore. WHO GIVES A FLYING F##K WHO THE BETTER COACH IS!? Where is the link stating Parcells doesn't like the idea of T-Ho on his team? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 I really like how this thread has nothing to do w/MeO anymore. WHO GIVES A FLYING F##K WHO THE BETTER COACH IS!? Where is the link stating Parcells doesn't like the idea of T-Ho on his team? 1396121[/snapback] there's no link.....it's the rumour du jour(rumour of the day for you philly fans) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Gibbs owns those bisches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 You call him a 'cheerleader', I call him passionate. The players love him and he has gotten the most out of them, imho. 1396096[/snapback] Perhaps Dungy needs to adopt Cowher's approach... because he sure as hell doesn't get the most out of his players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 there's no link.....it's the rumour du jour(rumour of the day for you philly fans) 1396130[/snapback] your just killin' me : Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 You said Belichick never won without Parcells or Romeo on his staff. Considering someone that has always been a head coach would never be "on" Belichick's staff, there is no other interpretation but to read it as you in fact thought Belichick hasn't won without Parcells.1396084[/snapback] actually, you've got that completely bassackwards. if parcells has never been "on belichick's staff", then the statement you've got such a hard-on about could only mean "belichick has never won without romeo on his staff". which is true. the statement you was basically that bill b. has never won without parcells above him or romeo below him, and, again, that is true. sure it doesn't mean much, but that was exactly the point...it was made to demonstrate the absurdity of discrediting parcells by saying he hasnt won without bill b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retrograde assault Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Gary Myers, of the New York Daily News, reports Dallas Cowboys head coach Bill Parcells was not in agreement with owner Jerry Jones about signing WR Terrell Owens, according to sources. That's all T.O. needs ... the coach did not want me fine ... F*ck him then! Let it begin. :doah: 1394165[/snapback] Doesn't surprise me a bit, ok who is our next coach? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Vatican Hitsquad Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 You said Belichick never won without Parcells or Romeo on his staff. Considering someone that has always been a head coach would never be "on" Belichick's staff, there is no other interpretation but to read it as you in fact thought Belichick hasn't won without Parcells. 1396084[/snapback] Semantics. I think my point was clear, despite the specific wording of it. You are basically trying to find something that has been with Belichick during his winning years, and using that as a "Bellichick hasn't won with....." argument.Maybe it's Weis, maybe its Vinatieri, maybe it's a pair of lucky red sox Belichick threw out last year, and now we're really screwed. 1396084[/snapback] Yes, my point, again, is that if you (or anybody) is goign to say Parcells has never won without Belichick, It can easily be said that Belichick has never won without either having Romeo on his staff or him being part of Parcells staff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Vatican Hitsquad Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 actually, you've got that completely bassackwards. if parcells has never been "on belichick's staff", then the statement you've got such a hard-on about could only mean "belichick has never won without romeo on his staff". which is true. the statement you was basically that bill b. has never won without parcells above him or romeo below him, and, again, that is true. sure it doesn't mean much, but that was exactly the point...it was made to demonstrate the absurdity of discrediting parcells by saying he hasnt won without bill b. 1396141[/snapback] Thank you for explaining better than I could. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menudo Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Perhaps Dungy needs to adopt Cowher's approach... because he sure as hell doesn't get the most out of his players. 1396138[/snapback] Well, the players definitely love Dungy, but, I don't think they fear him at all. Dungy doesn't strike me as a motivator. I really like the guy and think he is a class act, but, he seems a little too far on the calm and gentle side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Well, the players definitely love Dungy, but, I don't think they fear him at all. Dungy doesn't strike me as a motivator. I really like the guy and think he is a class act, but, he seems a little too far on the calm and gentle side. 1396212[/snapback] Agreed. I really like Dungy as a person, but I don't it's just a coincidence that none of his teams have made it to a SB. Agreed that motivation is part of it. Back in January, the Colts were woefully unprepared for the playoff game against the Steelers (on both sides of the ball). But nothing pissed me off more than watching Dungy smile and answer questions non-chalantly during his press conference the following day. I understand that he was probably still mourning the loss of his son, but he still needs to do his job. My God, act like you freaking care for once!!! No way that Parcells, Belichick, Cowher, Holmgren, etc. would've taken that piss-poor playoff performance so lightly. They would've ripped their teams to shreds... and justifiably so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.