Pretending I Am the GM

[Shake_Tiller]

If you hear in your sleep, that was him.

Good. I'd hate to think it was a woman. Rejection, I can stand. Laughter is another thing.

 

[Venger]

To get this thread back on topic...

How is ridding yourself of TO going to allow you to revamp the defense, the offense, get a new coffee maker, install new spark plugs... you have a guy on your offense who immediately occupies two players on their defense. That's a win right out of the formation.

Thinking this team won't win with TO is like listening to someone say that the Dolphins won't win with Marino. You know, maybe they won't, but it sure as hell won't be his fault.

 

[Shake_Tiller]

To get this thread back on topic...

How is ridding yourself of TO going to allow you to revamp the defense, the offense, get a new coffee maker, install new spark plugs... you have a guy on your offense who immediately occupies two players on their defense. That's a win right out of the formation.

Thinking this team won't win with TO is like listening to someone say that the Dolphins won't win with Marino. You know, maybe they won't, but it sure as hell won't be his fault.

As far as I could see, the double team, more often than not, was a CB jam and a safety over the top, which isn't exactly exclusive to Owens. Williams probably would get similar coverage if he were the 1 receiver. If Owens were beating the jam, he would be in position to abuse the safety. Most of the time, that didn't happen. But Owens did make a lot of plays, and I don't mean to take that away from him.

Owens is a good receiver. He is no longer an elite receiver. Owens is replaceable.

 

[Hostile]

To get this thread back on topic...

How is ridding yourself of TO going to allow you to revamp the defense, the offense, get a new coffee maker, install new spark plugs... you have a guy on your offense who immediately occupies two players on their defense. That's a win right out of the formation.

Thinking this team won't win with TO is like listening to someone say that the Dolphins won't win with Marino. You know, maybe they won't, but it sure as hell won't be his fault.

We don't win with him. If all is lost without him then I don't know what to tell you about the coffee maker and spark plugs.

I've never heard of a player that un-expendable.

 

[Venger]

As far as I could see, the double team, more often than not, was a CB jam and a safety over the top, which isn't exactly exclusive to Owens. Williams probably would get similar coverage if he were the 1 receiver. If Owens were beating the jam, he would be in position to abuse the safety. Most of the time, that didn't happen. But Owens did make a lot of plays, and I don't mean to take that away from him.

Owens is a good receiver. He is no longer an elite receiver. Owens is replaceable.

So this begs the question - why create the need to replace him? I can replace my front left tire, but that doesn't argue for slashing it. Teams do not single Owens, and when they do, he tends to go off. I see Owens as a net advantage no matter the play call. Damn, I can't believe I am defending this guy...I absolutely abhorred his signing.

We don't win with him. If all is lost without him then I don't know what to tell you about the coffee maker and spark plugs.

I've never heard of a player that un-expendable.

Rambo not expendable.

Sorry, I have a film quote disorder.

Anyways, don't think anyone is claiming he is untouchable - but while he is replaceable, what receiver out there are you going to replace him with? Is your receiver in hand not worth one in the bush, all else being equal? I need a compelling reason to get rid of Owens, and it has to be more than just a zero sum transaction. JEEZ I can't believe I am defending this guy...

 

[khiladi]

We don't win with him. If all is lost without him then I don't know what to tell you about the coffee maker and spark plugs.

I've never heard of a player that un-expendable.

We don't win with Jason Garrett...
We also don't win with Ware, Ratliff, Choice, Barber, Romo, Roy Williams and so on and so forth...But we really don't win with Jason Garrett... Even when we were pass, he did not used play-action. And when he did every now and then, it was in obvious passing downs....

 

[khiladi]

As far as I could see, the double team, more often than not, was a CB jam and a safety over the top, which isn't exactly exclusive to Owens. Williams probably would get similar coverage if he were the 1 receiver. If Owens were beating the jam, he would be in position to abuse the safety. Most of the time, that didn't happen. But Owens did make a lot of plays, and I don't mean to take that away from him.

Owens is a good receiver. He is no longer an elite receiver. Owens is replaceable.

That is just absurd right there. What happened when TO was single-covered against the 49ers... You got it... He beat the jam, but there was no help over the top. That right there shoots your argument that he wasn't beating press coverage. He was, he just wasn't beating the double-teams often, especially when he was going deep. How often do WRs even do that? They don't. Not even Fitzgerald does do it all the time. If he did, Warner would be throwing near 100 percent.Further, you have to predicate a lot of things for your assumption to work, among them the CB that is pressing Owens doesn't know that he is going deep, when that is all Garrett does. A CB can make the hit and run as fast as he can if he knows the deep ball is coming. It also assumes that Romo has enough time to actually allow TO to beat the safety.An OCs job is to exploit match-ups, and Garrett wasn't doing that. He wasn't doing it with Owens, Crayton or Williams... Crayton became the thrid WR, and more often than not, he was facing LBs. Nobody in their right mind can tell me that Crayton can't beat LBs the majority of time. The offense's ineptitude was all on Garrett...

 

[Hostile]

Rambo not expendable.

Sorry, I have a film quote disorder.

Anyways, don't think anyone is claiming he is untouchable - but while he is replaceable, what receiver out there are you going to replace him with? Is your receiver in hand not worth one in the bush, all else being equal? I need a compelling reason to get rid of Owens, and it has to be more than just a zero sum transaction. JEEZ I can't believe I am defending this guy...

I honestly don't care who we replace him with as long as that guy puts team first.

Look, Owens is an enigma. I said it before, I don't dislike the guy. I have even spoken to him on the phone and I can get a message to him any time I need to.

Is he talented? Absolutely.

One of the best in the NFL? No doubt about it.

Even at his age? His age does not matter.

Does he work hard? Harder than anyone.

Does he think that working harder means he has entitlement? I think so.

Does he have entitlement? No. No one does. You still have to buy into the team concept.

He honestly believes what he says has no effect on this team. That in and of itself is a problem.

Does he create the problem or does the media create it for him? Both. Which is exactly why I have said in this thread several times that I am willing to keep him if he will just shut up. If he doesn't shut up, I would really rather let him go. I lose a source for some info. I'd rather win. I think he is very much a symptom of the losing. He doesn't cause losses but the added drama contributes to it.

NFL experts such as Jimmy Johnson, Cris Carter, Jeff Fisher, Tom Jackson, Terry Bradshaw, Howie Long, Randy White, Cliff Harris, and Darren Woodson have agreed with me on this in recent weeks. Distractions in the locker room cause a lack of focus which leads to losses.

The only way we will win with this guy is if he realizes the media are not ever going to be on his side, are in fact his enemy, and he simply does what he does best, play football. He'll never get there. The guy honestly believes that because he is a good person at heart (and he honestly is) that he will finally catch a break.

Not gonna happen. Every word he says will be scrutinized and they will read between every line looking for a way in which he is once again, Team Obliterator. His talking makes Skip Bayless look smart. Skip Freaking Bayless. No one should make that abomination look smart. The only way to stop him...shut up.

 

[Shake_Tiller]

That is just absurd right there. What happened when TO was single-covered against the 49ers... You got it... He beat the jam, but there was no help over the top. That right there shoots your argument that he wasn't beating press coverage. He was, he just wasn't beating the double-teams often, especially when he was going deep. How often do WRs even do that? They don't. Not even Fitzgerald does do it all the time. If he did, Warner would be throwing near 100 percent.Further, you have to predicate a lot of things for your assumption to work, among them the CB that is pressing Owens doesn't know that he is going deep, when that is all Garrett does. A CB can make the hit and run as fast as he can if he knows the deep ball is coming. It also assumes that Romo has enough time to actually allow TO to beat the safety.An OCs job is to exploit match-ups, and Garrett wasn't doing that. He wasn't doing it with Owens, Crayton or Williams... Crayton became the thrid WR, and more often than not, he was facing LBs. Nobody in their right mind can tell me that Crayton can't beat LBs the majority of time. The offense's ineptitude was all on Garrett...

It might be wrong, but it isn't absurd. Civility isn't entirely a bad thing. Owens struggled to beat the jams. He tacitly acknowledged it when he complained bitterly about not being set in motion enough. I don't say he never defeated press coverage, but he struggled in that area. To suggest that was the case isn't absurd. Owens is a declining player. He's still a good player. But he is a declining player, and he is not an elite receiver.

 

[Shake_Tiller]

That is just absurd right there. What happened when TO was single-covered against the 49ers... You got it... He beat the jam, but there was no help over the top. That right there shoots your argument that he wasn't beating press coverage. He was, he just wasn't beating the double-teams often, especially when he was going deep. How often do WRs even do that? They don't. Not even Fitzgerald does do it all the time. If he did, Warner would be throwing near 100 percent.Further, you have to predicate a lot of things for your assumption to work, among them the CB that is pressing Owens doesn't know that he is going deep, when that is all Garrett does. A CB can make the hit and run as fast as he can if he knows the deep ball is coming. It also assumes that Romo has enough time to actually allow TO to beat the safety.An OCs job is to exploit match-ups, and Garrett wasn't doing that. He wasn't doing it with Owens, Crayton or Williams... Crayton became the thrid WR, and more often than not, he was facing LBs. Nobody in their right mind can tell me that Crayton can't beat LBs the majority of time. The offense's ineptitude was all on Garrett...

By the way, I don't disagree with your assessment of Garrett's 2008 schemes.

 

[khiladi]

It might be wrong, but it isn't absurd. Civility isn't entirely a bad thing. Owens struggled to beat the jams. He tacitly acknowledged it when he complained bitterly about not being set in motion enough. I don't say he never defeated press coverage, but he struggled in that area. To suggest that was the case isn't absurd. Owens is a declining player. He's still a good player. But he is a declining player, and he is not an elite receiver.

He did not acknowledge that. What he acknowledged was that he was most effective when used in motion. Anybody familiar with TOs career knows this is the case. This was evident during his early years, which doesn't reveal any pattern of deterioration regarding press coverage. He is best in motion, whether now or then, or in the future. It is up to Garrett to maximize the potential of his players.The San Fransisco 49ers game shows he can beat press coverage plain and simply. What he has a dsifficult time doing, and every single receiver in the NFL has a difficult time doing, is beating double-teams. Teams are doubling him because they know he is dangerous. If he lost a step, then teams wouldn't double him.Amazing how Garrett has a player where teams make a significant intent to double TO, but cannot effectively use his other player's, most importantly, in my eyes, at least, Patrick Crayton as the third receiver.

 

[Shake_Tiller]

He did not acknowledge that. What he acknowledged was that he was most effective when used in motion. Anybody familiar with TOs career knows this is the case. This was evident during his early years, which doesn't reveal any pattern of deterioration regarding press coverage. He is best in motion, whether now or then, or in the future. It is up to Garrett to maximize the potential of his players.The San Fransisco 49ers game shows he can beat press coverage plain and simply. What he has a dsifficult time doing, and every single receiver in the NFL has a difficult time doing, is beating double-teams. Teams are doubling him because they know he is dangerous. If he lost a step, then teams wouldn't double him.Amazing how Garrett has a player where teams make a significant intent to double TO, but cannot effectively use his other player's, most importantly, in my eyes, at least, Patrick Crayton as the third receiver.

He struggled to beat jams in 2008. No window dressing changes that. One game doesn't prove otherwise. Patrick Crayton beat the Commanders a few years ago running a 9, but that doesn't make him a deep threat. As to this notion that teams wouldn't double him if he had lost a step... of course they would, unless another Cowboys WR were considered a bigger threat. Even if a defense dogs, it has six defenders to cover five eligible receivers. Someone gets doubled, absent there being at least six rushers. And even then, in most cases, an offense keeps in someone to block... a TE or a back. I don't deny Owens was the Cowboys' most dangerous WR. He isn't elite anymore on a league level.

 

[Shake_Tiller]

He did not acknowledge that. What he acknowledged was that he was most effective when used in motion. Anybody familiar with TOs career knows this is the case. This was evident during his early years, which doesn't reveal any pattern of deterioration regarding press coverage. He is best in motion, whether now or then, or in the future. It is up to Garrett to maximize the potential of his players.The San Fransisco 49ers game shows he can beat press coverage plain and simply. What he has a dsifficult time doing, and every single receiver in the NFL has a difficult time doing, is beating double-teams. Teams are doubling him because they know he is dangerous. If he lost a step, then teams wouldn't double him.Amazing how Garrett has a player where teams make a significant intent to double TO, but cannot effectively use his other player's, most importantly, in my eyes, at least, Patrick Crayton as the third receiver.

By the way, I didn't say he acknowledged having trouble beating the jams. I said he tacitly acknowledged it. Different thing.

 

[jterrell]

There are two things that keep me from getting behind cutting T.O.

1. Roy Williams looked awful for us running around with plantar fasciatis(sp??) and he also was as vocal as T.O.

2. The New York Giants thought they could be a "team" and let Burress twist in the wind but they were awful without him and now they are changing course plotting one where he returns asap.

 

[Rampage]

That is just absurd right there. What happened when TO was single-covered against the 49ers... You got it... He beat the jam, but there was no help over the top. That right there shoots your argument that he wasn't beating press coverage. He was, he just wasn't beating the double-teams often, especially when he was going deep. How often do WRs even do that? They don't. Not even Fitzgerald does do it all the time. If he did, Warner would be throwing near 100 percent.Further, you have to predicate a lot of things for your assumption to work, among them the CB that is pressing Owens doesn't know that he is going deep, when that is all Garrett does. A CB can make the hit and run as fast as he can if he knows the deep ball is coming. It also assumes that Romo has enough time to actually allow TO to beat the safety.An OCs job is to exploit match-ups, and Garrett wasn't doing that. He wasn't doing it with Owens, Crayton or Williams... Crayton became the thrid WR, and more often than not, he was facing LBs. Nobody in their right mind can tell me that Crayton can't beat LBs the majority of time. The offense's ineptitude was all on Garrett...

the 49ers didn't jam him at the line.

 

[Shake_Tiller]

There are two things that keep me from getting behind cutting T.O.

1. Roy Williams looked awful for us running around with plantar fasciatis(sp??) and he also was as vocal as T.O.

2. The New York Giants thought they could be a "team" and let Burress twist in the wind but they were awful without him and now they are changing course plotting one where he returns asap.

I understand what you mean, and I can't say I don't share your concerns. In fact, until the final quarter of the season, I would have agreed with you. But there are a couple of mitigating factors. Williams was injured, confused and stepped into a crumbling situation. He is a far better player than he showed. He isn't Owens in his prime, but he is a good wideout.

The Giants were awful without Burress, but there is that chicken/egg thing. Were they awful solely because of the loss of his talent, or were they awful because of the combination of the loss of his talent and the distraction he created.

I am not jumping up and down, dying to see Owens go. Dallas will miss his talent. But there is far too much evidence, far too many eyewitness acounts, far too much smoke for me to believe he wasn't a significant, negative distraction. And I think it is really, really tough to win football games in such an atmosphere. There really hasn't been a football equivalent of the old Oakland A's or the Billy Martin era Yankees. At least, I can't think of one. I'm willing to be corrected.

 

[Shake_Tiller]

the 49ers didn't jam him at the line.

Good point... one I had forgotten. Singletary took a lot of heat for that.

 

[jterrell]

I understand what you mean, and I can't say I don't share your concerns. In fact, until the final quarter of the season, I would have agreed with you. But there are a couple of mitigating factors. Williams was injured, confused and stepped into a crumbling situation. He is a far better player than he showed. He isn't Owens in his prime, but he is a good wideout.

The Giants were awful without Burress, but there is that chicken/egg thing. Were they awful solely because of the loss of his talent, or were they awful because of the combination of the loss of his talent and the distraction he created.

I am not jumping up and down, dying to see Owens go. Dallas will miss his talent. But there is far too much evidence, far too many eyewitness acounts, far too much smoke for me to believe he wasn't a significant, negative distraction. And I think it is really, really tough to win football games in such an atmosphere. There really hasn't been a football equivalent of the old Oakland A's or the Billy Martin era Yankees. At least, I can't think of one. I'm willing to be corrected.

I'd argue the 90's Cowboys where arrests and court appearances were common was as wild as it gets and they won big. SF had its own issues, largely lead by Haley and later T.O. and still won big. The Pats have the one modern dynasty in the sport that hasn't been a wild scene imho.

Ray Lewis was involved in a murder and Jamal Lewis with selling drugs and those guys won a Super Bowl as the very backbone of that team in the middle of it all.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

There are two things that keep me from getting behind cutting T.O.

1. Roy Williams looked awful for us running around with plantar fasciatis(sp??) and he also was as vocal as T.O.

2. The New York Giants thought they could be a "team" and let Burress twist in the wind but they were awful without him and now they are changing course plotting one where he returns asap.

1,000 yards and 10 TD's are not going to be made up easily.

A "ground" based offense doesn't thrill me. It's a passing game that makes points, not a running game.

With Romo at QB this will never be a 50/50 ratio team (50% run/50% pass).

 

[Shake_Tiller]

I'd argue the 90's Cowboys where arrests and court appearances were common was as wild as it gets and they won big. SF had its own issues, largely lead by Haley and later T.O. and still won big. The Pats have the one modern dynasty in the sport that hasn't been a wild scene imho.

Ray Lewis was involved in a murder and Jamal Lewis with selling drugs and those guys won a Super Bowl as the very backbone of that team in the middle of it all.

Those are all valid points. I'm not really referring to the wild life, though. I'm referring more to how teammates seem to feel about teammates. I think a lot of the A's and a lot of the Yanks truly despised each other. But they won. I haven't seen the evidence that such has been the case in football. But again, this is an off-hand observation. I could be wrong. As for the wild life... most sports teams have plenty of that. Let's face it, these are young, rich guys. Some get more publicity than others.