|
Post by gatordynasty on Mar 5, 2009 11:41:50 GMT -5
Stop GD. No one was talking about Larry Fitzgerald leading anybody anywhere before this year. TO has done more thus far than Larry Fitzgerald has. WRE, I think you missed my point. Fitzgerald's performance this postseason was what I was using as an example. I wasn't stating he was better than TO. I was just saying that TO has not shown that he is an asset to the team when it matters. Doesn't mean he isn't a great player and can't help a team be better, I just don't think he's a player that has shown he is an integral part of a championship team. And for the record, I don't dislike TO. Personally I think he gets to much sh*t and agree with you on the stuff ESPN does to make him look bad. The only thing I ever really thought he screwed up on was the whole deal with insulting McNabb and saying he wish he played with Brett Favre. You don't diss your QB like that. That was messed up. And to a lesser extent he dissed Jeff Garcia in San Fran. His celebrations and mouth aren't that big a deal imo. The only other issue is that in all the places he went he divided the team so that some were on his side and some were on the QB's side. How can you argue that is good for a team? I think he's a fantastic WR that can make an offense explosive. I just don't know if he's a fantastic football player who can make a team better.
|
|
|
Post by wareagleray on Mar 5, 2009 12:05:39 GMT -5
I didn't miss your point. Fitzgerald's one post season doesn't prove anything we didn't already know about Larry Fitzgerald: a phenomenal receiver that, before this year, had never led Arizona anywhere. That's the knock they're trying to put on Terrell Owens. It's a bit specious. Larry Fitzgerald hasn't proven that he's an integral part of a championship team. He hasn't won a Super Bowl.
Before Terrell Owens got to Philadelphia their best receiver was Freddie Mitchell. Ouch. Philly might not have made it to the playoffs that year were it not for Owens. Then he got horse collared by Roy Williams and broke his leg. To McNabb's credit, he kept that team going and got them to the Super Bowl. That Terrell Owens came back and played that game was incredible. 9 catches for about a buck 20 if I remember right.
Throwing QBs under the bus? Not smart. I don't remember regular season stuff with Garcia (not saying he didn't do it), I do remember TO talking trash after the season (still not classy). McNabb? The same. Not classy to do that.
The big question is about dividing the team. How can a cancer do that? I guess I'm naive but if everyone thought the guy was a cancer they would avoid him as such. If McNabb was such a force for good in the locker room and Owens was a force of...not good...why was the clubhouse divided in the first place? Why was Jeremiah Trotter, who wasn't even on the team, coming into a weight room to pick a fight with a guy? Why didn't McNabb's linemen corner TO and tell him to shut the fuck up?
Someone help me out with that. I do contend that he didn't divide anything in Dallas. Nothing they said about him this year stuck. Just ESPN telling us he was dividing the team and some 'anonymous source' that confirmed it.
|
|
|
Post by gatordynasty on Mar 5, 2009 12:28:19 GMT -5
I didn't miss your point. Fitzgerald's one post season doesn't prove anything we didn't already know about Larry Fitzgerald: a phenomenal receiver that, before this year, had never led Arizona anywhere. That's the knock they're trying to put on Terrell Owens. It's a bit specious. Larry Fitzgerald hasn't proven that he's an integral part of a championship team. He hasn't won a Super Bowl. WRE, then I don't think you got my point. Instead of Larry Fitzgerald use the name John Doe, but lets say he had the same performance last season as Mr. Fitzgerald. The point wasn't to compare LF to TO. It was just using LF's performance regardless of anything else. The issue wasn't that LF did this so he's better than TO. The issue was TO has never done anything like that before, so I don't think he's a guy that is necessary to field a championship team (LF isn't even relevant to that point). Philly made the playoffs four years prior and the NFC championship game 3 years in a row prior. They then made the Superbowl the next year, despite TO missing all the playoff games. All the while with a WR core led by Freddie Mitchell like you said. Honestly, I think you just kind of aided the opposition. Philly did all that without TO and with a crappy WR core. Why exactly is TO such a must have player? Yeah, I think the problem is though that is goes from just being not classy to actually causing locker room problems. That's a bigger issue. The Garcia thing wasn't as big, but he made comments implying Garcia was a homosexual, which was just dumb. WRE, I don't understand this point. What you just showed is that he did divide the team. The point wasn't that he was universally hated by everyone on the team. He wasn't. Some guys were on his side, some on the other. However, that situation didn't exist before he got there. I'm not arguing that he is the sole problem, or that he is a cancer (someone else used that word), however in three separate situations the same thing has happened. Are you trying to tell me it's a coincidence or that there is a conspiracy against him? Once is a fluke, twice is a coincidence, three times a trend. Isn't that how it goes or something like that? I just think there is more evidence pointing towards that TO is a great player, but a bad teammate. I don't see how that point can be argued very well.
|
|
|
Post by gatordynasty on Mar 5, 2009 12:34:11 GMT -5
WRE, here is a post I made the Steelers Scout site regarding TO. It's a different subject, but it just shows that I'm arguing here just from the results I've seen. I don't actually have a big problem with TO, so I'm not being prejudiced against him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Man, I am NO TO fan, but to compare him to Pacman Jones is wrong.
TO seems selfish and full of himself, but he's not a thug or a criminal like Jones. We have no idea if TO is a bad guy or not. All we know is he's loud and cocky. Maybe he's a not someone you'd want to be friends with but we have no idea what he's really like. He could be a very good person, but just arrogant.
Now as far as him coming to the Steelers, I'd say it's one in a million, but I don't see what all the outcry about is. No way he gets a long contract at this point in his career. Also, he was on his best behavior and made both offenses explosive his first season in Philly in Dallas. If he signed a one year contract, what's the big deal?
Like someone said, maybe make it incentive based, or have it so that if he caused any problems we could recoup the money.
I don't 'want' us to sign him. But I'd have no problem if they did. And it's not like he destroyed the teams he left. San Fran already was on the way down before they dumped him. Philly recovered quickly, and Dallas isn't going to be hurt now by cutting him.
He's not a good locker room guy, but would he really be that much of a problem as a one year rental?
|
|
|
Post by scuzz on Mar 5, 2009 12:39:02 GMT -5
I live in San Antonio so I see them every Sunday even if I didn't want to. But I'm not a Cowboys fan. I'm not nearly that obnoxious, lol. Witten is money. Crayton and Williams are not. I agree with this but getting rid of TO has to make life easier on Romo and the offensive co-ordinator.
|
|
|
Post by wareagleray on Mar 5, 2009 14:56:57 GMT -5
I haven't said one is better than the other either (if I have, my bad). Larry Fitzgerald didn't propel his team to a championship. So he didn't do anything so transcendent this year other than put up impressive numbers. And he didn't do it in any other year either. And we would probably both agree that LF is a phenomenal WR.
You mean McNabb upped his game twice without Terrell Owens? If they weren't in the playoffs already when TO got hurt they were damn close. By the way, why am I on the 'TO is a must have player' side? I didn't put myself there. You put me there. Again, maybe my memory is shitty. I am having a bad day. I do know I said that TO shouldn't have been released and that he does have talent that could make a team better. But must have? Didn't say that.
He was asked a question. He didn't volunteer it. A smarter guy probably would have STFU though.
I reject that there was a third time. I've made that clear, I thought. Seeing as the SF stuff happened after he left he didn't divide anything there. Both he and Garcia were on the outs there.
The Philly thing was seen as TO's fault when 1. He didn't say shit during the first season 2. He had every right to feel slighted after Donovan McNabb volunteered that 'we didn't need TO to get us to the Super Bowl' (a comment McNabb completely got away with). 3. He busted his ass to come back and was top shape for the Super Bowl while McNabb was not. But Owens was wrong to defend himself by calling that out? Huh. Again, maybe he should have STFU but the NFL is not a turn the other cheek league.
Then Dallas. Complete this sentence. Terrell Owens turned his back on Tony Romo when _________. If you can find me something, a direct quote from Romo, anything, from a site other than ESPN.com I'll be impressed.
My points have been: Prodigious talent, media created clubhouse cancer. These are the points I'm putting out there.
|
|
|
Post by gatordynasty on Mar 5, 2009 15:16:58 GMT -5
I haven't said one is better than the other either (if I have, my bad). Larry Fitzgerald didn't propel his team to a championship. So he didn't do anything so transcendent this year other than put up impressive numbers. And he didn't do it in any other year either. And we would probably both agree that LF is a phenomenal WR. Larry Fitzgerald carried his team to the Superbowl. He was the main reason Arizona won three straight playoff games despite never winning one before in the Super Bowl era. He is also the reason the Cardinals should have won the SB had not the Cardinals defense folded and Big Ben and Santonio took over. Look, maybe I am ignoring the stats, but TO has been on many good teams and several playoff teams. Where has he been an asset to his team winning? One year in San Fran he caught the game winning TD pass after dropping them all day in which should have been a comfortable SF win, and then he had a good SB in which they lost anyway. That's it. I'm not debating if he's a great player, but I'm not understanding why it was so bad for them to cut him. He has not proven to be a player that is a difference maker as far as big time games goes. Sorry you're having a bad day. This isn't the best place to go sometimes on a bad day though lol. I'm enjoying our conversation. Don't think I'm trying to pull one of those "I'm obviously right, you're an idiot" debates like some do. I'm just discussing the isse. I don't get your McNabb point. Could you reexplain what you meant? As far as must have goes, I just got that feeling from your posts. You criticized Dallas for getting rid of him, so it seems like you feel he's a must have player. Maybe it was a bad term to use, but that's all I meant by it. You wouldn't be pissed if one of your fellow officers implied you were gay in the media? I don't think that was the right thing to do, question or not. He was on the outs because he forced a trade. San Fran got screwed with their compensation too. You seem to be revising the past a little bit. TO forced his way out of San Fran. His prerogative, but not something I'd want from a teammate perspective. Again, so it's a conspiracy? TO got suspended by the team for being a nuisance. Was this just Andy Reid and the FO sucking up to Donovan? No way they want to hurt their team unless TO really was a problem. It wasn't just McNabb. And btw, McNabb was sick in that Superbowl. It wasn't that he was out of shape. What do you mean? The issue in Dallas I was talking about was the crap about someone saying that Romo passed it to Witten because they were friends and refused to pass the ball to TO. Then someone leaked that Witten was talking sh*t. TO divided that team into two camps. Ask Klink about this. He'll tell you. I agreed on the talent. I don't think his antics are media created though. The media is the medium, but he provides the material. The working out in his driveway, the biking on the sideline, the false suicide, the celebrating, who gives a shit? The media blows that up, but its irrelevant. All I care about is that he (a) forced his way out of San Fran (and technically Baltimore) (b) got suspended by the Eagles and cut for dissing his QB and dividing the team, (c) got released by the Cowboys even though they had a huge cap hit, because again he divided the team. So it's all the media? Are they the ones running the 49ers, the Eagles, and the Cowboys? If not there has to be something there for all these teams ridding themselves of him. Because like we agree, it's not on account of his talent.
|
|
|
Post by badgersballers on Mar 5, 2009 17:01:56 GMT -5
I wouldn't go that far. I guess it depends on the definition of better. You don't think the whole thing with Witten supposedly talking sh*t about Owens behind his back had any effect on the team? It essentially split the team in half with Romo and Witten on one side and TO et al. on the other. They went from perceived NFC favorites to out of the playoffs. Without that distraction I think they at least make the playoffs. So maybe without Owens they average less points or change their style of play, but I think they're better overall. And as great as Owens is (and he is very, very good), has he ever carried a team? He's never led his team far and he's been to the playoffs several times on great teams and didn't go anywhere (he didn't lead Philly to the SB, he was hurt and came back for the SB). Now that's not necessarily all his fault, but what exactly is Owens doing to put a championship on the mantle? I don't think his immense talent is worth the distraction honestly. I understand... and you make some good points.. but to say he never led a team? He had like 150 yards in the Super Bowl with a broken leg..while the "leader" of that team was puking in the huddle and was disoriented during the potential game winning drive... I'm not a fan of T.O... just find it questionable to say any team is better ON THE FIELD w/o him... I wouldn't say that, the only time that Philly had a shot to win the game was late at their own 1, with under 20 seconds left. Your right though Owens was big in that game.
|
|
|
Post by wareagleray on Mar 5, 2009 17:42:40 GMT -5
on this one. That he was on the team that was good or made the playoff and was a major contributor would mean TO was an asset to his team winning. You mean to tell me you have to be the top contributor in every game for this to matter? Larry Fitzgerald has been to all of one year of playoffs. Zero Super Bowls. I hate to keep saying that like it's the only thing that matters because I don't think it is. But now I'm not getting your point because on the field Terrell Owens has been every bit the receiver LF has been, or any receiver that's been good/great but hasn't won the Super Bowl. You can't discredit the guy on the field. Off the field, have a party. The starting QB of a playoff team elevated his game without his best receiver for 2 games. Doesn't mean it wouldn't have been easier with TO there. And it doesn't mean they could have gone a whole season and gotten a playoff bye without TO. There was already some controversy about Jeff Garcia being gay and TO was asked about it. I haven't said it was the right thing to do. TO could have gave a PC answer and he did not. But TO didn't create the controversy. Terrell Owens was a free agent and had every right to force a trade. Tell me he's the first free agent to do that. I've avoided the word conspiracy for a reason. It's not a conspiracy but yes, it was Reid and the front office choosing Donovan McNabb over Terrell Owens. You even admitted that 'it wasn't just McNabb', which implies McNabb was a problem too. Finally, I don't give a shit if he was sick. It's the Super Bowl and you need to score. Be sick later. You're making excuses for the man now. So...he said she said bullshit that you can't prove, right, GD? That's kinda my point. But you can conclusively tell me this is TO's fault? No. You can tell me he was involved, though. Why the absolute? It's ALL the media? In order for there to be a fire you have to have an energy source, a spark, and air. I'm not saying TO is blameless here. He was the energy source. The media is the air. We don't know what/where the spark is, but it is easy to assume it was TO that caused it. Doesn't mean it's true, though. The media does control the front offices in a sense, in that the front offices have to answer to the media and the public early and often. If Jerry Jones made the decision he did I would say that it is partly influenced by media perception.
|
|
|
Post by badgersballers on Mar 5, 2009 17:45:08 GMT -5
on this one. That he was on the team that was good or made the playoff and was a major contributor would mean TO was an asset to his team winning. You mean to tell me you have to be the top contributor in every game for this to matter? Larry Fitzgerald has been to all of one year of playoffs. Zero Super Bowls. I hate to keep saying that like it's the only thing that matters because I don't think it is. But now I'm not getting your point because on the field Terrell Owens has been every bit the receiver LF has been, or any receiver that's been good/great but hasn't won the Super Bowl. You can't discredit the guy on the field. Off the field, have a party. I agree with WERay with this one. I do think that not having him will in the end help the Cowboys, but you can't deny the fact that TO produces on the field every night. He may be an asshole, and a diva, but he's a damn good football players, and an HOF eventually as well.
|
|
|
Post by gatordynasty on Mar 5, 2009 18:10:30 GMT -5
on this one. That he was on the team that was good or made the playoff and was a major contributor would mean TO was an asset to his team winning. You mean to tell me you have to be the top contributor in every game for this to matter? Larry Fitzgerald has been to all of one year of playoffs. Zero Super Bowls. I hate to keep saying that like it's the only thing that matters because I don't think it is. But now I'm not getting your point because on the field Terrell Owens has been every bit the receiver LF has been, or any receiver that's been good/great but hasn't won the Super Bowl. You can't discredit the guy on the field. Off the field, have a party. Should have read "winning a championship. " Typo on my part. As for the rest, I never once doubted TO's talent. My argument might might be a little more general than TO's. My point is that he hasn't helped a team win a championship, or even get to the championship. I don't think he's a necessity therefore. He can help you win games, but I don't think he's a player that helps you win the SB. That's my main point. They did it in 3 consecutive seasons, so I'd say yes? Plus a fourth season they made the playoffs. Plus they made the playoffs after he left. Philly has been the model NFC franchise for the decade. TO did nothing extra for them that they hadn't already done. And when he was hurt, they made the SB anyway. I don't see the argument for him here. Ask Philly fans what they think of him. If he really did help the team they'd be honest about it. Ask Dallas and San Fran fans too. Is it all the media's fault? Fans don't hate their players just for leaving. However all three of those despise Owens. Why? Right. If I'm the QB on the team and my teammate says he thinks I'm gay, I'd have no problem with it. It's the media's fault for asking the question. He didn't do anything wrong. He wasn't a free agent. I'm not making excuses. I'm setting the facts right. You said he was out of shape. That wasn't true, he was sick. I didn't add any additional commentary about it, I just made sure the rights facts were out. And like I said before. I have a hard time believing that it's everyone elses fault after having problems in San Fran, Philly and Dallas. Why does trouble follow him to other teams? Seriously, it's beyond belief. Why are you defending him so hard? I don't get it. Toparaphrase TO on this, "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck. It is orobably a duck." Every single place having problems. Every single place it's someone else trying to get him in trouble. This reminds me of the skit Dana Carvey did about OJ and how it was all a conspiracy to get him. That's a cop out. We can say the same thing about any player then. Adam Jones is a fine young man, the media just blows thing out of proportion. We just assume he's the cause of all these problems that were reported about him. Doesn't mean it's true though. However, it doesn't mean it isn't true either. And until you give me a convincing reason the media is out to 'get' TO then we'll just differ. Why? There was ZERO outcry for him to be released. ZERO. People said it was a possibility due to cap and money concerns, but the media wasn't saying Jerry Jones should or had to get rid of him. The fans weren't. And since when has Jerry Jones been influenced that way by the media. He acts the exact opposite way the 'experts' say he should act. This holds no water.
|
|
|
Post by wareagleray on Mar 5, 2009 18:53:13 GMT -5
Ok, again, Larry Fitzgerald is not a player that helps you win the SB then because he hasn't done it yet No if's and but's. I think this is a horrible main point. Ask Donovan McNabb if he could get TO back without the lip would he take him and he'd say yes in a heartbeat. It's because QBing became fun for him then. You mean the historically worst fans in the league in just about all sports? The fans that wanted Ricky Williams and not Donovan McNabb and passionately BOOED him when he was drafted? Those fans? Note that I haven't once said that it's a conspiracy or all the media's fault yet you gravitate back to that to try to make your argument stronger. Again, didn't blame the media. I said the media asked him a question because for some reason there was already some controversy about Garcia being gay. And I also didn't say that Terrell Owens didn't do anything wrong. Why are you now taking everything I say and pushing it to an absolute? I'll check on that. Because I say he was. No, Adam Jones has an official public record and eye witnesses verifying everything he's done. Horrible example. Try again. Which is why most Cowboys were surprised that he was released. By the way, there were questions asked since the end of the season about TO being released. That's truth. You even admitted it yourself that there was speculation right after you said there was ZERO outcry And for you to tell me what the fans were saying I know I know more about this than you do. I live in Cowboy country. For you to say Jerry Jones acts the exact opposite of what experts say is another absolute in, for this post, a litany of them. I guarantee you if anyone is reading these paragraphs I'm ahead on points and that my arguments do hold water. The guy has his faults but the way that he's being treated like public enemy number one is BS to me.
|
|
|
Post by gatordynasty on Mar 5, 2009 19:00:27 GMT -5
Look WRE. I'll just let it go. I'm not even on TO's case like most on the thread are.
My only points were (a) he's a tremendous talent (b) he's not someone who you have to have to win a title.
I see where this argument is going though and I'm not having it turn into a Zach thing because I think you're a cool guy. I'll let it go. See you on another thread.
|
|
spur
Senator
Posts: 3,416
|
Post by spur on Mar 6, 2009 1:10:32 GMT -5
so you can root for a michigan guy if he plays for the browns...interesting. i personally hope brian dawkins, trevor pryce, chansey stuckey, gaines adams, and the rest of the taters in the league all get cut.
|
|
|
Post by wareagleray on Mar 6, 2009 11:00:17 GMT -5
There isn't a Zach thing here, per se, (as I have nothing against Zach but I know y'alls history). I only thought on your last post there were a few times you assumed I meant something when I did not. For instance, I would mention that TO definitely has his share of the blame here and you would say, "Oh, it's all the media's fault?"
Anyway, did some homework. Terrell Owens was set to be a free agent but his then agent botched the paperwork declarining TO's free agency. This allowed San Fran to attempt to trade TO. TO went to the player's union and fought for the right to be a free agent. I couldn't find out if San Fran was screwed other than TO leaving, which was what they wanted anyway.
One more thing. It was just a blurb on the screen but on ESPN I read that Jerry Jones listened to the counsel of many before he made his decision to release Terrell Owens. This would seem to contradict, somewhat, that Jerry Jones flies on his own and does contrary to what everyone thinks.
It's entirely possible this 'counsel' included only Cowboy personnel. But based on Michael Irvin seeming to completely disagree with this move and several Cowboys players being outright shocked it would almost seem like this decision wasn't one wanted by the team.
Or maybe better put, you had a couple of people outright call Brett Favre out at the end of the year. They haven't found anyone in Cowboy country yet that's going to call out Terrell Owens?
|
|