Cowboys/Switzer Critics

Cowboys/Switzer Critics

Post by Fred Goodw » Thu, 26 Sep 1996 04:00:00


 It is not the critic who counts,
    nor the man who points out how the strong man stumbles,
    or where the doer of deeds could have done them better.

 The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena;
    whose face is marred by dust and sweat and ***;
    who strives valiantly;
    who errs and may fail again, because there is no effort without
       error or shortcoming, but who does actually strive to do the
       deeds;
    who does know the great enthusiasm, the great devotion;
    who spends himself in a worthy cause;
    who at best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and
       who at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly,
 so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who
 know neither victory nor defeat.

   -- Teddy Roosevelt addressing Cowboys Bashers

 Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even
 though checkered by failure . . . than to rank with those poor spirits
 who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in a gray  
 twilight that knows not victory nor defeat.

   -- Teddy Roosevelt addressing Barry Bashers

---
========================================================================


* 9505 Arboretum, 9th Floor          Dallas Cowboys Training Camp Page *
* Austin, TX  78759          http://SportToday.org/~fgoodwin/cowboys.htm *
========================================================================

 
 
 

Cowboys/Switzer Critics

Post by Fray » Thu, 26 Sep 1996 04:00:00

: It is not the critic who counts,
:    nor the man who points out how the strong man stumbles,
:    or where the doer of deeds could have done them better.
:
: The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena;
:    whose face is marred by dust and sweat and ***;
:    who strives valiantly;
:    who errs and may fail again, because there is no effort without
:       error or shortcoming, but who does actually strive to do the
:       deeds;
:    who does know the great enthusiasm, the great devotion;
:    who spends himself in a worthy cause;
:    who at best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and
:       who at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly,
: so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who
: know neither victory nor defeat.
:
:   -- Teddy Roosevelt addressing Cowboys Bashers
:
: Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even
: though checkered by failure . . . than to rank with those poor spirits
: who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in a gray  
: twilight that knows not victory nor defeat.
:
:   -- Teddy Roosevelt addressing Barry Bashers
:

Yeah but Teddy wasn't 1-3 was he?

Frayd

 
 
 

Cowboys/Switzer Critics

Post by Vijay Ramanuja » Thu, 26 Sep 1996 04:00:00

Quote:
> Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even
> though checkered by failure . . . than to rank with those poor spirits
> who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in a gray  
> twilight that knows not victory nor defeat.
>   -- Teddy Roosevelt addressing Barry Bashers

All terribly irrelevant.
If Barry Switzer were the only man who wanted the job of coaching such a
talented team as the Dallas Cowboys, this would at least be a somewhat
appropriate quote to drop in, but since the question is not about his
guts in attempting to win but his absolute inability to get the team to
play at the consistently high level that we know they are or should be
capable of playing at this quote doesn't adress the question.

Nice try, though.

Vijay R.

 
 
 

Cowboys/Switzer Critics

Post by Sullys Ma » Thu, 26 Sep 1996 04:00:00


Quote:

> It is not the critic who counts,
>    nor the man who points out how the strong man stumbles,
>    or where the doer of deeds could have done them better.

agreed.  people who are out trying to make something better,
affecting their world the best they know how are better than critics

Quote:

> The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena;
>    whose face is marred by dust and sweat and ***;
>    who strives valiantly;

Or does credit belong to a man who wins a lotto?

Quote:
>    who errs and may fail again, because there is no effort without
>       error or shortcoming, but who does actually strive to do the
>       deeds;
>    who does know the great enthusiasm, the great devotion;
>    who spends himself in a worthy cause;

playing golf for 5 years until an admirer calls you up to coach the
best talent ever assembled in football?

Quote:
>    who at best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and
>       who at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly,
> so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who
> know neither victory nor defeat.

You are describing Barry Switzer in a more energetic and disciplined
youth.

Quote:

>   -- Teddy Roosevelt addressing Cowboys Bashers

> Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even
> though checkered by failure . . . than to rank with those poor spirits
> who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in a gray
> twilight that knows not victory nor defeat.

Far better to contribute nothing to the game after being run out of
town at Norman, and know nothing more than to be given the gift of
the best talent in football.

Teddy's quote attacks criticism as a valid pursuit.  By it's
invocation in this particular case, you suggest that anybody who
gets a gift of a 6-7 figure coaching job in the NFL is somehow
beyond criticism.

how silly.

go niners
mike

 
 
 

Cowboys/Switzer Critics

Post by Ralph By » Thu, 26 Sep 1996 04:00:00

 I am a cowboy hater. I want to say! HOW ABOUT THOSE COWBOYS!!!! I love
what is going on in Dallas. The worst is yet to come this week the hated
Cowboys must come to Phila and play the Eagles.
 I will enjoy watching the EAGLES beat the pants off the OLDBOYS from
Dallas.
Hey we don't need a superbowl just beat the sinking cowboys on monday
night and the next time too!!!
 The cowboys have the second worst coach in footaball. The JETs coach is
the worst sorry Barry you can be the worst next year. Hey Barry maybe you
will be number 1 this year too!!!

-

 
 
 

Cowboys/Switzer Critics

Post by Philly the K » Thu, 26 Sep 1996 04:00:00


Quote:

>  It is not the critic who counts,

SNIP

So this is what is has come to. Now after 3 ugly losses in 4 weeks, the
Cow fans are reduced to metphoric odes?!

This is Football!! Not poetry 101. Your team has gotten its ass kicked so
far. Take it like a man.

If you keep losing you might be able to get in position for Peyton Manning?

P-t-K

 
 
 

Cowboys/Switzer Critics

Post by Richard W Powel » Thu, 26 Sep 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

>  Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even
>  though checkered by failure . . . than to rank with those poor spirits
>  who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in a gray
>  twilight that knows not victory nor defeat.

>    -- Teddy Roosevelt addressing Barry Bashers

Hey, wait a minute....  that was Marv Levy's pre-game speach!

  marv0.jpg
17K Download
 
 
 

Cowboys/Switzer Critics

Post by Sullys Ma » Fri, 27 Sep 1996 04:00:00


Quote:


>>Teddy's quote attacks criticism as a valid pursuit.  By it's
>>invocation in this particular case, you suggest that anybody who
>>gets a gift of a 6-7 figure coaching job in the NFL is somehow
>>beyond criticism.

>>how silly.

>I suggest nothing of the sort.  My point in posting the quotes from
>Teddy (who says it much better than I ever could) is that you can
>criticize all you want, but sitting there on your living room sofa, you
>know about as much about coaching as Switzer does of your chosen
>profession.

How do you know that?  I would agree that Switzer knows a hell of a
lot more about football than I, so did Joe Thomas...

That he knows more about coaching may be another point.

And besides the point, anyway.

Quote:

>And your (or anyone else's) criticism of him is about as meaningful as
>as if Switzer criticized your job.

This based on the premise that since Bury has the job, knows more
about it, it would also not be meaningful for me to comment
positively on his effort either.

Quote:

>You think because you watch ESPN and catch a couple games each weekend
>you're suddenly qualified enough to rate Barry or to tell him how to do
>his job?

certainly do, but it depends on the forum.  No, I would not hire me
as a consultant to Jerruh Jones to tell him who to hire for coach
and expect that my opinion, reasonable or no, should be granted any
weight at all.

On this forum, however, or another at my local watering hole - not
only am I eminently qualified to spill opinions willy-nilly, but
Bury's professional livelihood DEPENDS upon it.

Pro athletes and coaches get paid big bucks by fans who ALL have
opinions - few of which are 'qualified' in a coaching sense, but all
supporting and criticising opinions serve the same purpose and
meaning:  fan interest, fans buying tickets and other products of
the NFL.

So yes, my criticism of Bury is both meaningful and important on
this and other fan forums - it is the nature of fandom.  That it is
supportable or reasonable is yet another argument - which of course
we have had here.

However, a criticism of the very nature of fan criticism, within a
forum existing solely for the exchange of fandom to me seems
meaningless and hypocritical.

The declaration of a forum as having no meaning on that forum, by
ITSELF has no meaning.  It is self cancelling, so to speak.  GB
Shaw called it a meta-language, silly self serving superfluosity of
pseudo-intellectualism.

So, to say I am WRONG in my criticism of Switzer because my
reasoning, observation, intelligence, whatever is flawed or lacking
is a valid argument here.  To say that my criticism is meaningless
because I haven't the peerage with Switzer says that nobody on this
forum is entitled to an opinion INCLUDING you.

bye bye RSFP...

go niners
Mike

 
 
 

Cowboys/Switzer Critics

Post by Sullys Ma » Fri, 27 Sep 1996 04:00:00


Quote:




>>>Teddy's quote attacks criticism as a valid pursuit.  By it's
>>>invocation in this particular case, you suggest that anybody who
>>>gets a gift of a 6-7 figure coaching job in the NFL is somehow
>>>beyond criticism.

>>>how silly.

>>I suggest nothing of the sort.  My point in posting the quotes from
>>Teddy (who says it much better than I ever could) is that you can
>>criticize all you want, but sitting there on your living room sofa, you
>>know about as much about coaching as Switzer does of your chosen
>>profession.

>How do you know that?  I would agree that Switzer knows a hell of a
>lot more about football than I, so did Joe Thomas...

>That he knows more about coaching may be another point.

>And besides the point, anyway.

>>And your (or anyone else's) criticism of him is about as meaningful as
>>as if Switzer criticized your job.

>This based on the premise that since Bury has the job, knows more
>about it, it would also not be meaningful for me to comment
>positively on his effort either.

I forgot a point, here...  You are right that in a professional
forum of job criticism, Bury and I would have meaningless mutual
opinions, good or bad about each other's jobs.   But there is no
interest in a discussion group alt.talk.jobs.like.sullys including
me...   What makes it meaningful for me to criticize Bury is that
other people are also interested, and also post opinions with
varying levels of expertise and background and research.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

>>You think because you watch ESPN and catch a couple games each weekend
>>you're suddenly qualified enough to rate Barry or to tell him how to do
>>his job?

>certainly do, but it depends on the forum.  No, I would not hire me
>as a consultant to Jerruh Jones to tell him who to hire for coach
>and expect that my opinion, reasonable or no, should be granted any
>weight at all.

>On this forum, however, or another at my local watering hole - not
>only am I eminently qualified to spill opinions willy-nilly, but
>Bury's professional livelihood DEPENDS upon it.

>Pro athletes and coaches get paid big bucks by fans who ALL have
>opinions - few of which are 'qualified' in a coaching sense, but all
>supporting and criticising opinions serve the same purpose and
>meaning:  fan interest, fans buying tickets and other products of
>the NFL.

>So yes, my criticism of Bury is both meaningful and important on
>this and other fan forums - it is the nature of fandom.  That it is
>supportable or reasonable is yet another argument - which of course
>we have had here.

>However, a criticism of the very nature of fan criticism, within a
>forum existing solely for the exchange of fandom to me seems
>meaningless and hypocritical.

>The declaration of a forum as having no meaning on that forum, by
>ITSELF has no meaning.  It is self cancelling, so to speak.  GB
>Shaw called it a meta-language, silly self serving superfluosity of
>pseudo-intellectualism.

>So, to say I am WRONG in my criticism of Switzer because my
>reasoning, observation, intelligence, whatever is flawed or lacking
>is a valid argument here.  To say that my criticism is meaningless
>because I haven't the peerage with Switzer says that nobody on this
>forum is entitled to an opinion INCLUDING you.

>bye bye RSFP...

>go niners
>Mike

 
 
 

Cowboys/Switzer Critics

Post by Vijay Ramanuja » Sun, 29 Sep 1996 04:00:00


Quote:

>I suggest nothing of the sort.  My point in posting the quotes from
>Teddy (who says it much better than I ever could) is that you can
>criticize all you want, but sitting there on your living room sofa, you
>know about as much about coaching as Switzer does of your chosen
>profession.

I disagree not only with your assessment of a fan's ability/right to
criticize the coach, but with your interpretation of Roosevelt's quotes
as well. It seems to me that Teddy's complaint was against those who
shrug the responsibilities and opportunities because it is easier to sit
back and criticize those that fail.

This is not the case in Dallas or in football. I am sure that most
die-hard football fans would love the opportunity to make 7 figures while
getting a chance to coach a national football league team. The downside,
and perhaps the only major downside, to this job, is that you are in a
high profile, well understood job.

Anyway, I also disagree with your statements about my knocking Switzer
and Switzer knocking me. What I am expected to do is something that,
difficult or easy, is not something that a typical football coach would
understand. What Switzer is expected to do is simple to understand - win.
Whether I can do the job better or not is not in question. Despite being
a huge critic of his, I do not say I can do better. But I do say that
Switzer isn't doing the best that can be done, since the team can win
more than it does. That doesn't have anything to do with whether I can do
better or not.

Vijay R.

 
 
 

Cowboys/Switzer Critics

Post by John Walk » Wed, 02 Oct 1996 04:00:00

Quote:



>>I suggest nothing of the sort.  My point in posting the quotes from
>>Teddy (who says it much better than I ever could) is that you can
>>criticize all you want, but sitting there on your living room sofa, you
>>know about as much about coaching as Switzer does of your chosen
>>profession.
>I disagree not only with your assessment of a fan's ability/right to
>criticize the coach, but with your interpretation of Roosevelt's quotes
>as well. It seems to me that Teddy's complaint was against those who
>shrug the responsibilities and opportunities because it is easier to sit
>back and criticize those that fail.
>This is not the case in Dallas or in football. I am sure that most
>die-hard football fans would love the opportunity to make 7 figures while
>getting a chance to coach a national football league team. The downside,
>and perhaps the only major downside, to this job, is that you are in a
>high profile, well understood job.
>Anyway, I also disagree with your statements about my knocking Switzer
>and Switzer knocking me. What I am expected to do is something that,
>difficult or easy, is not something that a typical football coach would
>understand. What Switzer is expected to do is simple to understand - win.

And that he has done.  He won tonight.  At Philly.  After being down by
ten points.

Will you change your opinion of him?  No.  This is proof positive that winning
(which Barry has certainly done in his career) is not the real issue here.
No active coach at any level has won more than Barry.  (Go ahead, name one.)
The only coaches who had a higher winning percentage at the college level
have all been dead since the 1960s (and there were only three of them).  
No living coach has more rings.

Okay, Eddie Robinson has won more games, since he has coached since 1898,
and maybe there are some high school coaches who have a better winning
percentage.

No one can say Barry hasn't won.

Quote:
>Whether I can do the job better or not is not in question. Despite being
>a huge critic of his, I do not say I can do better. But I do say that
>Switzer isn't doing the best that can be done, since the team can win
>more than it does. That doesn't have anything to do with whether I can do
>better or not.

Boy, you must really disrespect Ray Rhodes.  How do you lose at home, with
the other team as banged up as much as Dallas was?  And after having a ten
point lead?  (Actually, I think Ray Rhodes is a good coach, I just want
to extend this logic a little farther.)

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
>Vijay R.

 
 
 

Cowboys/Switzer Critics

Post by Eric Smi » Wed, 02 Oct 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

>Boy, you must really disrespect Ray Rhodes.  How do you lose at home, with
>the other team as banged up as much as Dallas was?  And after having a ten
>point lead?

It might have something to do with losing your starting quarterback in the
first half and having to use an inexperienced backup, after which your team
is never able to mount any kind of effective offense.

-----
Eric Smith               |  "They were like travellers unwillingly

http://www.catsdogs.com  |  adjusted to their return."  - Olivia Manning

 
 
 

Cowboys/Switzer Critics

Post by Josh J Fiel » Wed, 02 Oct 1996 04:00:00

Quote:


>>Boy, you must really disrespect Ray Rhodes.  How do you lose at home, with
>>the other team as banged up as much as Dallas was?  And after having a ten
>>point lead?

>It might have something to do with losing your starting quarterback in the
>first half and having to use an inexperienced backup, after which your team
>is never able to mount any kind of effective offense.

I disagree. Philly's o-line was not giving Detmer time to make the
pass -- when he got the time or used a quick release pattern, he made
the passes. Leon Lett was playing like a tiger, thoguh, and was
hammering through the Philly o-line like they were swiss cheese.

Watters was still able to put some nice runs together as well, so that
aspect of the game didn't change.

Detmer didn't do half bad, all factors considered...

J
--
Joshua J. Fielek DoD#385 AMA#517381 WERA#968  The Garage of Xanadu:

Say the Magic Word and Free the         1975 RD350      1990 EX500(cold backup)
        Israelites!    -- Groucho Moses 1988 EX500*     198X Aero 80(Turbo)*

 
 
 

Cowboys/Switzer Critics

Post by David Sh » Wed, 02 Oct 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

>It might have something to do with losing your starting quarterback in the
>first half and having to use an inexperienced backup, after which your team
>is never able to mount any kind of effective offense.

At the point Peete was injured, the Eagles had already blown
the 10 point lead and were trailing by 7, 10-17.  I see no
evidence from what actually happened in the game that Peete's
playing in the second half would have improved the Eagles
chances.

On the previous possession Peete and the Eagles coaching
staff combined to make one of the most bone-headed plays
I have ever seen--throwing a sideline pass in Deion
Sanders' direction so he could make an interception.
Peete and the Eagles were fortunate they weren't seconds
later watching Sanders dancing in the endzone for a new
Nike commercial.

Whatever one thinks of Deion Sanders, intercepting such
passes is something he excels at and he is always playing
his mind games to bait the other team's QB and offense.  
Only morons would challenge Sanders with that pass.

The Eagles passing offense even with Peete in the game
was already dead.  Peete's passing yardage was coming
from short passes to the backs letting them do the work.
With Peete QBing the Eagles passing offense scored
-6 points in the second quarter counting the results of
turnovers, and played like -10 or even -14.

The Eagles used their defense and running game to give
them one last chance, but Eagles coach Rhodes refused to
go on 4th and 1 deep in Dallas territory, Leon Lett
blocking the field goal attempt.  Oddly enough Rhodes had
in the first quarter gone for 4th and 1 from the Cowboy 2,
and Ricky Watters had scored a touchdown.

Watters knows how to use the stiff-arm, has decent size
for a running back, and is rarely brought down by the
first tackler.  (See his touchdown run in the first
quarter.)  Sure Watters might have been stuffed, but I've
also seen lots of times in that situation when the back is
able to break through for the touchdown when the defense
goes all-out to try and stop him at the line of scrimmage.

Rhodes has crafted an image as a tough guy, and I have no
doubt that in situations other than football the man is
brave and strong, but not having the guts to go for the
touchdown in that situation is, relative to football,
weak and a major flaw as a coach.  Will Rhodes learn from
his mistake and start to emulate the example of a real
Super Bowl caliber coach like Bill Parcells when he was
with the Giants?  Or will Rhodes and the other NFL coaches
continue to be cowards, disgracing the game, afraid of the
heat Barry Switzer took after he chose to go on fourth down
at Philadelphia last year?  Going on 4th and 1 is the
quintessential play in football, and Rhodes robbed all fans
of the game by not even trying the only serious hope to win.
(Did anyone think Detmer was going to get the Eagles into
the endzone passing the ball on the next drive?)

Rhodes and the Eagles have quite possibly blown their best
opportunity to do some serious damage to the Cowboys chances
this year, and if they don't develop a better QB than Peete
they may never get over the hump to go from pretenders to
contenders.