JJT is solidly in the "Parcells is returning" camp.
No doubt exists in my mind that Bill Parcells will return to the Cowboys for a fifth season.
But for him to maximize the talent on this roster, he must change his approach. That won't be easy for a 65-year-old coach, but it's a necessity for Dallas to end its 10-year streak without a playoff victory.
Ah, Parcells must change his approach. I couldn't agree more and
posted that thought last week.
More JJT:
The Cowboys played the most simplistic, unimaginative 3-4 defense in the league. Parcells allowed that to happen because he thinks the scheme is good enough to win. The Cowboys, though, have players that are at their best when using speed and quickness. They need to be placed in position to succeed. Too many times, Parcells didn't allow that to happen.
Hmm...that sounds familiar. My own take from last week's post:
Next year, if Parcells is back, he should be working under a new strategy. It doesn't require abandoning core principles, like his belief in the 3-4 defense, controlling the clock, or a number of things that have become known as his signature. What he needs to do is recognize the capabilities of his players, and create schemes and game plans to fit their strengths. Instead of pounding a square peg into a round hole, carve out some space turning the round hole square, and then fit the peg in.
JJT also has some good Q&A in the article that contains nuggets like Patriots LB coach Pepper Johnson might get an interview for the defensive coordinator spot.
In the previous JJT article, he also answered a question about The Romo Bobble. A reader asked if the Cowboys ends should've gone out for passes on the botched FG attempt. JJT responds:
I would think so, but someone is usually responsible for yelling "fire," which tells everyone something has gone wrong. We don't know if anyone yelled "fire," in part because there has been no formal access to the players since the Seattle game.
Shortly after reading that, I came across this over at ESPN's Page 2 in a Gregg Easterbrook column.
[Reader] Evan Wilson points out, "The botched hold that killed the Cowboys' playoff game made me wonder if the following scenario would work: After the botched hold, every Dallas player should immediately have done whatever was necessary to get Tony Romo into the end zone regardless of whether it was legal -- that is, all Dallas' players should have grabbed and held the nearest Seahawk. If Romo gets into the end zone or gets the first down, then the Seahawks must take the penalty. That makes it fourth down again for Dallas. Since NFL policy is to only mark off one penalty, it doesn't matter if every Cowboy tackled his Seattle opponent. Only one penalty is marked off, meaning it's still a relatively short kick. If Romo doesn't get the touchdown or first down, then the Cowboys have failed anyway, so there's no downside to the Cowboys trying it." Hmnm -- Evan, actually I think what you describe would work. But what team would be prepared for this situation? Wilson continues, "Teams ought to have an emergency word for the situation, a word the kicker screams when a botched snap or hold occurs. This will tell everyone to mug the nearest opponent with the hope that the holder will be able to get a first down or get into the end zone, forcing the defense to take the penalty and allow a re-kick."
I admit I hadn't thought about that. It wouldn't have saved the Cowboys in this game because Romo didn't get the first down or TD, but it's an interesting strategy when you've got that short of a FG attempt. Of course the downside is if you actually pick up the first down or the TD, and then have it erased by a penalty. But even if you do that, more than likely you got the positive play because your whole team is holding the defense. Anyway, it's an interesting strategy in a situation like that.
