FWIW Schefter talks T.O. on Dan Patrick show this AM

[Stash]

we cut Ware and we have no pass-rush

cut TO, and our O is in pretty good shape still

and that's really the whole point

plus great pass-rushers are indispensible, great WRs are not

How so?

It's not like any of the other receivers had a great year.

 

[DuaneThomas71]

I don't know about "war", but I heard "It's not me, it's the system" and "I can't throw it and catch it, too" in an interview TO did after a big win.

And as for other issues, he did have the whole Witten thing.

Other than the money, it's shaping up exactly like it did in Philly. Even though Andy Reid is a tough, respected coach.

Who do you think "I can't throw it and catch it, too" was a shot at?

And I think it's pretty clear by now that the "Witten thing" was a tale.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Who do you think "I can't throw it and catch it, too" was a shot at?

I don't know, who throws the ball?

Who do you think it was a shot at?

 

[Bob Sacamano]

How so?

It's not like any of the other receivers had a great year.

it's not like Roy Williams isn't capabe of having a great year

and Witten did lead the team in receptions

 

[Stash]

Who do you think "I can't throw it and catch it, too" was a shot at?

And I think it's pretty clear by now that the "Witten thing" was a tale.

Unless Witten's a big liar too.

In which case, he must go next!!!!

 

[DuaneThomas71]

I don't know how much discussion can be deflected about his money issues in Philadelphia. He had a gripe about the length and total amount of the contract, but somehow his $9 million dollar signing bonus gets swept under the rug for some reason. That's not exactly chicken feed either.

Then again, he did claim that the Eagles weren't paying him enough to feed his family. $9 million dollars worth of chicken feed is probably not a whole lot anyway.

FYI: He never said anything about "feeding" his family. He said it was "about" his family, and somehow that got changed to "feed."

 

[Arch Stanton]

Who do you think "I can't throw it and catch it, too" was a shot at?

And I think it's pretty clear by now that the "Witten thing" was a tale.

I'd be OK if TO could catch the ball.

 

[DuaneThomas71]

I don't know, who throws the ball?

Who do you think it was a shot at?

Considering the timing of the interview?

Brad Johnson.

Do you still have a major problem with it?

 

[Stash]

it's not like Roy Williams isn't capabe of having a great year

and Witten did lead the team in receptions

Apparently Roy Williams is incapable - when Jason Garrett's telling him what to do.

And Witten did have the luxury of Owens drawing double-teams, something he won't have with Owens gone.

 

[ddh33]

Then they can cut Owens then.

When he does blow up.

Until that point I see a weak ownership and coaching staff wantiong to get rid of a guy who dared question what that same weak coaching staff was doing.

And he was right about it.

What happens when the next dissenting voice is heard, cut him too?

Better get rid of Roy Williams and Romo now then.

If you wait until that point, the season is already torched. You would have to answer questions about him for weeks, and the whole thing would never go away.

I think you've got to make your decision. If you think TO is going to blow again this season at any point, you need to deal with it by getting rid of him right now. The questions will be asked now. They'll be asked in training camp. And then, the story will be about the players on the field.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Apparently Roy Williams is incapable - when Jason Garrett's telling him what to do.

so you think Roy is going to suck?

I don't think you believe that

And Witten did have the luxury of Owens drawing double-teams, something he won't have with Owens gone.

Witten doesn't draw double-teams?

that's news to me

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Considering the timing of the interview?

Brad Johnson.

Do you still have a major problem with it?

The timing came right after the Commanders win quarterbacked by Tony Romo.

And of course I have a problem with it. It doesn't matter how bad the QB is.

If Tony sat down for an interview with NFL Network and said TO can't run routes or catch, would you have a major problem with it?

 

[Arch Stanton]

If you wait until that point, the season is already torched. You would have to answer questions about him for weeks, and the whole thing would never go away.

I think you've got to make your decision. If you think TO is going to blow again this season at any point, you need to deal with it by getting rid of him right now. The questions will be asked now. They'll be asked in training camp. And then, the story will be about the players on the field.

The media are looking for a TO story every day of every week of the year. He doesn't disappoint.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

The timing came right after the Commanders win quarterbacked by Tony Romo.

And of course I have a problem with it. It doesn't matter how bad the QB is.

If Tony sat down for an interview with NFL Network and said TO can't run routes or catch, would you have a major problem with it?

apparently he would

 

[DallasEast]

What video?

umm... the video contained in this post...

You move me with your words of affection, iJordanTaber.

Anyhoo, the answer is Owens. That has always been apparent.

The sooner Terrell Owens begins working with his offensive coordinator, regardless of any misgivings he has about how he is being used within the offense, the better. The same goes for Tony Romo, Roy Williams, etc.

IF Garrett leaves the franchise, they should all deal with the new offensive coordinator in an equally professional manner as well. All this individualism should be nixed in the butt. Of course, with Owens track record, that's a concern.

[youtube]3wk_JpDwI5I[/youtube]

I've seen Mooch defend Owens time and time again. I know their relationship was strained in San Francisco...whose fault that was is a matter of opinion. I also know that they worked together and would have continued to work together had Mooch not been fired following the 2002 season.

Mooch wasn't interested in running away from a strained relationship like people think it's OK for Jason Garrett to be.

Mariucci defended Owens time and again. What makes that any different from what any other coach has done? However, it should be noted that once Mariucci correctly suspended Owens for his nonsense (see video) Owens didn't appreciate the gesture at all. In other words, Mariucci was not to blame.

Jason Garrett is responsible for running the offense as he sees fit. Hopefully, he will make the adjustments FOR ALL MEMBERS OF THE OFFENSE to be as productive as necessary to win in '09. Every single one of them should be professional enough to work with him to get the job done WITHOUT even attempting to involve the outside world (i.e. the media & especially totally unnecessary one-on-one televised interviews).

Garrett shouldn't run away from that responsibility, but if he were to do so simply because idiots cannot get with the program IF there is a chance to fix it, I'm not going to fault him for leaving. There is no excuse for any player to purposefully act like a knucklehead. These players are 20-somethings. They're adults. And even the 30-somethings have even lesser of an excuse for such nonsense.

 

[DallasEast]

FYI: He never said anything about "feeding" his family. He said it was "about" his family, and somehow that got changed to "feed."

***This has been an iJordanTaber Breaking News update***

.​

 

[DuaneThomas71]

The timing came right after the Commanders win quarterbacked by Tony Romo.

And of course I have a problem with it. It doesn't matter how bad the QB is.

If Tony sat down for an interview with NFL Network and said TO can't run routes or catch, would you have a major problem with it?

So let me get this straight.

Coming off Tony's very first game back (in which he's playing with a splint on his hand), after 3 games with Brad Johnson, the most miserable QB in the game, in which he fails to even have 40 yards in any of those games, he's going to take a shot at TONY ROMO?

Really?

If Owens ever had any doubts about Romo before, they were answered when Brad came in and shot his season to hell.

Your analogy isn't a fair one, either. Owens never said "Tony can't throw or read coverages." He said "I can't throw and catch." I wouldn't have a huge problem with Romo saying "I can't throw and catch the ball." It would be a diffusion of responsibility, which isn't a good thing for a quarterback to be doing, but in the context of his numbers declining, it's not that big a deal.

That's what the Owens interview was about. Deion approached him under the guise of "Why have your numbers declined so much? Are you falling off like people are saying now?"

Personally, I don't even think Owens was intending this as a shot at ANY quarterback...it just was misunderstood like a lot of his comments. He was trying to say that he doesn't have complete control over his own numbers, he can only play his position and do his own job well. He just didn't do a very good job of wording it.

 

[DuaneThomas71]

umm... the video contained in this post...

Mariucci defended Owens time and again. What makes that any different from what any other coach has done? However, it should be noted that once Mariucci correctly suspended Owens for his nonsense (see video) Owens didn't appreciate the gesture at all. In other words, Mariucci was not to blame.

Jason Garrett is responsible for running the offense as he sees fit. Hopefully, he will make the adjustments FOR ALL MEMBERS OF THE OFFENSE to be as productive as necessary to win in '09. Every single one of them should be professional enough to work with him to get the job done WITHOUT even attempting to involve the outside world (i.e. the media & especially totally unnecessary one-on-one televised interviews).

Garrett shouldn't run away from that responsibility, but if he were to do so simply because idiots cannot get with the program IF there is a chance to fix it, I'm not going to fault him for leaving. There is no excuse for any player to purposefully act like a knucklehead. These players are 20-somethings. They're adults. And even the 30-somethings have even lesser of an excuse for such nonsense.

It's different in that Mariucci was able to continue working with Owens despite whatever "strain" there may have been, and he doesn't show any animosity toward him afterwards, so it didn't wear on him to the degree in which Dave alleged.

If Jason Garrett runs away, he's an incredibly weak coach. I think that's ultimately the point here.

 

[TheDude]

I think everyone is trying to look for the "magic bullet" for the 2008 Boys. I think it 90% comes down to coaching/play calling/talent evaluation and 10% due to injuries.

Since the SF 49ers of the 80s, having "the best defense" is helpful, but not the most important piece. Having a high-powered "potential" offense has been more of the rule than the exception. Ball protection is the first priority for the offense, but if there is no fire-power, any lead for the other team puts them under

Examples

• 1989 - SF def Cincy - enough said
• 1990 - SF def Denver - enough said
• 1991 - NYG def Buffalo (wide right gives victory to "offensive team")
• 1992 - Wash def Buffalo - (Wash record 485 points in season)
• 1993 - Dall def Buffalo - Good def but the "Triplets" ?? : offense
• 1994 - Dall def Buffalo - enough said
• 1995 - SF def San Diego - enough said
• 1996 - Dall def Pitt - enough said (big plays early made Pitt play catchup resulting in INTs)
• 1997 - GB def NE - GB was an offensive team
• 1998 - Denver def GB (GB had better defense)
• 1999 - Denver def Atl - enough said
• 2000 - StL def Tenn - Greatest show on Turf
• 2001 - Balt def NYG - gotta give this to the D
• 2002 - NE def StL - gotta give this to the D
• 2003 - NE def Car - 32-29 not exactly a defensive struggle
• 2004 - NE def Phil - Brady Inc.
• 2005 - Pitt def Sea - Give it to the D
• 2006 - Indy def Bears - Manning/off def Urlacher/Def
• 2007 - NYG def NE - NYG were D, but the offense big plays won it late
• 2008 - Pitt def Az - Pitt def gave up 23 points and was 12 inches from giving up 30. Pitt had to win it with big plays from the offense with the Defense on the bench.

While it helps to have a good defense, over the past 2 decades, it needs to be "all time elite" to carry a SB victory

Ultimately, the 2007 Cowboys overachieved and won a couple of close/freaky-type games in 2007 that it didn't in 2008 (Buffalo 2007 v Pitt 2008, Detroit 2007 vs Wash 2008)

The talent on this team is about 11/12 wins per year. The difference is turnovers. This team is not aggressive ball hawks like Pitt and Balt, they are more opportunistic (except Ware). Hell, Hamlin had 5 Ints in 2007 as did Henry. That was because we got up on the opponents early.

The 2007 offense played right into the 2007 defenses strength. The 2008 offense was not as good and the defense had to change its philosophy because the opponents weren't forced into risks. It actually did a pretty decent job in transforming after the Rams (except ending vs Balt)

So why was the 2008 offense worse than 2007? Injuries. Romo missing 3 games in the middle of the season (losing to the Rams) was the main reason. The other was talent evaluation, kepping Johnson and Proctor led to 2 losses easily. That is a front office decision that should cost someone their job. The last is play calling. This year was all about the big play - forget the set ups with intermediate/underneath routes, bombs away.

Look at Wash #1 game. a 2 pt game that saw Barber get 8 carries and Felix 0. Same with Az game, 75% passing (no Choice) in an OT game that we were leading until late in 3rd quarter.

Don't underestimate the injuries, but the play calling was MUCH worse and the B Johnson/Proctor experiment was ridiculous.

TO is an easy target, but the offense was different this year, and Garret was the main caller (delayed draw, bomb) and Romo was the main player (red zone Ints, "punts"). He was not as accurate on the deep balls (OWENS, Austin v Balt, etc).

 

[cowboyjoe]

its kinda like a sports media reporter said, the steelers are the tough physical team

the cowboys are the glamour team, thats the problem, the cowboys pratices, workouts, OTAs are not physical and the players play up to that


till jerry jones sees that, and sees that the cowboys needs to go back to smash mouth football, and get those players geared to play that way like Jimmy Johnson when he built the team in the 90's

you win more championships, and super bowls with discipline, get tough policy etc.

then a softee coach.

Kinda like one person said, and jimmy johnson said, if your going to hit a gorillas, you hit him with everything you got. Fatigue makes cowards of you. And Jimmy Johnson hated sloppy football teams, sloppy football teams comes from soft coaching in training camp and OTAs

Kinda like 2 zoners have here posted of what jimmy johnson and tom landry say;
You as a head coach have to get the players to do something that they dont want to do, but in long run, will provide championships (hard practices)
Treat a person as he is and he will remain that same way. treat a person as he should and could be and he will become that player.

In other words, how many years have we heard now that the cowboys players say, we want to be treated as professionals,

well dallas cowboy players you have had it soft the last 2 years, look at the results, enough of the soft camp, you are going to be worked now, and you will practice hard, get used to it, if you want to be champions, you have to work, practice and study like champions.

nothing is given to you on a silver platter, you have to earn it,