Looks like Mickey is in full spin control
Just Who's The Boss?
Spagnola: Here's How To Deal With The Player
IRVING, Texas - With regards to The Clash, should T.O. stay or should he go, is not the point.
And those acting as if they know the answer to that question don't know. Believe me, they are just spewing what they logically think should happen, and that goes for all the national know-it-alls blogging you guys into a tizzy.
So let's take a different angle to The $64,000 Question, because I guarantee you, as I said earlier in the week, I can make a passionate and convincing argument for the Dallas Cowboys keeping Terrell Owens one day and an equally passionate and convincing argument for letting him go the next.
Instead, let's figure out how to make this work, and even though it's easy for others to be frivolous with Jerry Jones' money, what about acting as if this were your own money and quit acting as if the $12.9 million of guarantees Jones issued Owens this past summer is no more than play dough.
Now maybe this is a naïve approach or pigheaded. Maybe a little of both, since I'm guessing my management skills would not be politically correct in this century's climate of sensitivity.
But I ask you:
Who's The Boss?
Would that be Terrell Owens or Jerry Jones?
Would that be Terrell Owens or Stephen Jones?
Would that be Terrell Owens or Wade Phillips?
Would that be Terrell Owens or Jason Garrett?
Would that be Terrell Owens or, well, heck, Tony Romo?
The answer is, implicitly:
All of the above but Terrell Owens.
Am I wrong here? I mean, who is working for whom? Who is the employer and who is the employee? Isn't that the way it works for those of us not self-employed? You answer to the person paying your way, or in this case, already has paid your way, a dangerous precedent the NFL has subscribed to after all those years of insisting it will not become baseball. The NFL has.
And I know what you're thinking: Do that and each night leading off the 10 o'clock news will be shots of T.O. doing sit-ups in the circle drive of his downtown high-rise condo.
To that I say: Who really cares? What does it matter? At least he's working out.
See, to me, there has been far too much preoccupation with what Owens thinks or what he says or what he leaks to the media. Big deal. Just ignore him . . . let the media overindulge until boredom sets in.
As long as he does his job here at The Ranch and between the lines on Sundays.
Let me make my case, all based on the pride and self-importance factor. Owens, some might perceive, incinerates a locker room if he's not happy. Owens, some might perceive, incinerates team chemistry if he's not happy.
But here is what he never does: Incinerates himself. He's too proud an athlete to ever go on the field and purposely embarrass himself by not being prepared or purposely sabotaging the notion he's the greatest on the field by dogging it or not doing what he's supposed to do to get the ball.
So again, to me, the Cowboys need to adopt the Bill Parcells Theory of Dealing With The Player: Ignore everything else except for what he does in the meeting rooms, in practice and on the field. Let him run his mouth if he has to. Let him say he's not happy with the offense. Let him claim Romo secretly draws up plays in the dirt so his buddy Jason Witten can catch more balls, ensuring he's attending a Pro Bowl every year.
Who cares? What does it matter?
As long as he's catching me, oh, 70 passes a season for, say, 1,000 yards and at least 10 touchdowns.
Sometimes a deaf ear gets under a person's skin the deepest. Because check this out: In 2006, Owens' only season under Parcells and Todd Haley, supposedly unhappy, he caught 85 passes for 1,180 yards and 13 touchdowns, the most by a Cowboys player since Bob Hayes caught as many in 1966 and second most ever until he caught 15 in 2007.
So you say, well, every day Phillips will be getting questions about what Owens has said. Every week the Joneses will be facing questions about something Owens insists is wrong. Every practice Romo will be getting an earful or receivers coach Ray Sherman will be preoccupied with babysitting Owens.
In the true spirit of Drew Rosenhaus, there is a simple response:
Next question.
See, Parcells had it figured out. No matter how you answer a question about T.O., you have left yourself open to second-guessing on either side of the matter. Can't win. Columnists, talk-show hosts, bloggers, they all love this stuff. They instantly can turn into opposite-guy for entertainment purposes, to get a rise out of listeners and readers. Don't play that game. Don't put a noose at the end of the leash.
Do what Romo did this past Sunday, irritating many because he didn't answer the question asked by Babe Laufenberg on CBS-11 here in Dallas-Fort Worth about if he wanted Terrell Owens back. Romo probably hurt himself he straddled the fence so long, basically saying, "We want all our guys back . . . ."
He never answered the question, to his credit. That way, there is no right answer and no wrong answer, just time-consuming rhetoric.
That is how the Cowboys must deal with Terrell Owens. If the media must, let those guys put Owens in a position of authority. The Cowboys cannot, and they do by reacting to whatever he says, sort of the tail wagging the dog. Next-question the subject into submission, right Drew?
Come on, Tom Landry dealt with a speechless Duane Thomas, and the Cowboys went on to win a Super Bowl that season.
Now I know what the next reaction will be: But he has created alliances with others in the locker room, and picking on T.O. will upset the equilibrium.
Oh yeah, well my guess is those in alliance with Owens don't carry much weight in the scheme of things. If you need to make an example out of one of them to show who's the boss, then do so. Their bread likely hasn't been buttered as well as T.O.'s. They've got far more to lose once they realize Owens can't do much for them once they're on the waiver wire.
Finally, if all this doesn't work, the NFL has a little designation called suspended for conduct detrimental to the team. Comes without pay and a rebate to the salary cap.
And you say, so what's the difference between that and releasing him right now? Exactly my point, what indeed is the difference?
My way, you have a chance to get something out of the guy if bowing up to him works. Who knows, maybe Haley's confrontational way is right. And if guys in the locker room have got something to complain about Owens, well, it's high time to quit doing so anonymously to the media. Tell him what you think. It's your team, too.
The other way, releasing him, you got no chance of getting anything out of him, and then he goes on his merry way collecting another signing bonus from some other team and you are stuck staring at a $9.8 million hole in your salary cap for nothing.
Because at that cost, it's not like you will be financially-capable with the cap to go out of your way to replace him. You're basically going with Roy Williams as your No. 1, piecing the rest together with what you have and probably bringing in a Band-Aid free agent since you already spent your first-round pick.
One last thing. Here is a bit of leverage, and I'm thinking Rosenhaus will advise logically on this one. Owens is 35, and I'm guessing at that age he values a $3 million pay day come June 3 in the form of a roster bonus, along with that $2.67 million base salary. That's another $5.77 million to go with the nearly $14 million he cleared last year. That's a lot to gamble in this financial climate, especially for a guy used to living high off the hog.
Cah-PEESH?
Whew, there, got that all off my chest. Been building for quite some time.
To me, there is no right answer on this one. Just comes down to the course of action you choose. So as Parcells loved to say, "Act immediately." Better to live with a decision than linger with indecision. And for all we know, the Cowboys might already have made their decision. Just haven't said. And I'm telling you, when it comes to, uh, The Player, the less said the better
