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

[tyke1doe]

Never saw Jimmy discipline the "White House" stars...

But if you were a third stringer and screwed up- it was your butt...

He'd discipline them, but never to jeopardize the game. He benched Irvin for the first series against Detroit because he missed plane flight. Told the pilot to go even though Irvin was coming.

He also told the bus driver after the Super Bowl to leave Aikman because Aikman was late doing post-game interviews.

But the thing I liked about Jimmy was he wasn't a hypocrite. He stated up front that there are differents rules for different players depending on how valueable you are.

And you know what?

That's the same thing in life.

I don't care where you go or how much people try to tell you everthing is fair, it isn't.

Those who have more money/more fame/more status/more talent/more ability, etc. will always be treated differently than those who don't.

Jimmy Johnson just cut through the bull and stated plainly what everyone knows is the case anyway.

 

[AMERICAS_FAN]

Jump to this thread, listen to Brad Sham's comments, and again, LEARN SOMETHING!

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=139203

 

[jobberone]

The idea of benching or just sitting TO is insane.

 

[5Countem5]

He'd discipline them, but never to jeopardize the game. He benched Irvin for the first series against Detroit because he missed plane flight. Told the pilot to go even though Irvin was coming.

He also told the bus driver after the Super Bowl to leave Aikman because Aikman was late doing post-game interviews.

I bet they learned a valuable lesson..

 

[Ultra Warrior]

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

What a great idea. Why stop there? Why not bench Romo, Witten, Barber & Ware & just let the Cheerleaders suit up instead?

 

[Hostile]

Egads. We're playing the best team in the NFL, so we should do it without our best weapon? While 3 other weapons (Witten, Williams, and Barber) are less than 100% and we may once again have Proctor on the OL at LG?

Remind me again how incompetent the Valley Ranch Front Office, Scouting Department, and Coaching staff are. I need a good laugh.

 

[kojak]

That's insane. I don't care that much for him either but to have any kind of chance at all we need him in the lineup.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Egads. We're playing the best team in the NFL, so we should do it without our best weapon? While 3 other weapons (Witten, Williams, and Barber) are less than 100% and we may once again have Proctor on the OL at LG?

Remind me again how incompetent the Valley Ranch Front Office, Scouting Department, and Coaching staff are. I need a good laugh.

Its High Noon.... choose your weapon? Six Shooter, anything...? which do you want?

Can I have a knife please!

 

[JordanTaber]

LOL...where do these trolls come from?

 

[Bleu Star]

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.

Is this that something inside you?

 

[Decleater101]

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.

TO has issues to be sure, but to bench one of the handful of elite receivers in the leaugue for one of the most important games of the season simply to try and make a point or send some kind of message when he has committed no real offense or broken any team or league rule only leads me to wonder if the medication you are taking has gone bad.

 

[Tom [Giants fan]]

Burress being gone isn't what was wrong with the Giants against the Eagles. It was the first time this year where there were a lot of drops by WR's. Even Steve Smith dropped an easy one which he doesn't usually do.

Not converting on third and fourth down plus the defense not being able to stop Philly on 3rd down was probably the biggest thing, even bigger than the drops.

Burress had nothing to do with that game. Plus, the Giants were due a bad game after all the tough teams they played for seven straight weeks.

 

[Bleu Star]

This thread is borderline ********.

 

[Boysboy]

Burress being gone isn't what was wrong with the Giants against the Eagles. It was the first time this year where there were a lot of drops by WR's. Even Steve Smith dropped an easy one which he doesn't usually do.

Not converting on third and fourth down plus the defense not being able to stop Philly on 3rd down was probably the biggest thing, even bigger than the drops.

Burress had nothing to do with that game. Plus, the Giants were due a bad game after all the tough teams they played for seven straight weeks.

To the Giants credit, they've put this behind them. I haven't heard ONE Burress story this week.

 

[peplaw06]

This thread is borderline ********.

Just like Clay Aiken is borderline gay.

 

[Bleu Star]

Just like Clay Aiken is borderline gay.

Tru.

 

[Batman]

All I needed to do was read your title to give my response which is this:

Thank God you are not the coach.

 

[alancdc]

I don't know about that, but they certainly have gone out of their way to get him the ball the past month.....and on that note can we please strike the running plays to TO out of the freakin' playbook? That was a terrible series of calls early in that Steeler game on 3rd and 2.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

 

[Royal Laegotti]

............I don't remember Jimmy doing anything to the stars on the team. He took it out on the scrubs to set the tone and make an example out of them.

Yeah I guess you're right. The only time I remember him benching a star is when Irvin missed the flight to Detroit in '92 and he benched him for either the 1st off. series or the 1st quarted, either or. Jimmy never had a player with the persona T.O. has and did/said the things T.O. does so I was just thinking to myself would Jimmy bench T.O. for a game. I don't think it would've been out of the realm of possibility. But Jimmy being the control freak he was (I say that in a good way) he wouldn't have allowed T.O. on his team anyway so it's moot.