For The TO Fans... A Highlight Video

[khiladi]

Now this is more akin to a contradiction.

First, you assert that TO only started complaining because of doubts that had been raised about his abilities. Then, less than a paragraph later, you state that "TO was complaining about Jason Garrett the whole year." Newsflash: Jason Garrett has nothing to do with whether or not TO is physically declining -- as much as TO might want to believe so.

Immediately after you erroneously accuse me of contradicting myself, you manage to contradict yourself. That's funny.


Now that you've finally conceded that TO had indeed been complaining about Jason Garrett all season, let's follow it to its natural conclusion: During the first half of the season, TO was complaining about his lack of opportunities. However, when it became apparent that he was getting numerous opportunities and plenty of passes thrown in his direction, he had to devise a new excuse for his declining production. So, going into the second half of the season, he sat down with Deion Sanders, and manufactured a new complaint: Garrett's offense didn't run the right routes

Saying Jason Garrett was complaining the whole season is clearly hyperbole, especially when in the very same context I stated that TO said the offense WAS FIGURED OUT IN THE GREEN BAY GAME. Further, your logic again fails, because your once again attributing erroneous conclusions to certain facts that I brought up. Nowhere did I bring up the issue of lack of oppurtunities or TO was complaining about lack of oppurtunities. I stated that TO was complaining that the offense got figured out, and Garrett failing to adjust. Further, he POINTED OUT PRIOR TO THE Commanders INTERVIEW that they failed to use him in motion and slants, which was where he was successful throughout his whole career.The extent your trying to go to recover your lost argument is just hilarious, especially considering your picking out one sentence out of a whole paragraph, that clearly points to context. Maybe you should, instead of quoting the whole paragraph, just quote the one sentence, because your doing yourself a dis-favor.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

Eager to see who will win the coveted urinal mint awards in this pissing match.

To the victor goes the spoils.

 

[khiladi]

It was virtually the same offense it was in 2007. The routes didn't change. Only TO changed

Ding, ding, ding... Which leads me exactly to the point, i.e. the offense was figured out in the Green Bay game.

 

[khiladi]

Do you honestly believe TO had never faced press coverage with safety help until last season?

Seriously?

After more than 10 years in the league, TO never faced a coverage that's been around for decades? Now, that's absurd.


TO has seen press coverage with safety help a myriad number of times throughout his career. The only difference last season was this: He couldn't beat it consistently anymore because his skills are deteriorating

Wow, just wow. Was TO playing in a West-Coast offense when he was in SF and the Eagles, or was he playing in a primarily VERTICAL PASSING GAME THAT TRIES TO STRETCH THE FIELD. What happens in a West Coast offense, other than plenty of motion and quick slants? The issue is not the press coverage and safety help over the top wasn't employed on TO, the issue is how often it was employed. The issue is the failure to adjust by Garrett, as STATED BY TO. The idea that TOs success early in his career was because he was constantly beating double-teams in a vertical passing game, but just oculdn't get it done anymroe is the height of absuridty.Did Al Harris say or not say that they have a new game-plan to stop TO? What happened in 2007 when Green Bay had Al Harris isolated on TO in man? What happened when the 49ers tried the same thing in 2008? He did what he always did. The issue has nothing to do with press coverage, the issue had to do with rolling help over the top on a consistent basis in GARRETT'S OFFENSE.When TO was injured in 2007, what happened to the Dallas offense? When TO was essentially taken out of the game in Carolina, THE OFFENSE STALLED LIKE IT DID IN 2008. Teams made a concerted effort to take out TO and they couldn't get it done, plain and simple.

 

[khiladi]

You mean Dan Reeves being brought in to re-vamp the running game and see where it went wrong does nothing to your argument? I mean if it was just TO, they could have not even bothered to get Garrett a baby-sitter....

 

[khiladi]

Forcing passes to receivers at the expense of the running game is not at the heart of any offensive philosophy

So is it Owens-centric or forcing passes, because in Arizona, Romo didn't force any passes to Romo, and the offense was just pathetic. Plus, you can force passes to other receivers, besides TO. So is it ignoring the running game to pass the ball or is forcing the ball to a particular receiver in the passing game? You can't keep shifting your argument, when you deem fit.

 

[khiladi]

The effectiveness with which Miles Austin was used has been my argument since I started posting on this thread a week ago

Don't blame me for your contradictions. I already quoted you.

"The following week, Washington employed the same strategy, jamming TO at the line with safety help over the top. Unfortunately, the Cowboys did not demonstrate the same patience they had in the previous game: THEY RAN THE BALL ONLY 8 TIMES; failed to give Felix Jones a single carry; and, did not incorporate Miles Austin UNTIL IT WAS TOO LATE."

You stated that they incorporated Miles Austin too late, meaning they did not try and target him in the passing game. One more time, you asserted that they did not incoprorate Miles Austin UNTIL IT WAS TOO LATE. You even brought up the final drive to demonstrate that when Miles was used they scored a TD, though that was PREVENT and essentially useless. The fact is, Miles Austin was TARGETTED THROUGHOUT THE GAME, especially in the first half and that was pointed out to you. The problem is, you think it all had to do with appeasing TO.

 

[khiladi]

Regardless of the reason Williams wasn't involved in the offense, his lack of involvement still invalidates your earlier point.

Ity invalidates my earlier point or your ridiculous point that they were struggling because they were trying to appease TO? So they go out and get a Pro-Bowl WR to add to this offense to act as a decoy to free up TO, because they want to appease TO? If they went out and tried to get Roy WIlliams to open up the passing game, how does it invalidate my earlier point? That is an implicit admittance that they were struggling in the passing game and they tried to open up the offense, by adding more talent. Roy Williams was added after the Arizona game... You mean the reason that Roy WIlliams wasn't used in the offense has no bearing on how other players weren't involved in the offense? The fact that Roy Williams even busted on Garrett not employing slants, instead just having him run straight routes, is a mark on TO?

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

Silverbear??

 

[ScipioCowboy]

There you go again. I NEVER ASSERTED that is what you stated.

Really? Because here's the exact quotation to which I was responding:

You stated that Dallas forced the ball to Terrell Owens even into double-coverage in the passing game because TO was demanding the ball. This led to the offensive decline.

:laugh2:

Are you following along at all?

I said it was the LOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF YOUR ASSERTIONS, WHICH YOU FAILED TO REALIZE WHEN YOU MADE THE STATEMENT.[
Further, the irony of your consistent arguing is you just keep contradicting yourself. So the context of the Arizona and Green Bay game is different when it is clear you can't blame TO, but the context of the Green Bay game and Commanders game is the same when you need to blame TO.

Further, it was not me that stated that Romo LEARNED HIS LESSON and did not try to force the ball to TO in the Arizona game, IT WAS YOU. Now you have subtly changed the argument into one about consistent decision-making, but even then, you again place yourself in a contardiction, with that being, the decision of FORCING THE BALL WAS ON ROMO, per your own words, NOT TO. If TO was complaining incessantly and they were trying to force the ball to him, especially after the Commanders game, per your own words, then why did Romo consistently check it down to Barber and not try and force it to TO?

All of this is incorrect, as I explained here.

Furthermore, I never asserted Romo "consistently checked it down to Barber" throughout the remainder of the year. I only stated that the number of check down throws to Barber increased for the Arizona game -- an assertion that is corroborated by the facts:

31 percent of Barber's receiving yards and 21 percent of his receptions on the year came during the Arizona game. It was, by far, Barber's most productive game through the air. Unfortunately, he was never utilized in such a manner again.

Man, you just don't stop with your shape-shifting arguments. So explain to me why TO started complaining incessantly per your own words, when the first game he had five receptions and one touchdown, while the second game he had 3 receptions, and two TDs, and they were 3-0? He just started to complain after one game?

In my opinion, he started complaining because he was coming off a 2 catch performance against Green Bay, and was shut out in the second half against the Eagles. He had yet to gain over 100 yards receiving in any one game (and wouldn't do so until well over halfway through the season).

Owens was becoming frustrated with his lack of typical production, and couldn't face the harsh reality of age: His skills were deteriorating.

Saying Jason Garrett was complaining the whole season is clearly hyperbole, especially when in the very same context I stated that TO said the offense WAS FIGURED OUT IN THE GREEN BAY GAME. Further, your logic again fails, because your once again attributing erroneous conclusions to certain facts that I brought up. Nowhere did I bring up the issue of lack of oppurtunities or TO was complaining about lack of oppurtunities. I stated that TO was complaining that the offense got figured out, and Garrett failing to adjust. Further, he POINTED OUT PRIOR TO THE Commanders INTERVIEW that they failed to use him in motion and slants, which was where he was successful throughout his whole career.The extent your trying to go to recover your lost argument is just hilarious, especially considering your picking out one sentence out of a whole paragraph, that clearly points to context. Maybe you should, instead of quoting the whole paragraph, just quote the one sentence, because your doing yourself a dis-favor.

No. You stated that TO was complaining because of doubts expressed about his abilities. Remember this:

TO started complaining when people were calling him out for losing a step, over and over again, harping on it day and night.

If anyone is contradicting himself here, it's clearly you.

As I said previously, Garrett's offense didn't change between 2007 ad 2008. It was the same routes in the same offense in which TO had a banner year in 2007. The only change was TO, who began manifesting decline.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

You know it's become an awesome argument/discussion when people are going back and quoting things they posted a week ago, or more, to further the argument/discussion.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Wow, just wow. Was TO playing in a West-Coast offense when he was in SF and the Eagles, or was he playing in a primarily VERTICAL PASSING GAME THAT TRIES TO STRETCH THE FIELD. What happens in a West Coast offense, other than plenty of motion and quick slants? The issue is not the press coverage and safety help over the top wasn't employed on TO, the issue is how often it was employed. The issue is the failure to adjust by Garrett, as STATED BY TO. The idea that TOs success early in his career was because he was constantly beating double-teams in a vertical passing game, but just oculdn't get it done anymroe is the height of absuridty.Did Al Harris say or not say that they have a new game-plan to stop TO? What happened in 2007 when Green Bay had Al Harris isolated on TO in man? What happened when the 49ers tried the same thing in 2008? He did what he always did. The issue has nothing to do with press coverage, the issue had to do with rolling help over the top on a consistent basis in GARRETT'S OFFENSE.When TO was injured in 2007, what happened to the Dallas offense? When TO was essentially taken out of the game in Carolina, THE OFFENSE STALLED LIKE IT DID IN 2008. Teams made a concerted effort to take out TO and they couldn't get it done, plain and simple.

In essence, you're arguing that defenses did not consistently press TO and provide safety help over the top until last season.

Seriously?

TO had been in Dallas for two years prior to last season, and you're asserting that he never consistently faced one of the most common coverages in the league, regardless of the type of offense.

Serious question: In your pandering and sycophantic defenses of TO, do you honestly believe the ridiculous claims you make?

You mean Dan Reeves being brought in to re-vamp the running game and see where it went wrong does nothing to your argument? I mean if it was just TO, they could have not even bothered to get Garrett a baby-sitter....

No.

And you just made my point. If the attempted acquisition of Dan Reeves indicates a need to babysit Jason Garrett, what does the ejection of TO indicate about him?

So is it Owens-centric or forcing passes, because in Arizona, Romo didn't force any passes to Romo, and the offense was just pathetic. Plus, you can force passes to other receivers, besides TO. So is it ignoring the running game to pass the ball or is forcing the ball to a particular receiver in the passing game? You can't keep shifting your argument, when you deem fit.

I haven't shifted any argument. I've already clarified your above confusion here, here, and here.

Don't blame me for your contradictions. I already quoted you.You stated that they incorporated Miles Austin too late, meaning they did not try and target him in the passing game. One more time, you asserted that they did not incoprorate Miles Austin UNTIL IT WAS TOO LATE. You even brought up the final drive to demonstrate that when Miles was used they scored a TD, though that was PREVENT and essentially useless. The fact is, Miles Austin was TARGETTED THROUGHOUT THE GAME, especially in the first half and that was pointed out to you. The problem is, you think it all had to do with appeasing TO.

This isn't what it means at all, as I explained here.

Ity invalidates my earlier point or your ridiculous point that they were struggling because they were trying to appease TO?

It would only possibly validate your argument if they had made a concerted effort to throw Williams the ball -- which they didn't.

 

[khiladi]

Furthermore, I never asserted Romo "consistently checked it down to Barber" throughout the remainder of the year. I only stated that the number of check down throws to Barber increased for the Arizona game -- an assertion that is corroborated by the facts:


31 percent of Barber's receiving yards and 21 percent of his receptions on the year came during the Arizona game. It was, by far, Barber's most productive game through the air. Unfortunately, he was never utilized in such a manner again.

Oh please can we go to the video-tape once again, pretty please.

Now, follow this next sentence closely because this is the important part: The fact that Romo wasn't forcing passes into TO against Arizona does not mean that Garrett wasn't trying to "feed the ball to Owens." It only means that Romo LEARNED A VALUABLE LESSON from the Washington game --he might as well CHECK DOWN to Barber because TO IS GOING TO BE A WHINY, DIVISIVE SNITH REGARDLESS HOW MANY TIMES HE'S THROWN THE BALL.

So your first assertion after I clearly pointed out your fallacious notion regarding TO being the primary target all the time and Dallas was trying to force him the ball was that Tony Romo learned a valuable lesson. So did Tony Romo learn his lesson or was it the game circumstances dictated that Mariuon aBarber be thrown the ball? And considering that the Dallas offense was INEFFECTIVE the whole Arizona game, and Romo was getting killed in the pocket, what 'promise' was there in him in being used in such a way?

In my opinion, he started complaining because he was coming off a 2 catch performance against Green Bay, and was shut out in the second half against the Eagles. He had yet to gain over 100 yards receiving in any one game (and wouldn't do so until well over halfway through the season).Owens was becoming frustrated with his lack of typical production, and couldn't face the harsh reality of age: His skills were deteriorating.

Ah OK... So TO has never been effectively 'shut out' throughout his productive career as a HoF receiver that he was bust out and cry, especially considering the previous two games he caught 3 TDs and had 8 passes caught? So Dallas ran the ball effectively against Cleveland and the Eagles and Terrell Owens had some very high numbers, so your argument that Dallas ignored the running game to appease TO means exactly what, considering when they ran the ball TO himself was a beneficiary of great numbers and they won?

No. You stated that TO was complaining because of doubts expressed about his abilities. Remember this:

Oh my god, your ridiculous. And the reasoning he gave for the drop in production was exactly because the offense was figured out.

As I said previously, Garrett's offense didn't change between 2007 ad 2008. It was the same routes in the same offense in which TO had a banner year in 2007. The only change was TO, who began manifesting decline.

And Buddy Ryan's defense was good for a couple of years and eventually became non-existent as a base defense. The West Caost effectively ended the 4-6 defense as the base package. Because something works in one year doesn't mean it works the next year. Even TO never denied that Garrett did good in 2007, thus the words, FAILING TO ADJUST. Further, tt was the same offense in 2007 as 2008 that failed in the end of the year, and stalled when TO got injured. They couldn't even get Romo the Dallas passing record against the Commanders and Barber ran like negative yardage.

 

[khiladi]

In essence, you're arguing that defenses did not consistently press TO and provide safety help over the top until last season.

Seriously?

TO had been in Dallas for two years prior to last season, and you're asserting that he never consistently faced one of the most common coverages in the league, regardless of the type of offense.

Yes, I am arguing that teams did not do that, and even if they did, the way teh West Coast and Garrett's systems are run, to even make the ridiculous analogy is as absurd as it gets. The West Caost relies on short ruotes, heavy motion and quick passes. In 2007, teams were not defending TO that way primarily. Garrett relies on a vertical passing game and anybody that doesn't take this into account is absolutely oblivious to reality. When TO was pressed in man coverage, whether it was 2007 or 2008, and there was no help over the top, he abused the corners, Nate Clements and Al Harris. Al Harris explicilty stated that in 2008 they are going to defend them differently than they did in 2007, and Al Harris was playing man on TO in 2007. He got abused. TO beat press coverage in 2008 against the 49ers, the only difference is they didn't shift men over to help.

No.And you just made my point. If the attempted acquisition of Dan Reeves indicates a need to babysit Jason Garrett, what does the ejection of TO indicate about him?

Thus my statement, TO being released a MONTH LATER after the Dan Reeves incident. His being released has nothing to do with the ineptitude of Garrett to call an offense. They are two different realities. If Garrett was abandoning the running game, then why did they bring in Dan Reeves in the first place, when all it should have spelt was releasing TO immediately. That is implicit admittance that Garrett needed help with the running game.

 

[khiladi]

It would only possibly validate your argument if they had made a concerted effort to throw Williams the ball -- which they didn't.

So they went out and got Roy Williams to be a decoy for TO, when they already had people that were doing the job quite adequately per your understanding?

 

[khiladi]

And I am going to quote your own words regarding Miles Austin one more time. Don't blame me for your self-contradictory statements, which corraborate my point that you keep modifying your arguments as the statistics keep proving you wrong:

"The following week, Washington employed the same strategy, jamming TO at the line with safety help over the top. Unfortunately, the Cowboys did not demonstrate the same patience they had in the previous game: THEY RAN THE BALL ONLY 8 TIMES; failed to give Felix Jones a single carry; and, did not incorporate Miles Austin UNTIL IT WAS TOO LATE."

In all such cases, I stated:1. TO wasn't the primary target in the first half, Crayton was.2. Miles Austin was not ignored in the first half, but was actually utilized plenty, totally refuting your argument that IT WAS TOO LATE.3. Barber wasn't ignored in the first half either. Dallas went pass happy, because the Commanders were dominating the TOP and they got out to a lead. The first thing to open up the second half was to target TO, and mix in Barber and they scored on a 5 play drive. Barber was KEY IN THAT POSSESSION. Garrett then calls TOs number 3 times in a row, for what? Did TO also go to him and say,

"I can score on 3 plays so don't bother to have Barber run the next series, even though he ran this series and I got a TD."

The trend was throughout the season.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Oh please can we go to the video-tape once again, pretty please.So your first assertion after I clearly pointed out your fallacious notion regarding TO being the primary target all the time and Dallas was trying to force him the ball was that Tony Romo learned a valuable lesson. So did Tony Romo learn his lesson or was it the game circumstances dictated that Mariuon aBarber be thrown the ball? And considering that the Dallas offense was INEFFECTIVE the whole Arizona game, and Romo was getting killed in the pocket, what 'promise' was there in him in being used in such a way?

Yet another false correlation. The two are not mutually exclusive. The answer is both.

There is a seldom a circumstance in which a quarterback should force passes into a double covered receiver. Romo failed to apply this lesson against Washington, but did apply it the following game against Arizona.

And the reasoning he gave for the drop in production was exactly because the offense was figured out. And Buddy Ryan's defense was good for a couple of years and eventually became non-existent as a base defense. The West Caost effectively ended the 4-6 defense as the base package. Because something works in one year doesn't mean it works the next year. Even TO never denied that Garrett did good in 2007, thus the words, FAILING TO ADJUST. Further, tt was the same offense in 2007 as 2008 that failed in the end of the year, and stalled when TO got injured. They couldn't even get Romo the Dallas passing record against the Commanders and Barber ran like negative yardage.

If Garrett's offense had truly been "figured out", why didn't every player experience a precipitous decline in their production? Romo's per game production in 2008 was almost identical to 2007. He actually averaged slightly more yards passing per game in 2008. Despite battling injuries throughout most of the final month, Barber actually had more total yards from scrimmage in 2008 than 2007. Witten's numbers dipped a little, mostly due to injury, but it was still one of most productive seasons in the NFL.

Owens was one of the few star offensive players who didn't have a major or nagging injury last season yet his production saw the most dramatic decline. 2008 was his worst season in almost a decade.

Once again, it wasn't Garrett's fault TO couldn't get open.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

By far, my favorite exchange on this thread is the one below:

In essence, you're arguing that defenses did not consistently press TO and provide safety help over the top until last season.

Seriously?

TO had been in Dallas for two years prior to last season, and you're asserting that he never consistently faced one of the most common coverages in the league, regardless of the type of offense.

Yes, I am arguing that teams did not do that

Your response tells us everything we need to know about the quality of your opinion and the acuity of your insight and football acumen on all matters TO.

BP can keep his giant urinal mint. I'm out of here.

:laugh1: