Cowboys have some moving parts

by Dave Halprin on Jan 9, 2007 10:31 AM CST in News Comment 29 comments

Things are starting to stir a little at Valley Ranch. We have some "moving parts" as Parcells likes to say, and the biggest moving part is Parcells himself.

According to two sources, he went over tape of the Seahawks game, trying to find out what went wrong for the Cowboys, whose season began with Super Bowl hopes and ended on a three-game losing streak.

"It was business as usual," one source said.

Interesting that he was breaking down game film. Either he is a creature of habit and just couldn't help himself, or he has ideas about coming back.

But there is another opportunity out there that could tempt the Tuna.

But NFL.com, citing a high-ranking NFL source, reported Parcells could be a candidate for the New York Giants' general manager spot created by Ernie Accorsi's retirement.

New England vice president of player personnel Scott Pioli, Parcells' son-in-law, turned down a chance to interview for the job on Monday.

Beyond the coach, what about the players? Pretty soon I'll be going over the roster with a fine-tooth comb and making some observations about our free agents, but there are a few that items out there today worth mentioning.

The health of Marco Rivera is in question.

Guard Marco Rivera underwent an MRI exam Monday and could be facing back surgery. If so, it would be the second back surgery in three years for Rivera and might signal the end of his career.

I don't wish ill-health on anyone, but this probably makes an easy decision even easier. Rivera was the worst of our offensive linemen, and that's saying something. He needed to be replaced anyway.

The idea of Anthony Henry being moved permanently to FS has been out there for a while, mainly from the media and the fans. Todd Archer throws it out there again.

With mega millions tied up in Williams and cornerback Anthony Henry, and Terence Newman's contract expiring in 2008, would Jones want to pour more millions into a free agent? Coach Bill Parcells said he thought Watkins can develop into a consistent player, but that is no sure thing.

The answer might already be on the roster: Henry. He played safety in college. He led the team with 23 pass deflections during the season, and although he's not a speedster, he is always around the ball.

Switching Henry would create a need at cornerback, but that could be answered in the draft.

One guy who wants to return is Martin Gramatica.

"Hopefully I'll be here," Gramatica said. "Coach [Bill] Parcells has been great. The whole organization has been great. If it was up to me, I'd love to be here."

If he wants to sign cheap, then it might be a good match, he certainly got the job done on FG's, although his kickoffs are still a little short.

JJT gives some props to Bobby Carpenter and the performance he turned in against Seattle.

Carpenter turned in his most impressive performance of the season with a couple of pass deflections, a tackle for loss and a handful of tackles. His performance would have been even better had he not dropped an apparent interception.

He showed some bursts of potential against Detroit, but he was more active and physical against Seattle than he had been at any point of the season. That's the player the Cowboys need him to be every Sunday. That's a player worthy of being a first-round pick.

With Carpenter, DeMarcus Ware and the possible return of Greg Ellis, the Cowboys will have to make a decision as to how bad they need another 3-4 LB capable of applying pressure to the QB. You always want more of those types of players, but you have to weigh the need against the need at other positions on the team.

0 recs | Comment 29 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

money quote from Gramatica

"The thing I want to say is that Tony is the best holder I've ever had," Gramatica said. "We wouldn't have been where we were if not for Tony." Truer words were never spoken.

I also agree that Rivera must go, he was horrible the past two seasons. If we sign any FA's to big money this off season, it should be an all-pro guard.

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on Jan 9, 2007 10:51 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

i like romo

but i hate that sort of drivel.

martin is right, we would not have been there without romo. but when you are you the 5th seed in the playoffs its pretty fair to say you would not have been there without any starter.

nor would we have been there without gramatica (but if he missed the kick it would still be his fault).

we also would not have been there without ellis, ware, williams, barber, owens, glenn, burnett etc but if any of them muffed a play that should have a 99% success rate we would be annoyed.

emmitt carried the team on his back to win in the meadowlands. if he fumbbled and it cost the team that game you could exempt him from blame. but that is not the case here. romo made an awful, awful play at the end of a pretty average game. that doesn't mean he wont be great. but your desire to make him great doesn't mean the play wasn't awful either.

terry, i realize you trust in romo but for the past few games that trust was misplaced.

by 325424 on Jan 9, 2007 11:16 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Gramatica is being a good team mate

Even T.O. did that.

Romo screwed up a hold. So the f*** what. Brady James and Roy Williams blew coverages that cost 7 apiece. Terry Glenn had an 8-point fumble. J-witt had a fumble that probably cost between 10 and 14 points (for the swing). In the grand scheme of screw-ups, Romo's was simply the last and therefore the most memorable. And by the way, by the least game-experienced of the players I just named.

As frustrating as the loss was, it wasn't his fault any more than anyone else's. Romo is a work in progress, but I'd take him over a great many QBs out there...

by dunkman on Jan 9, 2007 11:32 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

oh no

no, no, no, no. This is where you are WRONG, it WAS Romo's fault more than ANY of those guys

Just like it WAS Leon Lett's fault Miami beat Dallas in the snow. Even thought Lett was arguably the best defender in the league that year, it was his fault.

Just because we like a player, or think he is great, or are aware of his contributions it does not alter the fact that when a player single handly makes (or fails to make) a play at the end of the game that has a binary affect on its outcome, that player can cost you a game.

If Romo put the ball down and Gramatica missed the kick, would you be saying..."Well we can't blame Gramatica.. we would not have been in the playoffs without him????" heck no.

And when a player costs a team a game (like Romo cost the Dallas Cowboys a win in the playoffs at Seattle) we can keep liking the player, the team, etc. The only obligation we have is to maintain some tie with reality or we lose all integrity.

Romo cost the team the game, I know that (Just like Terry does) but I can admit and I can go one liking and cheering for Romo.

by 325424 on Jan 9, 2007 2:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

100% correct.

Even Tony himself recognizes it. To paraphrase his own comments: "I cost the Dallas Cowboys a playoff game today. It will be with me a long time."

by Parl on Jan 9, 2007 4:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Look at this from ESPN:

Game Changer: Defensive Play
Play: Tony Romo is stopped at the 2 yard line on a botched snap on a field goal attempt.
Seahawks Win Probability Before: 15%
Seahawks Win Probability After: 72%
Change: 57%
Breakdown: On 4th-and-1 from the 2, with 1:20 remaining, Dallas lines up for a short field goal that would make it 23-21. Fate will not let that happen, though, as Romo fumbles the snap and Jordan Babineaux tackles him just short of the 1st down, protecting Seattle's 21-20 victory.

LINK:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=270106026
Note:
PROTRADE's win probability is an estimation of each team's chance of winning at any given point in the game. The calculation is based on analysis of more than 500,000 plays and includes key factors such as score, down, weather, and time remaining. For more, visit PROTRADE.com.

by Parl on Jan 9, 2007 4:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

so you think 325424

that if the hold was down and the kick was made, we win that game?? Hardly my friend, hardly.

I was pissed Parcells actually didn't attempt to at least get the first down (again) because with over a minute left, I'm pretty sure Hasselbeck wouldn't have had any problem driving down into FG position with the second most clutch FG kicker in the game waiting to nail the game winner.

To say Romo cost us the game is absurb because there was plenty of time left for the Seahawks to win the game, which would have probably happened anyway.

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on Jan 9, 2007 8:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

We should have gone for the first down or TD, because even if we had made the FG, there was enough time for SEA to move into FG position to retake the lead.

BUT, I do think you have to honestly say, Romo's miscue cost us the game. At least if we make it we have the chance to win. He botches the hold and barely misses the 1st down - game over.

by APerfectStar on Jan 9, 2007 9:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i do

and i think its wild how quickly people assume the defense would let seattle score.

the defense effectively held the seahawks to 19 points with almost no help from the offense.

i think the difference in strategy and emotion if you are down 1 with 1 minute left and up 2 with a minute left are pretty significant.

romo made as bad as play as i have seen in a long time.

it was inexcusable, but not unforgiveable.

once we all admit how awful it was we can forgive him and move on.

acting like it wasn't a big deal is insane.

bottom line: the job of the qb is to put the team in position to win the game. Romo failed to that. He owes Miles Austin and anyone else who showed up to play a big apology.

that doesn't mean he can't improve and be great. it just means that as things are he is ok and thats all.

by 325424 on Jan 9, 2007 11:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

also...

and i mean nothing personal by this...

but what drives me crazy is that:

you aren't saying it isn't Romo's fault b/c you don't think you can blame a loss on a player
you aren't saying this b/c you don't think you can isolate one element from a related series and attach that much importance to it, or understand how the world would have played out had you changed that incident
you are saying this b/c you like Romo.

in short you arguement is personal and non-objective

example:

Parcells didn't lose this game

our two biggest and most expensive free agent acquisitions did.

In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 06:06:53 PM EST

why isn't anyone blaming Vandy?

doesn't anyone think that kick was really, really low, I mean it would have hit one of our linemen in the ass it was so low, even if it wasn't blocked.

Maybe if we sign Viniteri or Brown we wouldn't be having this conversation or the loss.

In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 05:54:10 PM EST

in the above cases you feel free to blame owens (for dropping a potential touchdown pass) and vandy b/c a kick was blocked for losing a game that had any of these events occurred the team would have won:

owens hold on to the ball
colombo makes a block
vandy kicks the ball higher
kosier holds on to the guys face mask and takes him down
kosier lets go of the guys face mask and the ref calls a 5 yard penalty

so is it smart to blame owens b/c he dropped a pass that wold not have shaped the outcome if any of 4 wierd events didnt transpire...

but its crazy to blame romo?

or is it cool to blame owens because he is a tool and a prick and vandy b/c he is a kicker that manages to be a tool and a prick and not fair to blame romo because we like him?

if we are going to analyze things, lets analyze - romo blew it.

if we are going to be a fan club, lets be a fan club - ROMO RULES, DALLAS IS NUMBER 1 BABY 2007, YAAAAAAA 9 awesome wins and 8 fluke losses.

by 325424 on Jan 10, 2007 12:07 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

325424

I have come to suspect that "Terry" is either Tony Romo or Carrie Underwood. There is no other way I can fathom the monumental amount of blind trust and optimism he has for one player. Either that, or he is one of those types of people that has a doll in his closet fashioned from Romo's hair he stole from the locker room shower drain and the lint from the locker room dryers. His closet is probably wallpapered with pictures of Romo and there are scented candles ever dimly lighting the gentle face of aforementioned Romo doll. After all, in Romo we trust. He seems to refuse to acknowledge any wrongdoing or errors on Romo's part and makes completely unfounded blanket statements like "this guy is a winner and has always been a winner," with no basis in fact. Just look at the numbers I posted. Sure, they may be completely wrong, but they appear to be based on some type of numerical record. Romo may not have lost us the game directly, but our chances of winning probably did go something from like 80% to 10%. I mean, I'm a Cowboys fan, but I don't understand the people that think "True Fans" can't criticize the team or its players.

by Parl on Jan 10, 2007 11:33 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

325424 you're wrong

Romo obviously put us in a position to win by virtue of the FG attempt. He failed in a special teams capacity, not at the qb position. There is a big difference. If he would have thrown an INT or fumbled from the qb position, you would be right, but he didn't. He fumbled as a holder, not as a qb.

As a qb, he played pretty good considering it was his first ever playoff game.

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on Jan 10, 2007 4:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

um, are you drunk?

i don't see how this responds to the (very solid) argument 325424 was making.

by jsdoty on Jan 10, 2007 6:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

solid? you must be drunk

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on Jan 10, 2007 9:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

you are reaching

it seems like you are reaching, but at least you are coming around.

so now you admit that romo the holder, the ok special teams player, blew the game. while romo the qb played well?

and romo the qb gets credit for putting the team in a position to win b/c the team was in position to score?

so romo the qb lead an offense to score 14 points against a bad defense? heck lets say romo the qb led the team to 17 points and romo the holder had a -3 point performance? still this isn't that impressive to me.

i dont understand why we congratulate a guy for putting up 14 (or 17 maybe by your logic) points against a bad defense? why did ROMO put the team in a position to win? after all Romo broke one of parcells golden rules by audibling to a pass on a run out of the end zone that cost points and momentum? Didn't mile austin put the team in a position to win??

but i digress...

i might be willing to accept your argument and separate Romo the special teams player from Romo the QB if he had shanked a punt, but what concerns me about Romo is his Terrell Owens like ability to drop the ball. Romo has had more untouched fumbles / bumbles than any player I have seen in memory, so his continued tendency to be careless with the ball does bother me and isn't something I am willing to discount as a special teams impact -- as an aside didnt he fumble twice on that play???

put another way, if the team managed to tie the game late and parcells called for an onside kick. gramatica made a great kick, TO went up grabbed the ball in a crowd... and dropped it. would you be writing to the faithful saying this wasn't owens fault. that it wasn't endemic of his troubles handling the ball and that we should separate TO the kick returner and special teams player from TO the WR?

What if Dallas went to the prevent with TO as a safety and he dropped a jump ball in the end zone and the seahawks got it? would you be saying TO the defender is a different entity than TO the WR?

My problem is you seem to have two logical standards, one by which you evaluate players you like and another by which you evaluate players you don't. That bothers me b/c its what makes these blogs useless. Once we analyze things fairly they get interesting. When we say that Roy Williams is underrated in coverage b/c he has 5 INT's or that LA went to the probowl b/c he was the best LG in the NFC last year we lose all credibility.

You had the greatest call of the year by anybody on the blog when you backed Romo. Now by mindlessly supporting him you discredit it.... as if you called black 8 before it came up in roulette then stood there calling black 8 for the next 24 hours.....

Finally, while this wasn't as bad as Romo's past few games but it wasn't great. this isn't solely my opinion. here is a pretty rational overview:

http://theboysblog.com/2007/01/07/hes-got-joe-pisarcik-eyes/

by 325424 on Jan 10, 2007 9:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

romo no mo

who cares which romo messed up thegame.

NINERS RULE

by tofan on Jan 10, 2007 10:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree and disagree

with the points on that link you posted regarding Romo.

Where I agree... TR has indeed been Bledsoe-like in holding the ball too long when dropping back to pass. That seems to have been his pattern in the end-of-the-season skid (losing 4 of their last 5 games, which includes the playoff loss).

Where I disagree... Tony does not throw INTs in the red zone (a Drew Bledsoe habit) and he has a quicker release than #11.

On a side note, I like Rafael Vela's comparison of Roy Williams to David Fulcher, the oversized safety who once played for the Cincinnati Bengals back in the day.

Thanks for posting the link to that site. There were some interesting perspectives...

"WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!" - Ric Flair

by kcbrett5 on Jan 11, 2007 8:27 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I have been amazed all week

out how people have brought this whole game down to a hold of a kick. Seriously - do you really think that the Cowboys lost this game because of Romo? Seriously? That's a ridiculous assumption. Dunk is right - the only reason anyone is even bringing that hold up is because it was at the end of the game and it was the most glaring. However, for anyone that watched more than the Sportcenter highlights knows that there were a lot of people to "blame" for this one - it's called a team game - that hold did not lose them the game.

You do realize there was still over a minute left on the clock right? Does anyone in Cowboyfanland not truly believe that Seattle was going to march right back down the field and have Josh Brown kick some ridiculous kick to win it? I know it goes against all kind of conventional wisdom, but I was yelling at the TV to have Parcells go for it on 4th and not kick the "winning" field goal. The Cowboys had to have a TD right there to win - I have full faith (or lack of faith?) that Seattle would still have won. You do also realize that Seattle had the ball on the 1, Cowboys had 1:00 minute left and 3 timeouts? Why are we not blaming Bradie James or Jason Ferguson for letting Seattle take a simple dive play and run right up the middle for 20 yards? Ask me which play lost us that game and I will point at that one. Seattle was trying to run out the clock and the defense could not stop a simple dive play. 3 timeouts - Seattle punting from their end zone with 40+ seconds left? Now, we kick the field goal.

The point is the game was not lost on Romo's play. Yes, it sucked that he did not make it. Yes, I wish he would have. No, the whole game did not come down to that play. That's just the easy, Sportcenter route. Blame the guy in the highlight. It's not that simple.

by huslinone on Jan 9, 2007 3:26 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

yeah, you would go for it on forth down

instead of kicking a possible go ahead game winning feldgoal with just over a minute left on the road, You wouldn't be a head coach very long.

By the way, dallas had a run blitz on that so-called dive in to the line play.

Put the blame where it is deserved, Romo botched the snap, but nobody is hanging him out to dry. The fact remains the loss goes on the offense, the total offense and the play calling, our offense managed "ONE" touchdown against a street secondary and a undersize defensive line.

by Deke on Jan 9, 2007 3:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Right

The blame belongs to the team. Romo is one member. He made a mistake, but not even the most costly one, just the final one (or as pointed out, maybe the second to last one).

You can't call it a team sport and then ignore the contributions and failures of the the team. And this isn't something esoteric, like maybe TO generating bad Karma. There were real screw-ups, plenty to go around, on offense and defense. There is no logic behind insisting that the last one lost the game any more than the first one.

by dunkman on Jan 9, 2007 3:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs