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

[khiladi]

False, Romo started to force more balls to owens and we fared no better.
What it does "further confirm" is that neither know what they are talking about.

Really... So TO was mentioned prior, before the Deion interview, that the game-calling wasnt using him according to what he has been successful with his whole career, such as being used in motion, and your asserting that TO was saying it had to do with the issue of more balls being thrown his way?

When TO was saying that teams had this offense figured out, before he went on the air with Deion, he was referring to more balls being thrown his way?

Romo was being criticized for forcing the ball to Owens before the Deion interview..

So what were Romo and Roy WIlliams talking about, especially the latter, when he said he never got a slant thrown his way...

 

[khiladi]

and so were they last year.......

And big part of it is because of TO, unless of course your willing to argue it was because of Crayton...

 

[DallasEast]

Your contradicting yourself. Either what he said effected the offense or it didn't...

Neither one should not have publicly admitted anything. Better yet, they should have informed Mr. Owens to shut his festering gob and do the job he's getting paid to do.

Owens is the number one receiver of the team. That's his job. He's neither a public relations nor sports marketing rep for the Dallas Cowboys. Nor is he the offensive and/or head coach. That makes it relevant. Unfortunately, keeping festering gobs shut has not been exclusively Owens' problem lately. He's only the one who got the ball rolling in that department.

Your question is irrelevant. Running his mouth did not cure the ills of the passing offense. Players do not improve their performance on the field through glorified "news" interviews. Totally irrelevant. Let's see how "relevant" the question is on the other foot.

How did running his mouth off relevant to YOUR contention?

No, it's apparent that running his mouth served zero purpose, which he completely understood before accepting Deion Sanders invitation to do his interview.

Of course I didn't. What he said had zero bearing on improving the performance of the passing offense whatsoever.

Further, what he said was confirmed by the franchise QB, who I guess shouldn't have said anything, and now, the future WR Jerry drafted that everybody on this board said would replace TO...

As I inferred earlier, both Tony Romo and Roy Williams should have kept their mouths shut also. Any viable improvement in the passing offense would be the result of proper execution of plays by all members of the offense. Visa versa, any regression in the passing offense would be the result of improper execution of plays by one or more members of the offense. Owens' mouth may have played a factor in creating a distraction for the team which impacted the latter, but never was a factor with the former.

So they shouldn't have said it and let the ills of the passing offense continue?

Publicly? I've made that perfectly clear.

Privately? And in-house? Owens should have only (repeat, only) addressed his concerns with Jason Garrett, the offensive coordinator, and if necessary, Wade Phillips, the head coach. Anything beyond that can be construed as being a distraction for the team.

 

[khiladi]

The $9M is sunk, on our salary cap for '09, and unrecoverable. So, yes, it costs us $600K additional to cut him (according to the DMN). We're on the hook for the $9M either way. It doesn't cost $10M to cut him.

In terms of the cap for future years if there is one, we're saving the ~$6M he's due to be paid this year.

Yeah, but that 9 million dollars we are on the hook for is a 9 million that includes TO playing if he isn't cut. If he is cut, that is 9 million dollars and a wild guess that this team would perform better without him, without any real evidence to back it up...

 

[Dave_in-NC]

Really... So TO was mentioned prior, before the Deion interview, that the game-calling wasnt using him according to what he has been successful with his whole career, such as being used in motion, and your asserting that TO was saying it had to do with the issue of more balls being thrown his way?

When TO was saying that teams had this offense figured out, before he went on the air with Deion, he was referring to more balls being thrown his way?

Romo was being criticized for forcing the ball to Owens before the Deion interview..

So what were Romo and Roy WIlliams talking about, especially the latter, when he said he never got a slant thrown his way...

How did you take this from what Jerry and Wade said to the Neon interview?
The end result was owens got more attention and it failed to work.

 

[Dave_in-NC]

And big part of it is because of TO, unless of course your willing to argue it was because of Crayton...

And we went 9-7, rather embarrassingly too.

 

[DuaneThomas71]

There are also a ton of people who say we will never win a thing with owens, so far they are right.

So?

What is the point of this statement, really?

I mean, if by "win a thing" you mean the division and home field advantage throughout the playoffs, then you're already wrong.

If you mean "win a Super Bowl," then it's flat out dumb.

We haven't won a thing with DeMarcus Ware or Jason Witten, either. We never won a thing with Everson Walls. The Dolphins never won anything with Dan Marino. The Bills with Bruce Smith.

So far, the only reason people have come up with for cutting Terrell Owens is some sort of presumed "chemistry" effect. But it's all speculation. None of us really knows his effect on chemistry, and those of us who have played the game before understand that chemistry doesn't win you a thing. It's nice to have it, but it's ON FIELD chemistry that counts.

 

[DuaneThomas71]

Privately? And in-house? Owens should have only (repeat, only) addressed his concerns with Jason Garrett, the offensive coordinator, and if necessary, Wade Phillips, the head coach. Anything beyond that can be construed as being a distraction for the team.

DallasYeast,

Is this the reason you would like Terrell Owens released? Because he complained about the system in an interview?

How do you feel about Tony Romo?

 

[khiladi]

Of course I didn't. What he said had zero bearing on improving the performance of the passing offense whatsoever.

Of course your contradicting yourself.

Running his mouth did not cure the ills of the passing offense

You stated that the passing offense was suffering from ills. Yo stated that his speaking did not cure these ills, which predicates that his words had no bearing on the suffering of this offense. Now you have changed the argument, contradicting yourself again, by saying it had zero bearing on improving the performance of the passing offense whatsoever.

Further, if it did not improve the passing offense, then what makes you think it negatively impacted the passing offense. The only legitimate argument you can make is to argue the team wasn't suffering offensively before TO opened his mouth with Deion, which is BS. The offense was already suffering before the Deion interview. Most analysts connected the drop in TOs performance when Green Bay started pressing over the top, with safety help on TO.

TO said the reason for the suffering of the offense prior to the interview, was the blueprint against the Cowboys offense was found. He further stated the OC wasn't using him to his talents, such as motion, in order to defend himself against accusations all over the place that he 'lost a step'. Nobody listened. WHo is to say he didn't say things in-house, while the media kept trying to attack him and accuse him of losing a step? How often was the media blaming him from mid-season onwards, by saying Romo was trying to force the ball to him, which is what caused the TOs. Hell, it was in Pittsburgh where Romo was trying to force it to Witten with TO wide-open, that ultimately absolved TO in some respects. But then again, the media somehow found a way to blame TO again.

As I inferred earlier, both Tony Romo and Roy Williams should have kept their mouths shut also. Any viable improvement in the passing offense would be the result of proper execution of plays by all members of the offense. Visa versa, any regression in the passing offense would be the result of improper execution of plays by one or more members of the offense. Owens' mouth may have played a factor in creating a distraction for the team which impacted the latter, but never was a factor with the former.
Publicly? I've made that perfectly clear.

Your whole assumption is that success of an offense is predicated purely on execution. If that was the case, we should have been able to hand the ball off to Deion Anderson everytime and scored at will. ALso, you haven't established that the opening of TOs mouth negatively impacted the Dallas Cowboys. Establishing possibility is not proof. It could have helped this offense in the long-run by opening the eyes of certain people to the real woes of the offense.

Privately? And in-house? Owens should have only (repeat, only) addressed his concerns with Jason Garrett, the offensive coordinator, and if necessary, Wade Phillips, the head coach. Anything beyond that can be construed as being a distraction for the team.

Who says he didn't address it privately? By the end of the season, Jason Garrett had a meeting with all 3 of his receivers, and what good did it to? Did he change his strategizing? WIth all the emphasis on the run, why did Jason Garrett continue to abanadon the run? With all the emphasis on reigning in Tony Romo, why did Jason Garrett continue to have him throw downfield all the time and not use a short passing game? Hell, even Wade pointed these things out during the year...

Sometimes you need to throw dynamite to get people's attention...

 

[Dave_in-NC]

So?

What is the point of this statement, really?

I mean, if by "win a thing" you mean the division and home field advantage throughout the playoffs, then you're already wrong.

If you mean "win a Super Bowl," then it's flat out dumb.

We haven't won a thing with DeMarcus Ware or Jason Witten, either. We never won a thing with Everson Walls. The Dolphins never won anything with Dan Marino. The Bills with Bruce Smith.

So far, the only reason people have come up with for cutting Terrell Owens is some sort of presumed "chemistry" effect. But it's all speculation. None of us really knows his effect on chemistry, and those of us who have played the game before understand that chemistry doesn't win you a thing. It's nice to have it, but it's ON FIELD chemistry that counts.

Geeze I don't know, "win a thing" seems simple enough.

Funny, not one guy you mentioned was ever kicked of a team.

 

[khiladi]

The end result was owens got more attention and it failed to work.

How hard is it to comprehend? His words had little relevance to the actual game-planning of the offense.. Owens got more attention, but Jason Garrett continued to suck. And finally, at the end of the season, eyes began to shift towards Jason Garrett...

 

[DuaneThomas71]

Geeze I don't know, "win a thing" seems simple enough.

Funny, not one guy you mentioned was ever kicked of a team.

So? You want to go there, do you?

Keyshawn Johnson WAS kicked off a team...the very team he DID win something with (Tampa Bay).

The Jets never won anything with Keyshawn Johnson. But the Bucs did. And then they kicked him off the team.

Keep trying. Maybe you'll get it right one of these days.

 

[Stash]

So?

What is the point of this statement, really?

I mean, if by "win a thing" you mean the division and home field advantage throughout the playoffs, then you're already wrong.

If you mean "win a Super Bowl," then it's flat out dumb.

We haven't won a thing with DeMarcus Ware or Jason Witten, either. We never won a thing with Everson Walls. The Dolphins never won anything with Dan Marino. The Bills with Bruce Smith.

So far, the only reason people have come up with for cutting Terrell Owens is some sort of presumed "chemistry" effect. But it's all speculation. None of us really knows his effect on chemistry, and those of us who have played the game before understand that chemistry doesn't win you a thing. It's nice to have it, but it's ON FIELD chemistry that counts.

I guess they want to get 'big bad, horrible Owens' away from the ultra-sensitive coaches he's apparently walking all over.

Great in theory, until the next guy with a will of his own comes along and the 'handle with care' coaching staff needs him 'removed' too.

 

[Dave_in-NC]

So? You want to go there, do you?

Keyshawn Johnson WAS kicked off a team...the very team he DID win something with (Tampa Bay).

The Jets never won anything with Keyshawn Johnson. But the Bucs did. And then they kicked him off the team.

Keep trying. Maybe you'll get it right one of these days.

The ole keep switcha a roonie. Have fun.

 

[Dave_in-NC]

I guess they want to get 'big bad, horrible Owens' away from the ultra-sensitive coaches he's apparently walking all over.

Great in theory, until the next guy with a will of his own comes along and the 'handle with care' coaching staff needs him 'removed' too.

So Mooch and reid are/were soft coaches?

 

[DuaneThomas71]

The ole keep switcha a roonie. Have fun.

I don't get it. Are you talking about your tactics or mine?

I'm just addressing your weak objections. It's rather easy, considering you're wrong.

 

[DuaneThomas71]

So Mooch and reid are/were soft coaches?

What does Mooch have to do with anything?

 

[khiladi]

So Mooch and reid are/were soft coaches?

How many years did it take Andy Reid to bench McNabb, despite all the hollering in the media?

 

[Stash]

So Mooch and reid are/were soft coaches?

Mooch is as soft as they come.

His entire team walked all over him in Detroit.

I wouldn't consider Reid 'soft' unless you're talking about his physique.

But I seem to remember that Reid had some just cause that I haven't seen the Dallas coaches have.

 

[1fisher]

And big part of it is because of TO, unless of course your willing to argue it was because of Crayton...

Oh yea... he's the gasoline that makes this engine roar....