I Would bench T.O. and play this Giants team without him

[McCordsville Cowboy]

yeah........

 

[DeaconBlues]

http://i102.***BLOCKED***/albums/m109/dadymat/ohno.gif

Oh no, you've made a Klingon cry . . . :laugh2:

 

[Maikeru-sama]

So if we are benching guys for not executing their assignments, maybe we should also look at benching Jason Witten. After all, he stated that he cost us the game against the Giants because he slippped just before Tony Romo threw the ball his way.

One problem this team faces week-to-week is not knowing who the primary target is

This is a good problem to have.

Also, I have requested audio and/or video of Terrell Owens crying and/or him throwing Tony Romo under the bus after the Giants game and the folks that make this claim have still not produced this evidence.

Again, if you have been listening to the media, you should know the Cowboys have been tanking games in December since 1997 and that was way before Terrell Owens arrived on the scene.

But most need a scapegoat as it is easier to blame one person then it is to focus on the real problems.

 

[DaBoys4Life]

Something inside of me tells me that if Phillips/Garrett benched T.O. for this game the Offense will play at whole new higher level. That's because such a bold move would send a message to the rest of the offense saying "enough is enough; execute your assignments; hold your blocks; and run your routes, don't quit on them; and quit complaining like the world owes you".

Sometimes addition by subtraction is the best remedy. With T.O. out, there would be no question that the #1 WR option would be Witten when the TE is sent out for passes, or Roy Williams otherwise (who would be the #2 option following Witten). It would also bring Crayton into the passing game because right now, Romo never has time to go 4-deep into his reads. One problem this team faces week-to-week is not knowing who the primary target is. Benching T.O. would help solve that by allowing some level of structure to be added to the game plan that is currently lacking.

I'm also tired of T.O.’s cry-baby antics because, while every WR wants the ball like he does, the ones who deserve it are the ones who run their routes properly, fight for the ball, catch it when thrown to them, and fight the defender from intercepting it when its uncatchable. Sorry, but T.O. does not do those things. I think he has it in him, but when he sees that the game plan is not quite designed for him, he makes a mental decision not to do those things. So by having him present in the offense under those circumstances, he becomes more of a liability than an asset on the football filed.

So if that's the way it's going to be, and Garrett is going to continue to NOT make T.O. the focal point of the game-plan (and I’m not arguing that Garret is right here, but he seems to be stubborn about this, so we are forced to live with it), then we are better off not having T.O. on game day because his selfish side will take over.

And as indicated above, I’m not absolving Garrett here; I’m just accepting the fact that both Garrett and T.O. are selfishly stubborn and can’t seem to co-exist on the same game-plan page, and as long as that is the case, we might as well choose Garret’s stubbornness over T.O.’s because it’s Garrett who is ultimately calling these plays – right or wrong!

Just my $0.02. Rip me if you wish.

 

[Doomsday101]

I was not in favor of getting TO to begin with but there is no way he is getting benched, his little outburst on the sideline is nothing new hell Dallas and every person who watches football knew what we were getting when we signed him now you want to over react when TO acts like well TO. The guy has talent and Dallas was willing to put up with these outburst or they would not have signed him to begin with.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Brilliant!


Bench the only WR that caught a touchdown in Pitt game.
What should have been the eventual game decider.


Like I said, Brilliant!!



I mean, heck... lets not try to execute our offense better as a team...no.. no.. lets start removing vital pieces.

I want to see Brooks throwing to Stanback and Amendola.... YEAH THATS THE TICKET!!

 

[lcharles]

Only stupid people would even respond to a post like this..........wait........uh, nevermind.

:shoot5:

 

[TellerMorrow34]

And lucky for us that's why Wade, and company, are NFL coaches and you're a Monday Morning QB.

 

[chinch]

I Would bench T.O. and play this Giants team without him

That would be foolish.

benching him would erase him for the entire season. so if you beat the NYG without him now he's mentally checked out for the final 2 and possibly playoffs. talk about a terrible strategy.

OTOH they can go get cowher under contract ASAP and firew Wade/Jason immediately after our last loss of the season/playoffs.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

And lucky for us that's why Wade, and company, are NFL coaches and you're a Monday Morning QB.

Yah... I mean think about it...

No TO...

Giants Defense the night before: "ok guys, no TO, so we double Roy Williams and Witten" - "Barber plays at less than a 100%" - "Tuck and company, you go after Romo all day long, all pressure all the time"


Someon on the Giants chimes in with "what about Crayton"??? - replies in chorus "WHAT ABOUT HIM???"


Sounds good right? :bang2:

 

[Boysboy]

Yah... I mean think about it...

No TO...

Giants Defense the night before: "ok guys, no TO, so we double Roy Williams and Witten" - "Barber plays at less than a 100%" - "Tuck and company, you go after Romo all day long, all pressure all the time"


Someon on the Giants chimes in with "what about Crayton"??? - replies in chorus "WHAT ABOUT HIM???"


Sounds good right? :bang2:

Great Post YM! Crybaby Owens he is! But that WON'T keep opposing DCs from giving him the RESPECT when they gameplan!

 

[austintodallas]

Burress brings it on gameday. He's won 2 Super Bowls. He's the key part to the Giants' offensive success. Sorry, but comparing his weekly impact for the Giants offense to T.O.'s impact for Dallas' is simply not comparable.

You have no clue. Buress hasn't done crap this year for the Giants. I know. He's on my fantasy team.

 

[Coakleys Dad]

um...nevermind..

 

[Cajuncowboy]

WTH????

We are living in upside world now.

 

[Boysboy]

WTH????

We are living in upside world now.

Last I checked, 533K jobs were shed last month, a total of 1.2m jobs were shed since Sept, 8.5t is being wasted on bailouts when we already have a 10t national debt, we've been in a recession over the last year...

And the ONLY thing people are going crazy over is a FREAKING FOOTBALL GAME?!? Over some FREAKING FOOTBALL PLAYER?!? Heck-both TO and all of the coaches/players on this team are probably LAUGHING at all these cockamamie, knee-jerk posts we've been making on this board over the last 72 hours.

Get a life, people...it's not the end of the world. There are millions of people starving in this world, but, en yet, somehow it's US that's acting so desperate over something we can't control!:bang2:

 

[TellerMorrow34]

Oh, and btw, Burress has NOT won 2 Superbowl rings. The Steelers won theirs the year they shipped Burress out of there. He has one.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

Yea. Let's bench TO. I'd love to see who the opposing team double teams without TO on the field. You think Romo is getting INT's now just wait until Witten starts seeing double teams.

 

[AMERICAS_FAN]

You're all missing the point.

The point is that Garrett is miss-using T.O. If Garrett made T.O. the focal point of this offense it would be scarry good. T.O. would actually play more attentively. But Garrett does not make T.O. the cornerstone. Actually, this is what I wish Garrett would do, but I have lost all trust in him to do this right thing as the offensive coordinator.

Now, I agree, T.O. commands double teams, but that does not help you when you're mostly running him in shorter/intermediate routes. He quits on the routes (BECAUSE HE'S QUITTING ON GARRTT, WHO IS QUITTING ON HIM), and therefore safeties stay closer to home to defend the rest of the field; so the double team he supposedly commands is nowhere near as wffective as it could be. But will Garrett at least adjust by sending T.O. on many more go routes, thus allowing him to take the safety out of the play? No, Garrett doesb't. He instead designs the gameplan so that T.O. is a lame-duck WR out there - double team or not.

So if Garrett is going to continue sticking his head up his butt and miss-using T.O. then we're better off having a different opton on the filed - other than a lame duck WR - that Garrett can at least incorperate in the game plan and use.

 

[DaBoys4Life]

You're all missing the point.

The point is that Garrett is miss-using T.O. If Garrett made T.O. the focal point of this offense it would be scarry good. T.O. would actually play more attentively. But Garrett does not make T.O. the cornerstone. Actually, this is what I wish Garrett would do, but I have lost all trust in him to do this right thing as the offensive coordinator.

Now, I agree, T.O. commands double teams, but that does not help you when you're mostly running him in shorter/intermediate routes. He quits on the routes and safeties stay closer to home to defend the rest of the field. But will Garrett at least adjust by sending T.O. on many more go routes, thus allowing him to take the safety out of the play? No, Garrett doesb't. He instead designs the gameplan so that T.O. is a lame-duck WR out there - double team or not.

So if Garrett is going to continue sticking his head up his butt and miss-using T.O. then we're better off having a different opton on the filed - other than a lame duck WR - that Garrett can at least incorperate in the game plan and use.

Maybe next time you should say what you mean so that people don't miss the point you're trying to make.

 

[Boysboy]

You're all missing the point.

The point is that Garrett is miss-using T.O. If Garrett made T.O. the focal point of this offense it would be scarry good. T.O. would actually play more attentively. But Garrett does not make T.O. the cornerstone. Actually, this is what I wish Garrett would do, but I have lost all trust in him to do this right thing as the offensive coordinator.

Now, I agree, T.O. commands double teams, but that does not help you when you're mostly running him in shorter/intermediate routes. He quits on the routes and safeties stay closer to home to defend the rest of the field. But will Garrett at least adjust by sending T.O. on many more go routes, thus allowing him to take the safety out of the play? No, Garrett doesb't. He instead designs the gameplan so that T.O. is a lame-duck WR out there - double team or not.

So if Garrett is going to continue sticking his head up his butt and miss-using T.O. then we're better off having a different opton on the filed - other than a lame duck WR - that Garrett can at least incorperate in the game plan and use.

Huh? But you just said that TO's the problem b/c he's a a selfish crybaby who wants the game-plan centered around him, and will give up if things don't go his way.

Which is it? You've lost me.