J.Reeves... not surpised by cowboys drop off

[Juke99]

He's an x Cowboy. You new here? All ex Cowboys suck at the Zone.

:laugh1:

 

[SultanOfSix]

Or some people will just never get it. Some times three isn't the charm.

Yeah. You believe Reeves.

I'll take Romo's, Barber's, and Canty's, and pretty much anyone elses' who had a name to them, words over his.

 

[BLEU3ASY]

It's easy to talk like that miles away.

 

[BruceWayne]

I'm not going to hammer Reeves. I believe there's some truth to what he said but he should've took the high road and kept his mouth shut. Because he stole money for years.

 

[theogt]

He's an x Cowboy. You new here? All ex Cowboys suck at the Zone.

This particular player sucked when he was a Cowboy. Are you new here?

 

[Clove]

I'm not going to hammer Reeves. I believe there's some truth to what he said but he should've took the high road and kept his mouth shut. Because he stole money for years.

I never understood why the high road was to shut your mouth? What country are we in?

 

[Doomsay]

Irrelevant. He still fits the profile of someone who has "sour grapes" and that was the analogy concerning negativity.....

Oh, I see, you've determined that he's said something that you don't agree with so he has a negative profile.

Maybe. But, he doesn't have more credibility than other players who are better and more respected than him, who haven't said a word. But, the ones who have say the complete opposite.

Again, what world do you come from where skill on the football field is a determinant of veracity or observational ability? Take it to the obsurd level with the Paper Lion.

 

[SultanOfSix]

Oh, I see, you've determined that he's said something that you don't agree with so he has a negative profile.

And I see you've determined he's said something you agree with so he is to be believed.

No, I didn't say that at all.

Again, what world do you come from where skill on the football field is a determinant of veracity or observational ability? Take it to the obsurd level with the Paper Lion.

LOL. I never said or even implied anything about skill being proportional being "observational" ability. That is your strawman. I merely said I would respect other player's opinions - like those that I previously mentioned - on "chemistry" issues than his. Players who would garner more respect as far as credibility is concerned. What did he even say that was even remotely tangible in his statement to claim that things were on the way down at the end of a 13-3 season as far as lack of chemistry is concerned? Absolutely nothing, because it's one of those nebulous terms that is used when things are going wrong.

 

[odog422]

LOL. I never said or even implied anything about skill being proportional being "observational" ability.

Then why did your first response in this thread identify him as the worst corner on the roster at that time? You put it out there as relevant. You should've never mentioned it if it didn't matter.

I merely said I would respect other player's opinions - like those that I previously mentioned - on "chemistry" issues than his. Players who would garner more respect as far as credibility is concerned.

No, you didn't. What gives them credibility? Because they're still on the team? You said yourself earlier in the thread how it's not wise to speak ill of what's going on with your present employer. You can't have it both ways.

You also said Reeves has "sour grapes." Why? He was let go and got a huge contract.

What did he even say that was even remotely tangible in his statement to claim that things were on the way down at the end of a 13-3 season as far as lack of chemistry is concerned? Absolutely nothing, because it's one of those nebulous terms that is used when things are going wrong.

He said he wasn't surprised how our season ended up. Perhaps because he saw the way things were going at the end of the 13-3 season. You attempt to pass that off as "yeah we had crappy December, but so what..."

 

[Next_years_Champs]

Canty said TO wasn't a problem and he'd have him on the Giants any day... But I guess people 'missed' that 'important thing to say'...

Jerry Jones didn't agree with Canty, I guess that is who you mean when you say "people".

edit
The GM in New York disagreed as well since he had the chance to sign TO.

 

[Dave_in-NC]

This particular player sucked when he was a Cowboy. Are you new here?

No, although our post counts would suggest you have been here longer than I. I guess I have a life. And just because he "sucked" doesn't mean he didn't understand the mental make up of this team and coaching staff.

Oh and he's still in the NFL. How's owens doing? Could you have been more wrong?

 

[SultanOfSix]

Then why did your first response in this thread identify him as the worst corner on the roster at that time? You put it out there as relevant. You should've never mentioned it if it didn't matter.

Because he was the worst CB on the roster. I asked a general question. Why are people paying attention to what he says? Because he agrees with the media generated notions of problematic team chemistry?

No, you didn't. What gives them credibility? Because they're still on the team? You said yourself earlier in the thread how it's not wise to speak ill of what's going on with your present employer. You can't have it both ways.

They are team leaders as opposed to (not even) role players. People who's play and attitude garners the respect of other teammates. That gives them more credibility.

It isn't wise to speak ill of those in power positions above you. It's probably the major reason why TO is gone (due to what he said about Garrett). However, since TO is gone, where are all the players saying he wrecked team chemistry like the media has vociferously implied? Nowhere. In fact, it is the opposite that is occurring from named players. They are coming out to defend him as being a great teammate and a hard worker. But, that doesn't sit well with the anti-TO crowd, so they'll just take Reeves' nebulous words implying something about a lack of team chemistry being evidence for it. A supposed problem that didn't seem to be an issue on the way to a 13-3 season and a #1 seed in the NFC.

You also said Reeves has "sour grapes." Why? He was let go and got a huge contract.

Perhaps he wanted a huge contract from the Cowboys. Why is he even talking? What does it matter to him how the season of the Cowboys went if he got a huge contract and is happy with it?

He said he wasn't surprised how our season ended up. Perhaps because he saw the way things were going at the end of the 13-3 season. You attempt to pass that off as "yeah we had crappy December, but so what..."

Saw what? He never says anything even remotely tangible. And I never said "yeah we had a crappy December, but so what". Do you have problems reading? I said there were complaints about our lackadaisical play in December, but nothing about problematic team chemistry.

He refuses to give details, but we're supposed to accept his vague implications? The Cowboys weren't hungry when they went 13-3, unlike the Texans who went a mighty 8-8?

 

[deepBLUE]

frankly, reeves should keep his pie-hole shut...he was largely responsible for the playoff loss vs. the giants (or had a lion's share in it); after giving up a huge pass, & facemask penalty (with 40 seconds left in the half)...

the 'boys had the lead, the ball first in the 2nd half, & all the momentum...until reeves pulled his stunt. maybe he should be reminded of the fact that the cowboys let him walk for a reason. i'm not saying he's necessarily wrong; he just shouldn't be the one flapping his hole.

 

[odog422]

Because he was the worst CB on the roster. I asked a general question. Why are people paying attention to what he says? Because he agrees with the media generated notions of problematic team chemistry?

You said why are people paying attention to the worst CB on the roster -- your statement implies his talent has relevance to his ability to see what's going on around him. So it wasn't a general question, it was a question with a qualifier. Again, you make it relevant.

They are team leaders as opposed to (not even) role players. People who's play and attitude garners the respect of other teammates. That gives them more credibility.

How do you know Reeves teammates didn't respect him? Lot's of people get respect for how hard they work, even if they aren't the best at what they do.

However, since TO is gone, where are all the players saying he wrecked team chemistry like the media has vociferously implied? Nowhere. In fact, it is the opposite that is occurring from named players. They are coming out to defend him as being a great teammate and a hard worker.

Why do they need to? What is to be gained? TO's gone. End of story.

But, that doesn't sit well with the anti-TO crowd, so they'll just take Reeves' nebulous words implying something about a lack of team chemistry being evidence for it. A supposed problem that didn't seem to be an issue on the way to a 13-3 season and a #1 seed in the NFC.

Actually, what I've seen on this board is the pro-TO crowd attack and dismiss anyone or anything that does not praise TO, while those who wanted him gone just accept what's said as part of the whole and move on.

You call his words nebulous. The proof is in the results. 13-3, #1 seed and out.

Perhaps he wanted a huge contract from the Cowboys. Why is he even talking? What does it matter to him how the season of the Cowboys went if he got a huge contract and is happy with it?

He was asked. And explained why he is happy.

Saw what? He never says anything even remotely tangible. And I never said "yeah we had a crappy December, but so what". Do you have problems reading? I said there were complaints about our lackadaisical play in December, but nothing about problematic team chemistry.

No, I did not quote you. The fact you resort to insults and go ticky tack is silly. You understood what I meant, I'm sure. "Complaints about our lackadaisical play"...which came from what? Bad team chemistry or what was brewing in the locker room perhaps? This is what I get from what he says.

He refuses to give details, but we're supposed to accept his vague implications? The Cowboys weren't hungry when they went 13-3, unlike the Texans who went a mighty 8-8?

You don't have to accept anything. And obviously you don't. Which is what usually occurs when anyone or anything alludes to problems with this team that Owens may have played a large part in.

This guy took part in an interview and because he used to be part of the Cowboys organization, it became part of the interview. Why you, and others who were/are "pro-Owens" get so outraged and juiced up to simply swat away what he or others say is actually comical to me. Not to mention the fact that because a guy chooses not to say "Owens was horrible and the instigator of so many problems..." you slam him for being vague. Whatever. I'll take the words of someone who was actually in the locker room over your opinion.

 

[dozin_theknick]

I just love when a guy who was on the inside speaks his mind and everyone hammers him rather than just taking a time out and thinking "hmmmmm...we've heard some similar comments...maybe..."

And I love it when people believe what players say who are no longer on the team without questioning said players' agendas.

 

[Undisputed]

And I love it when people believe what players say who are no longer on the team without questioning said players' agendas.

Good thing Juke did the exact opposite.

 

[SultanOfSix]

You said why are people paying attention to the worst CB on the roster -- your statement implies his talent has relevance to his ability to see what's going on around him. So it wasn't a general question, it was a question with a qualifier. Again, you make it relevant.

It implies no such thing. What it does imply is that I find his opinion to hold less weight than players who are starters and team captains.

How do you know Reeves teammates didn't respect him?

How do you know they did? Has any player said anything about him concerning the respect they have for him? Has any player come to his defense and said he's a good player and person and so he was warranted a contract on the team?

Lot's of people get respect for how hard they work, even if they aren't the best at what they do? Why do they need to? What is to be gained? TO's gone. End of story.

Why do ex-players need to talk about a supposed "lack of chemistry"? What is to be gained? They're gone? End of story, right?

Actually, what I've seen on this board is the pro-TO crowd attack and dismiss anyone or anything that does not praise TO, while those who wanted him gone just accept what's said as part of the whole and move on.

That's ridiculously laughable. What named player has said anything even remotely damaging concerning Owens who currently exists on the team? NO ONE.

And if those who wanted him gone just accept it, why do they choose to listen to the nebulous words of an ex-player to support their flimsy case?

You call his words nebulous. The proof is in the results. 13-3, #1 seed and out.

That's not evidence of anything remotely close to a lack of team chemistry being the cause of the playoff failure. That's more proof of the lackadaisical play of December coming back to haunt the team.

He was asked. And explained why he is happy.

So what?

No, I did not quote you. The fact you resort to insults and go ticky tack is silly. You understood what I meant, I'm sure. "Complaints about our lackadaisical play"...which came from what? Bad team chemistry or what was brewing in the locker room perhaps? This is what I get from what he says.

I didn't resort to any insult. I pointed out the fact that you can't read because you quoted me completely wrong. It's not my fault you used quotes. Obviously, you didn't understand what I was saying either.

The complaints occurred in the media about the lackadaisical play in the month of December. Concerns were broached that the team was faltering at the wrong time, and that it would affect the team during the playoffs.

How does bad team chemistry affect a single playoff loss? What happened to its imprint on the other sixteen games?

You get from his quote bad chemistry because it fits your agenda of believing TO was the cause of it. But, all of the evidence of bad chemistry simply comes from the media, unnamed or anonymous sources, and an ex-player who doesn't even explain what he's talking about because he doesn't want to get into the details. If he doesn't do the latter, how do you know he's talking about Owens, unless you impose your own view on the situation that fit your biases?

You don't have to accept anything. And obviously you don't. Which is what usually occurs when anyone or anything alludes to problems with this team that Owens may have played a large part in.

And yet, all of the players who have spoke about him in the media, have come out to support him as a great teammate and hard worker. Even Jerry's official opinion on letting him go had nothing to do with chemistry issues. So, what does the anti-TO crowd have? He was released, therefore whatever the media says about him was right. They don't take into consideration other issues.

This guy took part in an interview and because he used to be part of the Cowboys organization, it became part of the interview. Why you, and others who were/are "pro-Owens" get so outraged and juiced up to simply swat away what he or others say is actually comical to me. Not to mention the fact that because a guy chooses not to say "Owens was horrible and the instigator of so many problems..." you slam him for being vague. Whatever. I'll take the words of someone who was actually in the locker room over your opinion.

I'm not getting worked up about it. I simply pointed out that he didn't say anything remotely tangible. You're the one who is imposing this notion that if he went into the details, Owens would have been brought up. But, he didn't even do that, and yet, here you state that Reeves implied Owens. That certainly doesn't seem like the anti-TO crowd just accepting that he's gone. Perhaps, you should stop guessing what people are "implying".

 

[odog422]

It implies no such thing. What it does imply is that I find his opinion to hold less weight than players who are starters and team captains.



How do you know they did? Has any player said anything about him concerning the respect they have for him? Has any player come to his defense and said he's a good player and person and so he was warranted a contract on the team?



Why do ex-players need to talk about a supposed "lack of chemistry"? What is to be gained? They're gone? End of story, right?



That's ridiculously laughable. What named player has said anything even remotely damaging concerning Owens who currently exists on the team? NO ONE.

And if those who wanted him gone just accept it, why do they choose to listen to the nebulous words of an ex-player to support their flimsy case?



That's not evidence of anything remotely close to a lack of team chemistry being the cause of the playoff failure. That's more proof of the lackadaisical play of December coming back to haunt the team.



So what?



I didn't resort to any insult. I pointed out the fact that you can't read because you quoted me completely wrong. It's not my fault you used quotes. Obviously, you didn't understand what I was saying either.

The complaints occurred in the media about the lackadaisical play in the month of December. Concerns were broached that the team was faltering at the wrong time, and that it would affect the team during the playoffs.

How does bad team chemistry affect a single playoff loss? What happened to its imprint on the other sixteen games?

You get from his quote bad chemistry because it fits your agenda of believing TO was the cause of it. But, all of the evidence of bad chemistry simply comes from the media, unnamed or anonymous sources, and an ex-player who doesn't even explain what he's talking about because he doesn't want to get into the details. If he doesn't do the latter, how do you know he's talking about Owens, unless you impose your own view on the situation that fit your biases?



And yet, all of the players who have spoke about him in the media, have come out to support him as a great teammate and hard worker. Even Jerry's official opinion on letting him go had nothing to do with chemistry issues. So, what does the anti-TO crowd have? He was released, therefore whatever the media says about him was right. They don't take into consideration other issues.



I'm not getting worked up about it. I simply pointed out that he didn't say anything remotely tangible. You're the one who is imposing this notion that if he went into the details, Owens would have been brought up. But, he didn't even do that, and yet, here you state that Reeves implied Owens. That certainly doesn't seem like the anti-TO crowd just accepting that he's gone. Perhaps, you should stop guessing what people are "implying".

Point of my posts: he expressed his opinion and his talent level has nothing to do with his ability to do so. Your very first post in this thread connects the two. That is simply wrong.

The rest of all you've written is connected in that paranoia-driven way to Owens, who I have no interest in discussing.

Reeves thought something was wrong in the locker room. I agree. Yes, I have opinions on what it was, and it wasn't one thing or person, either. But that's pretty much where it ends for me with respect to this article.

Finally, I'll say defending your insult further advises me on what level you're able to communicate. Those who insult others do so as a result of their own inadequacies so I'll accept that and move on.

 

[Doomsay]

Point of my posts: he expressed his opinion and his talent level has nothing to do with his ability to do so. Your very first post in this thread connects the two. That is simply wrong.

The rest of all you've written is connected in that paranoia-driven way to Owens, who I have no interest in discussing.

Reeves thought something was wrong in the locker room. I agree. Yes, I have opinions on what it was, and it wasn't one thing or person, either. But that's pretty much where it ends for me with respect to this article.

Finally, I'll say defending your insult further advises me on what level you're able to communicate. Those who insult others do so as a result of their own inadequacies so I'll accept that and move on.

Well put, the litany of contradictory statements that are made in the referenced post(s) is tedious to unwind, but I think that you nailed it. I used "chemistry" to broadly define what Reeves was talking about, but it could just as well have been coaching structural dysfunction or something else not talent-related.

Reeves indirectly characterized the problems he saw in Dallas by commending the presumably opposite attributes that he witnessed in Houston, "hungry …. everyone there working to get better, etc.”

 

[wileedog]

edit
The GM in New York disagreed as well since he had the chance to sign TO.

Even had a need with his best offensive player facing jailtime, TO would have been a bargain for the Giants at $6.5M who I'm sure would have jumped at playing in NYC instead of Buffalo.

I admit I would have loved watching him blow up on Eli though....