Is T.0. over the hill?

[5Countem5]

sorry. I dont defend him much in all the threads even though i like him, its just at this point he does drop some balls but romo and the oline need to step up and red jesus needs to put ALL the playmakers in positions to make plays. Just frustrating when EVERYTHING bad is T.O.s fault. Happy holidays.

No problem...

BTW- TO has always had his share of drops. That is not a sign of aging with him.

 

[Shake_Tiller]

Please provide examples of instances where it seemed his skills were beginning to erode. I need some help with that one if you don't mind. All I see is a WR at the top of the league again in TDs that still commands a double team/extra attention/rolled safety to help. I also see someone that scores at will when put in position to do so.

Swap TO with Steve Smith (Panthers) and he goes off. Just in case you hadn't noticed, the Panthers offense is very dynamic and they set everything up with the run. You never see Steve Smith lines up in one place twice. The guy is always on different sides of the ball, going in motion, etc... That's called good offensive coordination.

Now go back and look at the number of times TO is simply run out to the right side. Subtract from that the number of times he lines up in the slot or goes in motion and I bet money the original number doesn't change much at all. It's pathetic and I blame most of it on regression by Jason Garrett and the lack of a good tutor in Romo's ear. Mostly Garrett...

A WR can only do so much... The OC and QB have so much more control over who goes where, who lines up where, and who gets the ball.

Now back to your all access TO blame party.

"Blame party." Why the emotional response? Tell me how the opinion I've offered -- just an opinion -- is a blame party? This is what I find amusing and bemusing about the Owens argument. It seems one must be "all in" or "all out."

Look, Nolan Ryan threw no-hitters into his forties, and nobody claimed he hadn't lost some of his skills. Owens TDs are down one-third in 2008 from 2007. He was responsible for 69 first downs during 2007. He has been responsible for 36 in 2008. That is a decline of nearly one-half with a game remaining (and he played in only 15 games in 2007). His yards/game average is down a third. He is on pace to have his fewest catches since 1999 (excepting the season he was suspended by the Eagles and played in only seven games). Owens is on pace to create the fewest first downs for a single season since 1999 (other than the seven game Philly year).

On the other hand, Owens' average yards/catch has held up very well (down considerably from last year, but not down from his career average -- up, in fact). His yards after catch are down pretty considerably from his career average, but that has been true throughout his time with the Cowboys. He has averaged fewer than five yards running after the catch all three seasons in Dallas. That had occurred only twice in his prior career years.

This is substantial evidence of some erosion. Is it absolute evidence? Of course not. Football is a team game, and statistics can be skewed by the performances of those around a particular player. Certainly Owens' production was harmed by Romo's injury, and it has been harmed by Romo's unusual inaccuracy since his return. But it is not valid to assign zero responsibility to Owens. In fact, to do so is to diminish his contribution. If all of the blame for his lesser performance is assignable to others, then how can we properly assign credit to his greater performance?

Now, to say "swap TO with Steve Smith and he goes off" is to make a gratuitous assertion. I don't know whether that's true, and neither do you. I see no point in attempting to argue something that can't be proven.

As for whether Garrett (or whomever) has mishandled Owens, I simplydo not know. I suspect that none of us know. One, we do not have access to the kind of video that would reveal, play by play, whether Owens had separation on a particular route. Two, I have no data to suggest how often Owens has been put into motion, relative to other receivers. I am not suggesting that you're wrong. I don't know. Three, I do not have data to indicate how often Owens has been put into motion relative to his other career years. Again, I am not disputing your assertion. I just don't have any way to know.

Is Carolina's offense more dynamic, in structure and planning, than is the Cowboys'? I seriously doubt there is a contributor to this board truly qualified to answer that question. I know I'm not.

I am amused when some -- no idea whether you have -- cite the fact that Owens has "always" dropped passes as somehow disqualifying that factor from any argument concerning the relative value of his skill set. As with anything, a football player, any player, brings some debits and some credits to the table. Great players bring many more credits than they do debits, obviously. But no player is perfect.

Owens drops more passes than a typical "star" receiver -- or at least, that is the conventional wisdom. That is a debit against him.

There also is a perception among some (and I'm not sure I agree) that Owens runs poor routes -- or at least, that he isn't a precise route runner. To the extent that is true, it is another debit.

All but the most sycophant Owens follower must surely concede that he creates at least some disruption. If that were not true, the Cowboys would have been bidding against nearly the entire league, rather than against, evidently, nobody, when his services were available in the free agent market. To the extent he is disruptive, that is a debit.

Many times in Owens' career, his "credits" have been sufficient to outweigh his "debits." At this point, it is my opinion that such is no longer the case. Obviously, you disagree. Each of us has an opinion. It doesn't make either of us correct.

I wonder, though, why my opinion makes you so evidently anxious to attack. It is nothing more than an opinion. Believe me, I would love it if, during the next few weeks, Owens proved me entirely wrong. I would love it if he were to make great contributions to Dallas playoff success. I would love to change my opinion.

But please do not imply that there is no evidence of any decline or that one whose opinion differs from yours is somehow unable to grasp the obvious.

 

[Bleu Star]

"Blame party." Why the emotional response? Tell me how the opinion I've offered -- just an opinion -- is a blame party? This is what I find amusing and bemusing about the Owens argument. It seems one must be "all in" or "all out."

Look, Nolan Ryan threw no-hitters into his forties, and nobody claimed he hadn't lost some of his skills. Owens TDs are down one-third in 2008 from 2007. He was responsible for 69 first downs during 2007. He has been responsible for 36 in 2008. That is a decline of nearly one-half with a game remaining (and he played in only 15 games in 2007). His yards/game average is down a third. He is on pace to have his fewest catches since 1999 (excepting the season he was suspended by the Eagles and played in only seven games). Owens is on pace to create the fewest first downs for a single season since 1999 (other than the seven game Philly year).

On the other hand, Owens' average yards/catch has held up very well (down considerably from last year, but not down from his career average -- up, in fact). His yards after catch are down pretty considerably from his career average, but that has been true throughout his time with the Cowboys. He has averaged fewer than five yards running after the catch all three seasons in Dallas. That had occurred only twice in his prior career years.

This is substantial evidence of some erosion. Is it absolute evidence? Of course not. Football is a team game, and statistics can be skewed by the performances of those around a particular player. Certainly Owens' production was harmed by Romo's injury, and it has been harmed by Romo's unusual inaccuracy since his return. But it is not valid to assign zero responsibility to Owens. In fact, to do so is to diminish his contribution. If all of the blame for his lesser performance is assignable to others, then how can we properly assign credit to his greater performance?

Now, to say "swap TO with Steve Smith and he goes off" is to make a gratuitous assertion. I don't know whether that's true, and neither do you. I see no point in attempting to argue something that can't be proven.

As for whether Garrett (or whomever) has mishandled Owens, I simplydo not know. I suspect that none of us know. One, we do not have access to the kind of video that would reveal, play by play, whether Owens had separation on a particular route. Two, I have no data to suggest how often Owens has been put into motion, relative to other receivers. I am not suggesting that you're wrong. I don't know. Three, I do not have data to indicate how often Owens has been put into motion relative to his other career years. Again, I am not disputing your assertion. I just don't have any way to know.

Is Carolina's offense more dynamic, in structure and planning, than is the Cowboys'? I seriously doubt there is a contributor to this board truly qualified to answer that question. I know I'm not.

I am amused when some -- no idea whether you have -- cite the fact that Owens has "always" dropped passes as somehow disqualifying that factor from any argument concerning the relative value of his skill set. As with anything, a football player, any player, brings some debits and some credits to the table. Great players bring many more debits than they do credits, obviously. But no player is perfect.

Owens drops more passes than a typical "star" receiver -- or at least, that is the conventional wisdom. That is a debit against him.

There also is a perception among some (and I'm not sure I agree) that Owens runs poor routes -- or at least, that he isn't a precise route runner. To the extent that is true, it is another debit.

All but the most sycophant Owens follower must surely concede that he creates at least some disruption. If that were not true, the Cowboys would have been bidding against nearly the entire league, rather than against, evidently, nobody, when his services were available in the free agent market. To the extent he is disruptive, that is a debit.

Many times in Owens' career, his "credits" have been sufficient to outweigh his "debits." At this point, it is my opinion that such is no longer the case. Obviously, you disagree. Each of us has an opinion. It doesn't make either of us correct.

I wonder, though, why my opinion makes you so evidently anxious to attack. It is nothing more than an opinion. Believe me, I would love it if, during the next few weeks, Owens proved me entirely wrong. I would love it if he were to make great contributions to Dallas playoff success. I would love to change my opinion.

But please do not imply that there is no evidence of any decline or that one whose opinion differs from yours is somehow unable to grasp the obvious.

Keep on grasping for those straws. Garrett is more to blame than anyone else on the offensive side of the ball. We have the groceries but no real cook.

Don't let me stop you from blaming this all on some preposterous claim that TO is suddenly unable to get open. I'm really not into retyping what I had already stated so hopefully it sinks in later for you.

 

[Shake_Tiller]

Keep on grasping for those straws. Garrett is more to blame than anyone else on the offensive side of the ball. We have the groceries but no real cook.

Don't let me stop you from blaming this all on some preposterous claim that TO is suddenly unable to get open. I'm really not into retyping what I had already stated so hopefully it sinks in later for you.

Great points.

 

[Bleu Star]

Great points.

Thanks!

 

[Shake_Tiller]

Sure. Merry Christmas!

 

[Bleu Star]

Sure. Merry Christmas!

Frohe Weihnachten!

 

[Bob Sacamano]

he's in the wrong offense

he's still fast as ish though

 

[Bleu Star]

he's in the wrong offense

he's still fast as ish though

4 real. Don't get it twisted haters.

 

[JordanTaber]

Lets make sure we save this thread, because when TO is out of football in 2010 those who claimed his skills weren't starting to erode in 2008 will look plain silly.

Specific example of skill erosion were already cited:

1. Lateral quickness - clearly demomonstrated by decreasing YAC on short pass patterns and ability to get off the line when someone is playing tight LOS coverage
2. Overall agility - clearly demonstrated by ability to make adjustments to the ball to get in position to catch it


Again, anyone who does not think a 35 year old RCVR is 'past his prime' is either (1) living in denial or (2) has some other agenda or (3) is incapable of understanding human anatomy.

Which is it for you?

1. Owens did very little after the catch LAST year when he was a first team all-pro and not a single person on this board talked about him having "lost a step."

2. When has Owens EVER made a lot of difficult adjustments to catch footballs? I don't see any decline in that area this year.

3. Lateral Quickness IS agility, genius.

Your assertion that people are in denial if they say he isn't past his prime is just a demonstration of ignorance on your part. Everyone ages differently. Jerry Rice had 122-1848-15 in 1995 at age 33. Was he past his prime then?

No, Owens isn't where he was in 2001-2003 physically, but saying he "lost a step" NOW (as opposed to last year or any year since 2004) makes no sense. You're only saying it because his statistics have declined this year, and that shows misguided logic.

Owens's numbers declining have absolutely nothing to do with his performance this season and everything to do with a decline in the performance of Jason Garrett (largely because Tony Sparano, the real brains behind the offense in 2006 and 2007, had departed) and the injury to Tony Romo.

 

[Dave_in-NC]

1. Owens did very little after the catch LAST year when he was a first team all-pro and not a single person on this board talked about him having "lost a step."

2. When has Owens EVER made a lot of difficult adjustments to catch footballs? I don't see any decline in that area this year.

3. Lateral Quickness IS agility, genius.

Your assertion that people are in denial if they say he isn't past his prime is just a demonstration of ignorance on your part. Everyone ages differently. Jerry Rice had 122-1848-15 in 1995 at age 33. Was he past his prime then?

No, Owens isn't where he was in 2001-2003 physically, but saying he "lost a step" NOW (as opposed to last year or any year since 2004) makes no sense. You're only saying it because his statistics have declined this year, and that shows misguided logic.

Owens's numbers declining have absolutely nothing to do with his performance this season and everything to do with a decline in the performance of Jason Garrett (largely because Tony Sparano, the real brains behind the offense in 2006 and 2007, had departed) and the injury to Tony Romo.

Are you really Rosenhaus?

 

[JordanTaber]

"Blame party." Why the emotional response? Tell me how the opinion I've offered -- just an opinion -- is a blame party? This is what I find amusing and bemusing about the Owens argument. It seems one must be "all in" or "all out."

Look, Nolan Ryan threw no-hitters into his forties, and nobody claimed he hadn't lost some of his skills. Owens TDs are down one-third in 2008 from 2007. He was responsible for 69 first downs during 2007. He has been responsible for 36 in 2008. That is a decline of nearly one-half with a game remaining (and he played in only 15 games in 2007). His yards/game average is down a third. He is on pace to have his fewest catches since 1999 (excepting the season he was suspended by the Eagles and played in only seven games). Owens is on pace to create the fewest first downs for a single season since 1999 (other than the seven game Philly year).

Stats, stats, stats, stats, stats. No evidence of Owens physically declining, just a bunch of unanalyzed surface statistics.

Did you know that Owens's RAC average this year is 4.3, which is only 0.1 less than last season's average of 4.4?

Did you know that Owens has 5 plays of 40+ yards this year, when he had 6 all of last year?

This is substantial evidence of some erosion.

(Potentially) evidence of erosion that took place YEARS AGO. Not evidence of a decline this season. But something tells me you weren't talking about this erosion last year. Now why do you think that is?

Is it absolute evidence? Of course not.

Absolute evidence? Something either is evidence or it isn't.

Football is a team game, and statistics can be skewed by the performances of those around a particular player. Certainly Owens' production was harmed by Romo's injury, and it has been harmed by Romo's unusual inaccuracy since his return. But it is not valid to assign zero responsibility to Owens. In fact, to do so is to diminish his contribution. If all of the blame for his lesser performance is assignable to others, then how can we properly assign credit to his greater performance?

Why not?

Here's how you properly assign credit to his greater performance: You say the others have held him back, but when they are doing their jobs, they allow him to achieve his full potential. Not cause him to achieve, but allow.

That's how the quarterback position works in general. The quarterback doesn't MAKE any offense go; he allows it to.

I am amused when some -- no idea whether you have -- cite the fact that Owens has "always" dropped passes as somehow disqualifying that factor from any argument concerning the relative value of his skill set. As with anything, a football player, any player, brings some debits and some credits to the table. Great players bring many more credits than they do debits, obviously. But no player is perfect.

I think the point of those of us who bring it up is that it can't be used as evidence of a decline in skills when he has always dropped a lot of balls. Seems pretty simple to me.

Owens drops more passes than a typical "star" receiver -- or at least, that is the conventional wisdom. That is a debit against him.

But he drops fewer balls than Jerry Rice did, and Rice is considered by nearly everyone to be the greatest to ever play the position. If you went back and watched old games of Rice and saw how much he dropped the ball, your head would spin.

The difference between the two is, with Owens, it's "DROPPED BY OWENS!!!" With Rice, it was always, "Wait a minute, Rice DROPPED it? Ah, so he is human after all. Even the greatest of all-time isn't perfect." You'd hear this very quote in nearly every game he ever played.

Enough color commentary along those lines distorts people's perception of reality.

There also is a perception among some (and I'm not sure I agree) that Owens runs poor routes -- or at least, that he isn't a precise route runner. To the extent that is true, it is another debit.

Again, the point those of us arguing against a "decline" are making is that Owens has never been a great route runner. Saying he runs "poor" routes is hyperbolic, however. He's an average route runner, like nearly every top receiver in the NFL. Truly good route runners are hard to find.

All but the most sycophant Owens follower must surely concede that he creates at least some disruption. If that were not true, the Cowboys would have been bidding against nearly the entire league, rather than against, evidently, nobody, when his services were available in the free agent market. To the extent he is disruptive, that is a debit.

To the extent that he WAS "disruptive"...once. In Philadelphia. Because he made a point of being so out of frustration over his contract.

That has no bearing on how he is right now.

Many times in Owens' career, his "credits" have been sufficient to outweigh his "debits." At this point, it is my opinion that such is no longer the case. Obviously, you disagree. Each of us has an opinion. It doesn't make either of us correct.

This is just a fancy way of saying that you don't like him and never did. If you think that a single season in which he goes from 1355 yards and 15 TDs to around 1,000 and 10 makes him "not worth it anymore," you never really thought he was worth "it" to begin with. "It," of course, being your false belief that he's somehow disruptive, divisive, and not well liked.

In reality, the only disruption that takes place is among the fans at the hands of ESPN and the numerous media outlets who regurgitate them.

I wonder, though, why my opinion makes you so evidently anxious to attack. It is nothing more than an opinion. Believe me, I would love it if, during the next few weeks, Owens proved me entirely wrong. I would love it if he were to make great contributions to Dallas playoff success. I would love to change my opinion.

So if his numbers start to pick up, your opinion would completely change?

That's a sign that you really don't know what you're talking about and haven't formulated your opinion on anything significant.

 

[Rampage]

Jordan loves him some T.O.

 

[Dave_in-NC]

Stats, stats, stats, stats, stats. No evidence of Owens physically declining, just a bunch of unanalyzed surface statistics.

Did you know that Owens's RAC average this year is 4.3, which is only 0.1 less than last season's average of 4.4?

Did you know that Owens has 5 plays of 40+ yards this year, when he had 6 all of last year?



(Potentially) evidence of erosion that took place YEARS AGO. Not evidence of a decline this season. But something tells me you weren't talking about this erosion last year. Now why do you think that is?



Absolute evidence? Something either is evidence or it isn't.



Why not?

Here's how you properly assign credit to his greater performance: You say the others have held him back, but when they are doing their jobs, they allow him to achieve his full potential. Not cause him to achieve, but allow.

That's how the quarterback position works in general. The quarterback doesn't MAKE any offense go; he allows it to.




I think the point of those of us who bring it up is that it can't be used as evidence of a decline in skills when he has always dropped a lot of balls. Seems pretty simple to me.




But he drops fewer balls than Jerry Rice did, and Rice is considered by nearly everyone to be the greatest to ever play the position. If you went back and watched old games of Rice and saw how much he dropped the ball, your head would spin.

The difference between the two is, with Owens, it's "DROPPED BY OWENS!!!" With Rice, it was always, "Wait a minute, Rice DROPPED it? Ah, so he is human after all. Even the greatest of all-time isn't perfect." You'd hear this very quote in nearly every game he ever played.

Enough color commentary along those lines distorts people's perception of reality.




Again, the point those of us arguing against a "decline" are making is that Owens has never been a great route runner. Saying he runs "poor" routes is hyperbolic, however. He's an average route runner, like nearly every top receiver in the NFL. Truly good route runners are hard to find.



To the extent that he WAS "disruptive"...once. In Philadelphia. Because he made a point of being so out of frustration over his contract.

That has no bearing on how he is right now.



This is just a fancy way of saying that you don't like him and never did. If you think that a single season in which he goes from 1355 yards and 15 TDs to around 1,000 and 10 makes him "not worth it anymore," you never really thought he was worth "it" to begin with. "It," of course, being your false belief that he's somehow disruptive, divisive, and not well liked.

In reality, the only disruption that takes place is among the fans at the hands of ESPN and the numerous media outlets who regurgitate them.



So if his numbers start to pick up, your opinion would completely change?

That's a sign that you really don't know what you're talking about and haven't formulated your opinion on anything significant.

Ok drew we all get it, your client is the bestest ever.

 

[Shake_Tiller]

You really are invested in this discussion, huh? Okay. Look, we are all Cowboys fans. It's Christmas Eve. I hope your holiday is terrific. Let's hope for a win come Sunday. Oh... That's for you, Jordan. I don't suppose I "like" him. I don't know him. He's a football player.

 

[Shake_Tiller]

It will be a difficult holiday season, though, knowing I "haven't formulated (my) opinion on anything significant."

 

[JordanTaber]

It will be a difficult holiday season, though, knowing I "haven't formulated (my) opinion on anything significant."

You're a holiday cancer and bring too much drama to the message board.

 

[Shake_Tiller]

You're a holiday cancer and bring too much drama to the message board.

Is that right? Because my opinion of Terrell Owens differs from yours? That is an amazing assertion. Absolutely astounding.

 

[Bleu Star]

1. Owens did very little after the catch LAST year when he was a first team all-pro and not a single person on this board talked about him having "lost a step."

2. When has Owens EVER made a lot of difficult adjustments to catch footballs? I don't see any decline in that area this year.

3. Lateral Quickness IS agility, genius.

Your assertion that people are in denial if they say he isn't past his prime is just a demonstration of ignorance on your part. Everyone ages differently. Jerry Rice had 122-1848-15 in 1995 at age 33. Was he past his prime then?

No, Owens isn't where he was in 2001-2003 physically, but saying he "lost a step" NOW (as opposed to last year or any year since 2004) makes no sense. You're only saying it because his statistics have declined this year, and that shows misguided logic.

Owens's numbers declining have absolutely nothing to do with his performance this season and everything to do with a decline in the performance of Jason Garrett (largely because Tony Sparano, the real brains behind the offense in 2006 and 2007, had departed) and the injury to Tony Romo.

 

[Bleu Star]

Stats, stats, stats, stats, stats. No evidence of Owens physically declining, just a bunch of unanalyzed surface statistics.

Did you know that Owens's RAC average this year is 4.3, which is only 0.1 less than last season's average of 4.4?

Did you know that Owens has 5 plays of 40+ yards this year, when he had 6 all of last year?



(Potentially) evidence of erosion that took place YEARS AGO. Not evidence of a decline this season. But something tells me you weren't talking about this erosion last year. Now why do you think that is?



Absolute evidence? Something either is evidence or it isn't.



Why not?

Here's how you properly assign credit to his greater performance: You say the others have held him back, but when they are doing their jobs, they allow him to achieve his full potential. Not cause him to achieve, but allow.

That's how the quarterback position works in general. The quarterback doesn't MAKE any offense go; he allows it to.




I think the point of those of us who bring it up is that it can't be used as evidence of a decline in skills when he has always dropped a lot of balls. Seems pretty simple to me.




But he drops fewer balls than Jerry Rice did, and Rice is considered by nearly everyone to be the greatest to ever play the position. If you went back and watched old games of Rice and saw how much he dropped the ball, your head would spin.

The difference between the two is, with Owens, it's "DROPPED BY OWENS!!!" With Rice, it was always, "Wait a minute, Rice DROPPED it? Ah, so he is human after all. Even the greatest of all-time isn't perfect." You'd hear this very quote in nearly every game he ever played.

Enough color commentary along those lines distorts people's perception of reality.




Again, the point those of us arguing against a "decline" are making is that Owens has never been a great route runner. Saying he runs "poor" routes is hyperbolic, however. He's an average route runner, like nearly every top receiver in the NFL. Truly good route runners are hard to find.



To the extent that he WAS "disruptive"...once. In Philadelphia. Because he made a point of being so out of frustration over his contract.

That has no bearing on how he is right now.



This is just a fancy way of saying that you don't like him and never did. If you think that a single season in which he goes from 1355 yards and 15 TDs to around 1,000 and 10 makes him "not worth it anymore," you never really thought he was worth "it" to begin with. "It," of course, being your false belief that he's somehow disruptive, divisive, and not well liked.

In reality, the only disruption that takes place is among the fans at the hands of ESPN and the numerous media outlets who regurgitate them.



So if his numbers start to pick up, your opinion would completely change?

That's a sign that you really don't know what you're talking about and haven't formulated your opinion on anything significant.