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

[Dave_in-NC]

I must have missed the Eagles winning the Super Bowl on Sunday...

They were closer than we were. No big time WR either.

 

[Clove]

Everyone's on the popular wave, get rid of TO and all is well. Thank God most of us are sitting at our computers eating peanuts and drinking sweet tea vs GM'ing and coaching a team.

 

[DuaneThomas71]

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.

How has that always been apparent, Yeast?

Was it right of Mooch to suspend Owens for celebrating on our beloved star? As over-the-top as it may have been...why should his own coach care about something like that? Mariucci should have been happy he scored two touchdowns and helped his team win the game...not that he somehow magically "disgraced" our logo by standing on it, which represents the most historically important franchise in the league. It was a touchdown celebration. That's not grounds for a suspension. A fine, sure. But it's not a severe enough infraction to warrant something like that.

 

[Stash]

Sorry, no, he doesn't get a pass. I agree 100% the coaching and management on this team are not capable of handling the asylum, but that doesn't mean Owens isn't one of the chief inmates, or that the lack of his presence might make it something at least more manageable for Wade and Garrett.

Look at what you just typed.

So we have two coaches who are incapable of handling a problem child player, but rather than man-up and deal with him, it would be better if the owner simply takes the player out of the equation?

Those are the guys you want leading this team?

Really?

 

[Dave_in-NC]

The Patriots won 3 Super Bowls, by cheating... But even then, Branch is a beast WR, who just can't stay healthy. Tom Brady was absolutely PO'd when they let him go, and the reason they went out and got Randy Moss was precisely because they needed a legitimate WR..

Nobody said it isnt possible to win the Super Bowl, especially when you have one of the greatest defenses to ever play the game, such as the Ravens defense...

Nothing is ensured, but you can be damn sure that there are way more cases of teams making it and winning the Super Bowl with great WRs, than without them...

 

[SLATEmosphere]

If you could somehow convince me that releasing Owens could guarantee the Cowboys a defense as good as those teams had, I'm on board with it.

If we control the clock and pound the ball like those teams did, ya our defense could very much resemble those. They need to rest and not break down the last 3 minutes of a game because they are exhausted.

 

[khiladi]

[having 2 good receivers mean you want them to get the ball, not to mention you have a great pass-catching TE too

And having Marion Barber, Felix Jones and Chioce mean you want them to run the ball. Your point? Like I said, nobody forces Garrett not to run the ball. It would also make the passing more effective.

we don't lose anything getting rid of TO

unless you count best offense on paper

Really... Is that why teams try and double him? I don't see them stacking the box to stop anybody else... They are successful rushing 4 straight, with a couple delayed blitzes here and teher...

 

[Clove]

Look at what you just typed.

So we have two coaches who are incapable of handling a problem child player, but rather than man-up and deal with him, it would be better if the owner simply takes the player out of the equation?

Those are the guys you want leading this team?

Really?

Everytime someone objects or gets angry, just cut them. This means Romo has to go since he questioned Garrett. What a cancer.

 

[Clove]

If we control the clock and pound the ball like those teams did, ya our defense could very much resemble those. They need to rest and not break down the last 3 minutes of a game because they are exhausted.

Seems like you're complaining about coaching to me.

 

[khiladi]

Because they had absolutely nobody except a slightly above average TE and a great RB?

We have twice the skill weapons they do without TO.

They also have one of the best offesnive lines in the league and throw a bunch of short passes that negate a lot of the pass rush... It is because of scheming they have been so successful... When they added TO, they became dominant...

 

[Bob Sacamano]

The Patriots won 3 Super Bowls, by cheating... But even then, Branch is a beast WR, who just can't stay healthy.

never once had 1,000 yards receiving

yeah, beast, he's a freakin' slot receiver

Tom Brady was absolutely PO'd when they let him go, and the reason they went out and got Randy Moss was precisely because they needed a legitimate WR..

and they got a finesse offense that got beat up and lost the Super Bowl

Nobody said it isnt possible to win the Super Bowl, especially when you have one of the greatest defenses to ever play the game, such as the Ravens defense...

you don't need a defense as good as the '00 Ravens

your D could be as good as the Steelers of this year, and you could win it

Nothing is ensured, but you can be damn sure that there are way more cases of teams making it and winning the Super Bowl with great WRs, than without them...

well so far I've given you 5 Super Bowl winners who didn't have great receivers

 

[Stash]

having 2 good receivers mean you want them to get the ball, not to mention you have a great pass-catching TE too



we don't lose anything getting rid of TO

unless you count best offense on paper

Having two good receivers means you have the option to get them the ball - and keep defenses honest and guessing.

Having more weapons is never a bad thing - unless you're named Garrett.

I think Owens' stats were a bit better than zero.

Therefore I think we do lose something.

 

[wileedog]

Look at what you just typed.

So we have two coaches who are incapable of handling a problem child player, but rather than man-up and deal with him, it would be better if the owner simply takes the player out of the equation?

Those are the guys you want leading this team?

Really?

Understand, my first and foremost preference is to get rid of Wade and probably Garret. Mr. Jones, actually problem #1, has assured me that is not happening, and most of my coaching choices look like they are sitting out the year anyway.

I'm just looking down the next problem on my checklist and seeing Owens' name. If someone can address 1 and 2 for me I'll happily keep Owens, but keeping all three is a disaster in my mind. TO already knows he can walk all over the coaching staff and Jerry has his back. More so if he is not let go this year.

And the other players know it too.

 

[Dave_in-NC]

And having Marion Barber, Felix Jones and Chioce mean you want them to run the ball. Your point? Like I said, nobody forces Garrett not to run the ball. It would also make the passing more effective.





Really... Is that why teams try and double him? I don't see them stacking the box to stop anybody else... They are successful rushing 4 straight, with a couple delayed blitzes here and teher...

Have you seen RW 11 run? My dead grand mother could about cover him.
I, myself would like to see Miles get more time. He might surprise some people.
"If" owens was cut I wouldn't mind a long look at Austin.

 

[Dave_in-NC]

Understand, my first and foremost preference is to get rid of Wade and probably Garret. Mr. Jones, actually problem #1, has assured me that is not happening, and most of my coaching choices look like they are sitting out the year anyway.

I'm just looking down the next problem on my checklist and seeing Owens' name. If someone can address 1 and 2 for me I'll happily keep Owens, but keeping all three is a disaster in my mind. TO already knows he can walk all over the coaching staff and Jerry has his back. More so if he is not let go this year.

Exactamundo

 

[Stash]

If we control the clock and pound the ball like those teams did, ya our defense could very much resemble those. They need to rest and not break down the last 3 minutes of a game because they are exhausted.

And by some twisted sense of logic, it is Terrell Owens fault that we don't?

 

[khiladi]

well so far I've given you 5 Super Bowl winners who didn't have great receivers

How many Super Bowl winners have there been?

Are you saying the Cowboys would have won the Super Bowls without Michael Irvin? Or the 49ers would have won without Jerry Rice? Or the Rams would have won without Terry Holt?

 

[Bob Sacamano]

And having Marion Barber, Felix Jones and Chioce mean you want them to run the ball. Your point? Like I said, nobody forces Garrett not to run the ball. It would also make the passing more effective.

so pay 2 guys about 30 million in guranteed money if you aren't going to feature them in your offense?

Really... Is that why teams try and double him? I don't see them stacking the box to stop anybody else... They are successful rushing 4 straight, with a couple delayed blitzes here and teher...

oh...k....

I'm saying we've never won a playoff game with the great TO, what exactly are we losing if we cut him?

Having two good receivers means you have the option to get them the ball - and keep defenses honest and guessing.

Having more weapons is never a bad thing - unless you're named Garrett.

I think Owens' stats were a bit better than zero.

Therefore I think we do lose something.

nothing that matters though

call me unconvinced why losing TO would be the worst thing in the World

 

[Stash]

Everytime someone objects or gets angry, just cut them. This means Romo has to go since he questioned Garrett. What a cancer.

Seems that way.

Since Wade and Garrett can't possibly handle it.

 

[wileedog]

Seems like you're complaining about coaching to me.

Absolutely, but "the coaching staff is in place!!!"