Pretending I Am the GM

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I would get rid of Owens and not because i think he is a bad player.

He just isn't worth his salary anymore. At $10 mil a year, he should be getting off the jam and consistently beating double teams. He does neither anymore.

He certainly is a good football player despite that and his questionable hands. He is just no longer worth what he is paid.

 

[thechosen1n2]

I would definitely get rid of Owens. Not because he is a bad player, he isn't. Not by any wild stretch of the imagination.

Not because the fans and media are calling for it. Screw that. Who cares? I don't.

Not because it could drive Garrett or Sherman away. I'm the biggest Garrett shill on the forum. I have a serious agenda for him to be the next Head Coach.

There are three reasons why I would do this. Felix Jones, Marion Barber, and Tashard Choice.

I love ball control Offense. I love to pound the other team to death. I love to see the Defense getting rest while the Offense moves the chains.

Roy can be a #1, Austin #2, Crayton the #3. Witten is the best weapon in the passing attack anyway and Bennett could be utilized more.

The money saved could shore up the O-line which is badly needed. I'd like to spend on Defense so that they can be the attacking disruptive force I want. 59 sacks in 2008 was great, but they gave up too many points, too much yardage and wore down.

The payoff would be less distractions. Sorry Owens fans, but denying he is a distraction is wearing blinders. Guy is one hell of a football player, but he is high maintenance and what this team needs is a new focus. Ball control is the answer.

We'd still have some home run hitters with Roy, Austin and especially Felix.

We might score fewer points, in fact we probably would. But I'd trade that for a more focused, less distracted team that wins more and I think we'd win more in 2009 with Owens gone and a new focus on Offense.

It's just my opinion and you're free to disagree.

I dont disagree with your post in the least. The only thing I disagree on is that If that was the gameplan, and we were successful, I don think we would hear a peep from TO. Im not sure how much money would be saved (i know we will save the roster bonus but I dont know about the cap hit) but with the focus on the running game TO would get plenty opportunities.

 

[ZeroClub]

There is a great-minds-think-alike thing happening here. Several posters have talked about getting rid of Owens and emphasizing run-first ball control sort of offense.

I like the idea. There is good reason to think that the RBs are already in place. A more conservative approach should also cut down on turnovers.

But who knows if this OL can make it work? They have been dominant occasionally, but they haven't been consistent. I'm not sure they have the stamina. They are a very big group. Maybe they are too big for their own good.

So yeah, as Hostile says, there is a big need to further enhance the OL.

 

[5Countem5]

I dont disagree with your post in the least. The only thing I disagree on is that If that was the gameplan, and we were successful, I don think we would hear a peep from TO. Im not sure how much money would be saved (i know we will save the roster bonus but I dont know about the cap hit) but with the focus on the running game TO would get plenty opportunities.

It's not about TO , it's about this team losing and the fans wanting someone to pay. They have no clue what went wrong, but they do know they don't like TO talking so therefore the players on the team must not like it either. They fall for Werder's BS and apply their feelings to the players as if being a guy sitting at home watching this play out has the same insight as a player does.

I guess I'm old school because I figured the losses came on blocking, tackling an stuff like that. Some here are convinced that Proctor can't block because TO talks to Deion.


Anyway, in March, TO will get his bonus and this crap will die off...

 

[THUMPER]

I would definitely get rid of Owens. Not because he is a bad player, he isn't. Not by any wild stretch of the imagination.

Not because the fans and media are calling for it. Screw that. Who cares? I don't.

Not because it could drive Garrett or Sherman away. I'm the biggest Garrett shill on the forum. I have a serious agenda for him to be the next Head Coach.

There are three reasons why I would do this. Felix Jones, Marion Barber, and Tashard Choice.

I love ball control Offense. I love to pound the other team to death. I love to see the Defense getting rest while the Offense moves the chains.

Roy can be a #1, Austin #2, Crayton the #3. Witten is the best weapon in the passing attack anyway and Bennett could be utilized more.

The money saved could shore up the O-line which is badly needed. I'd like to spend on Defense so that they can be the attacking disruptive force I want. 59 sacks in 2008 was great, but they gave up too many points, too much yardage and wore down.

The payoff would be less distractions. Sorry Owens fans, but denying he is a distraction is wearing blinders. Guy is one hell of a football player, but he is high maintenance and what this team needs is a new focus. Ball control is the answer.

We'd still have some home run hitters with Roy, Austin and especially Felix.

We might score fewer points, in fact we probably would. But I'd trade that for a more focused, less distracted team that wins more and I think we'd win more in 2009 with Owens gone and a new focus on Offense.

It's just my opinion and you're free to disagree.

I totally agree with you Hos. I would add one more reason: Tony Romo would be a lot more efficient.

Romo would be less inclined to feel like he has to make a big play on every down, resulting in fewer turnovers. He would also not feel like he HAS to throw to Owens and would be free to go through his progressions, finding the open man more often.

 

[MONT17]

I want Shanny so bad I cant taste it!!!

As for TO, I have to respectfully disagree Hostile. I would keep TO because he is the one receiver that still scares opposing defenses.

If TO is not that good, why is it that TO is the WR that almost all teams double with a safety??? The only team that played him man-to-man all year was S.F. and he lit them up like a freaking Christmas tree.

You dont get rid of players that the opposing defense doubles 95% of the time, you just dont.

Also, TO has not changed. He is still the same TO that was in S.F and the same TO that was in Philly. He wants the ball every freaking play and when the team is losing he usually goes off on the sideline.

This is nothing new, so if it is such a distraction how come we were able to go 13-3 with TO in 2007???

Nobody on this board has ever explained how we go from 13-3 to 9-7 and it is TO's fault and he is a distraction, ect...............TO was the same TO in 2007 when we won 13 games and had the #1 seed, so he just became a distraction in the offseason???

Nobody has given a reasonable, logical explanation as to why TO has to leave for us to win when we won 13 games with him in 07. How is it TO's fault we went from 13 wins to 9 wins (what did TO do in 2008 that he did not do in 07 or in Philly or in SF???)..............somebody explain.

I guess we can try to bring jujo back? TOs problem is that he is the leader of this team because Romo is a girl...TO is not a very good leader!

 

[Hostile]

There is a great-minds-think-alike thing happening here. Several posters have talked about getting rid of Owens and emphasizing run-first ball control sort of offense.

I like the idea. There is good reason to think that the RBs are already in place. A more conservative approach should also cut down on turnovers.

But who knows if this OL can make it work? They have been dominant occasionally, but they haven't been consistent. I'm not sure they have the stamina. They are a very big group. Maybe they are too big for their own good.

So yeah, as Hostile says, there is a big need to further enhance the OL.

That is a big plus that I meant to mention and did not.

I will be honest, the only thing I would really like about TO being here in 2009 is that Roy would see how hard he works and might follow suit. As I said earlier, if he can shut his mouth and be on board with this team winning I'd be okay with keeping him.

I don't think TO is a bad person. In fact I think he is brutally honest. The problem is the spins and theories that arise from him being brutally honest and how they come back to the team and divide it and take them away from their jobs.

Truth be told...I'd be thrilled if every player on this team quit talking to the media and the coaches other than "coach speak." No Hard Knocks. I'd even like it if Jerry shut up. There is too much chance for boomerang innuendos and conspiracy theories.

 

[5Countem5]

I don't think TO is a bad person. In fact I think he is brutally honest. The problem is the spins and theories that arise form him being brutally honest and how they come back to the team and divide it and take them away from their jobs.

Do you find it at all arrogant thinking that YOU can figure this stuff about TO out but the poor little players can't?

 

[Hostile]

It's not about TO , it's about this team losing and the fans wanting someone to pay. They have no clue what went wrong, but they do know they don't like TO talking so therefore the players on the team must not like it either. They fall for Werder's BS and apply their feelings to the players as if being a guy sitting at home watching this play out has the same insight as a player does.

I guess I'm old school because I figured the losses came on blocking, tackling an stuff like that. Some here are convinced that Proctor can't block because TO talks to Deion.


Anyway, in March, TO will get his bonus and this crap will die off...

No, I'm not falling for Werder's BS. I've been pretty plain from the word go that I think he made a mountain out of a molehill. I think whatever did happen was a little bitty thing and the media created a holy war.

You are absolutely correct on blocking and tackling and I am also pretty much on record as saying this team was derailed by injuries more than any other factor. I don't think Romo was healthy and we had no other QB option to go to.

That doesn't change the distraction factor. When the media storm hit at full force this team basically waved a white flag. Pacman is gone. Tank will be. Remove TO from the equation or shut him and everyone else up, and this team as assembled will win. Allow the same stuff next year, they won't.

 

[Oh_Canada]

Have to disagree, Hos. A few points...

1) It wouldn't save us money to cut Owens. It would cost us more to cut him than to keep him.

2) Remember how we'd struggle mightily on offensive back in the '90s whenever Michael Irvin got hurt? Even though we had a terrific OL and run game? Prepare to see much more of the same if we kicked Owens to the curb. Ball control offense works when the defense can't stack the box. You need the threat of a potent passing game more than ever nowadays. Ask the Giants how they've fared offensively without Burress... they've scored less than 20 in 3/4 of the games without him.

3) WR would turn into a mediocre position... instead of the area of strength that it is now. There has been no evidence since we acquired Roy Williams that he is a #1 WR. He was struggling in Detroit this year before we traded for him as well. By his own admission he's not a speed guy, and his route running and attitude have come into question as well.

Miles Austin? He has proven that he can burn mediocre CBs deep when there's no safety help over the top. Why hasn't there been safety help? Because of #81.

4) T.O. makes QBs better. Check out Garcia's and McNabb's numbers WITH him vs. their numbers WITHOUT him. There's no reason to believe Romo wouldn't fall off without his big-play guy who draws multiple defenders every down. The #1 objective for defensive coordinators when game-planning for the Cowboys is "don't let Owens kill us".

5) You say the team would be less distracted, but I believe the team would become disgruntled if you ousted T.O. Despite the media's portrayal, he has a LOT of friends on the team. Remember how 19 Eagles went to his birthday bash even AFTER he was ousted from the team? Or how guys like Jeremiah Trotter were openly pining for his return, "stabbing McNabb in the back" in the process?

6) Last but not least, we're the Dallas Cowboys. As long as we aren't a bottom-feeder... we will constantly be all over ESPN and we'll have "distractions". If we can't win while "distracted", we can't win period.

I'm sure I kinda repeated a few points there, so I apologize for that. To sum up, I don't think a move that, even in your opinion, would cause us to score less is a move we should consider. Our problems down the stretch have been that we could no longer score consistently... nor stop the opposition from scoring. Owens hasn't been the problem.

I have to tell you, these are some pretty persuasive points you make. In fact I think both you and Hos make very good points, which tells me that the real change that needs to be made is by it's head coach.
No, I don't expect Wade to wake up one morning and suddenly turn into the next Lombardi, but he can change in a number of ways. Firstly, he can use playing time as a motivator...if a player isn't working hard, executing poorly, sleeping in film sessions, pouting on the sidelines, or causing distractions sit his arse, no matter who he is. He doesn't need to yell or scream it, just tell him to take a seat on the bench. If this doesn't work, cut him....in fact I think Wade needs to cut some one of consequence during the pre-season to send a message just to let everyone know who is the boss. He can be the same cuddly, loveable Wade, except now he has a machete and will you use it if you don't follow the rules.
Finally, this team can and should you use ball control with or without T.O. Owens has proved during his time in Dallas, he doesn't cause nearly as many distractions when the team is winning. The Cowboys have alll the ingredients of a superior ground game in place, all they have to do is execute, the winning will follow and so will #81.

 

[Hostile]

Do you find it at all arrogant thinking that YOU can figure this stuff about TO out but the poor little players can't?

Are you asking me if I think I am arrogant?

Arrogant no. Egotistical absolutely.

Arrogance implies hubris and that I look down with disdain on others. I don't. I genuinely like people.

I admit to being egotistical. It comes from being a big fish in a little pond as I grew up. Being treated like I was something special. Having any girl I wanted. But I never forget that athletics and academics didn't just happen for me. I worked my butt off to achieve the things I did and that adds to the ego. I don't fail at very much that I put my mind to and I'm smart.

So no to arrogance, I'll cop to a big ego.

So the hell what? You think no one else on this forum doesn't believe the ideas they write? Wake up.

 

[Wrangler87]

I've already done my "GM" post, only to be bashed by some of the other posters. So far, I am right on course:

1. Fire Wade, hire mean Coach. (Not yet, but still possible)

2. Cut Pacman, Owens, and do not resign Tank Johnson. (I'm 2 for 3 here so far)

3. Sign the best NT available. Move Ratliff to DE to replace Canty. Do one of two things, either draft a NT in round two, or sign the best available one out there. Do the opposite with MLB. Either sign the best MLB out there, or draft him in the second. SHORE UP THE RUN DEFENSE!!!!! (Still possible)

4. Cut Proctor.

5. Release Johnson, sign capable backup QB: Simms, Kitna, Garcia.

6. Fill out the draft with O-Lineman that don't suck and a Safety or two who are not afraid to hit and love special teams, and some big Hawiian dude to back up our new NT.

 

[Bleu Star]

I would definitely get rid of Owens. Not because he is a bad player, he isn't. Not by any wild stretch of the imagination.

Not because the fans and media are calling for it. Screw that. Who cares? I don't.

Not because it could drive Garrett or Sherman away. I'm the biggest Garrett shill on the forum. I have a serious agenda for him to be the next Head Coach.

There are three reasons why I would do this. Felix Jones, Marion Barber, and Tashard Choice.

I love ball control Offense. I love to pound the other team to death. I love to see the Defense getting rest while the Offense moves the chains.

Roy can be a #1, Austin #2, Crayton the #3. Witten is the best weapon in the passing attack anyway and Bennett could be utilized more.

The money saved could shore up the O-line which is badly needed. I'd like to spend on Defense so that they can be the attacking disruptive force I want. 59 sacks in 2008 was great, but they gave up too many points, too much yardage and wore down.

The payoff would be less distractions. Sorry Owens fans, but denying he is a distraction is wearing blinders. Guy is one hell of a football player, but he is high maintenance and what this team needs is a new focus. Ball control is the answer.

We'd still have some home run hitters with Roy, Austin and especially Felix.

We might score fewer points, in fact we probably would. But I'd trade that for a more focused, less distracted team that wins more and I think we'd win more in 2009 with Owens gone and a new focus on Offense.

It's just my opinion and you're free to disagree.

I disagree with getting rid of TO of course. I just wanted to get that on record again. Our receiving corps goes back to very ordinary without TO and IMO we're not ready for that. That said, you make a pretty good case for the GM position if there was one available.

 

[slick325]

I would definitely get rid of Owens. Not because he is a bad player, he isn't. Not by any wild stretch of the imagination.

Not because the fans and media are calling for it. Screw that. Who cares? I don't.

Not because it could drive Garrett or Sherman away. I'm the biggest Garrett shill on the forum. I have a serious agenda for him to be the next Head Coach.

There are three reasons why I would do this. Felix Jones, Marion Barber, and Tashard Choice.

I love ball control Offense. I love to pound the other team to death. I love to see the Defense getting rest while the Offense moves the chains.

Roy can be a #1, Austin #2, Crayton the #3. Witten is the best weapon in the passing attack anyway and Bennett could be utilized more.

The money saved could shore up the O-line which is badly needed. I'd like to spend on Defense so that they can be the attacking disruptive force I want. 59 sacks in 2008 was great, but they gave up too many points, too much yardage and wore down.

The payoff would be less distractions. Sorry Owens fans, but denying he is a distraction is wearing blinders. Guy is one hell of a football player, but he is high maintenance and what this team needs is a new focus. Ball control is the answer.

We'd still have some home run hitters with Roy, Austin and especially Felix.

We might score fewer points, in fact we probably would. But I'd trade that for a more focused, less distracted team that wins more and I think we'd win more in 2009 with Owens gone and a new focus on Offense.

It's just my opinion and you're free to disagree.

I can understand where you're coming from Hos. I want Dallas to shift to being a run 1st offense as well and if that were the case it would be hard to keep Owens from being disruptive regarding his role and touches.

That said, I'm not sure which way I lean on whether he should be released or not.

 

[5Countem5]

Are you asking me if I think I am arrogant?

Arrogant no. Egotistical absolutely.

Arrogance implies hubris and that I look down with disdain on others. I don't. I genuinely like people.

I admit to being egotistical. It comes from being a big fish in a little pond as I grew up. Being treated like I was something special. Having any girl I wanted. But I never forget that athletics and academics didn't just happen for me. I worked my butt off to achieve the things I did and that adds to the ego. I don't fail at very much that I put my mind to and I'm smart.

So no to arrogance, I'll cop to a big ego.

So the hell what? You think no one else on this forum doesn't believe the ideas they write? Wake up.

More info than I needed.

So you can see how the media manipulates TO comments and then the team but the Dallas Cowboy players cannot...

Is that what you were saying?

 

[TheCount]

That doesn't change the distraction factor. When the media storm hit at full force this team basically waved a white flag. Pacman is gone. Tank will be. Remove TO from the equation or shut him and everyone else up, and this team as assembled will win. Allow the same stuff next year, they won't.

Players and coaches have plainly said T.O. is not as big a distraction as it seems from the outside. That may or may not be true, but to make it sound like T.O.'s mouth is the reason this team bombs every December is more sensational than analytical.

Their talking is a symptom of the disease, not the disease itself.

We've been doing this for over a decade, T.O. has been here 3 years.

 

[Big Country]

I would definitely get rid of Owens. Not because he is a bad player, he isn't. Not by any wild stretch of the imagination.

Not because the fans and media are calling for it. Screw that. Who cares? I don't.

Not because it could drive Garrett or Sherman away. I'm the biggest Garrett shill on the forum. I have a serious agenda for him to be the next Head Coach.

There are three reasons why I would do this. Felix Jones, Marion Barber, and Tashard Choice.

I love ball control Offense. I love to pound the other team to death. I love to see the Defense getting rest while the Offense moves the chains.

Roy can be a #1, Austin #2, Crayton the #3. Witten is the best weapon in the passing attack anyway and Bennett could be utilized more.

The money saved could shore up the O-line which is badly needed. I'd like to spend on Defense so that they can be the attacking disruptive force I want. 59 sacks in 2008 was great, but they gave up too many points, too much yardage and wore down.

The payoff would be less distractions. Sorry Owens fans, but denying he is a distraction is wearing blinders. Guy is one hell of a football player, but he is high maintenance and what this team needs is a new focus. Ball control is the answer.

We'd still have some home run hitters with Roy, Austin and especially Felix.

We might score fewer points, in fact we probably would. But I'd trade that for a more focused, less distracted team that wins more and I think we'd win more in 2009 with Owens gone and a new focus on Offense.

It's just my opinion and you're free to disagree.

That's EXACTLY what I would like to see Hos!!
I'd like to see this defense as a relentless attacking defense myself but I would also like to see this defensive front, either coached up, or with another big nasty middle man, be a consistent top five defense vs the run. That would insure that there are more third and long downs for our opponents, which would aid in Dallas attacking on third down like a quality defense should be doing.

I'm all for ball control too. I myself like the eight, six, and twelve yard runs consistently that keep our defense fresh. You absolutely know the OL prefers this method instead of the seventy yard bomb TDs for consecutive drives that keep the OL on the bench watching the defense. Don't get me wrong tho, I like the occasional quick strike too as most fans would admit, but those plays also helps a comfy lead immensely.

Let me know when the petition is out.

Super Post Hos!

 

[Hostile]

Have to disagree, Hos. A few points...

1) It wouldn't save us money to cut Owens. It would cost us more to cut him than to keep him.

I wanted to come back to your post and respond point by point. According to some sources the hit to cut Owens would be less than a million dollars. That isn't a cost as much as it is a so what?

2) Remember how we'd struggle mightily on offensive back in the '90s whenever Michael Irvin got hurt? Even though we had a terrific OL and run game? Prepare to see much more of the same if we kicked Owens to the curb. Ball control offense works when the defense can't stack the box. You need the threat of a potent passing game more than ever nowadays. Ask the Giants how they've fared offensively without Burress... they've scored less than 20 in 3/4 of the games without him.

Owens is not Michael Irvin though. He does not inspire this team the way Michael did, and further look at how the team started to fall when Michael became a distraction.

Roy Williams has been a #1 WR option before. Without Michael we did not have one. That's the big difference. Would it require Roy to push himself? Of course it would. No denying that, but the potential is there. We had no potential #1 when Michael went down.

3) WR would turn into a mediocre position... instead of the area of strength that it is now. There has been no evidence since we acquired Roy Williams that he is a #1 WR. He was struggling in Detroit this year before we traded for him as well. By his own admission he's not a speed guy, and his route running and attitude have come into question as well.

Roy moves the chains. When the ball went to him this year it resulted in either a 1st down or a TD on all but 3 catches. All of those were behind the LOS. That's all you need if you are a run oriented control the clock kind of team. Austin is the speed guy. Stanback is a speed guy. Felix is a speed guy, albeit out of the backfield.

Miles Austin? He has proven that he can burn mediocre CBs deep when there's no safety help over the top. Why hasn't there been safety help? Because of #81.

I don't deny this one bit. Now we'd be pulling safeties in tighter to try and stop the run, freeing Austin up or making them pay if he gets behind them.

I'll tell you the honest to Pete truth, I would send either Austin or Stanback deep on every snap of the ball that was a pass play. I don't care if that is nothing but being a decoy. The Defense still has to adjust to it. If he doesn't catch a single ball all day, but still makes the Defense have to react to what we are doing I consider that success. Been in too many coaches meetings where that very type of contribution is lauded and acknowledged. Even when it had nothing to do with the unfolding of the play. Why? Because it still has positive effects on the overall Offensive success to pull a guy away from where he ball will be.

4) T.O. makes QBs better. Check out Garcia's and McNabb's numbers WITH him vs. their numbers WITHOUT him. There's no reason to believe Romo wouldn't fall off without his big-play guy who draws multiple defenders every down. The #1 objective for defensive coordinators when game-planning for the Cowboys is "don't let Owens kill us".

No argument from me. He does. He also makes some crucial drops in key situations. All WRs do that, but he has a penchant for more. The stats bear this out.

Riddle me this, who on the these teams is the Owens factor?

Steelers, Titans, Chargers, Ravens, Giants, & Eagles. I'm sure you recognize those teams as 6 of the 8 teams left in the post season. Only the Cardinals and Panthers have a WR who is as hard to game plan as Owens. I would submit to you that only Steve Smith of Carolina on those 2 teams has ever been a disruption like Burress and Owens.

So while a Burress and an Owens can definitely benefit a QB and the scoring, they don't necessarily change the success factor of a team. The common denominator in my plan to those other 6 teams...ball control.

5) You say the team would be less distracted, but I believe the team would become disgruntled if you ousted T.O. Despite the media's portrayal, he has a LOT of friends on the team. Remember how 19 Eagles went to his birthday bash even AFTER he was ousted from the team? Or how guys like Jeremiah Trotter were openly pining for his return, "stabbing McNabb in the back" in the process?

The difference here is that McNabb did stab TO in the back whereas Tony has not. I don't think there would be the same disgruntled factor and whereas they did not have the personnel to move on, we do. Winning cures the blues.

6) Last but not least, we're the Dallas Cowboys. As long as we aren't a bottom-feeder... we will constantly be all over ESPN and we'll have "distractions". If we can't win while "distracted", we can't win period.

That is true and you know that above anyone else on this forum I love that crap. I may be below Jerry Jones a bit on the acceptance of any publicity, but I love it. You know how else they are all over a team? Winning. Did you see the pub the Patriots got in 2007 as they kept on winning?

I'm sure I kinda repeated a few points there, so I apologize for that. To sum up, I don't think a move that, even in your opinion, would cause us to score less is a move we should consider. Our problems down the stretch have been that we could no longer score consistently... nor stop the opposition from scoring. Owens hasn't been the problem.

I'll gladly score less if we end up winning more because we wear other teams down. Instead of us wearing down our Defense is wearing down and because of that we can't stop the other team from scoring. You see, all of this stuff is interactive and contributory to the overall mosaic.

The big picture of that mosaic is still winning. We can win with Owens and we can win without him. I contend that if we become a ball control Offense it takes wear and tear off our Defense. With Owens here we could never be ball control and not hear about it if we lost a game. He thinks he is the difference between winning and losing. Yet the teams he "leads" have never won it all. Great player. I don't deny that. But an integral part of the formula to win? That's debatable and the evidence shows that taking him out of a game is too easy and has bad results.

Hence, I would do it and move on. Thanks for the broken down response and opposing views.

 

[Hostile]

More info than I needed.

So you can see how the media manipulates TO comments and then the team but the Dallas Cowboy players cannot...

Is that what you were saying?

No...

 

[5Countem5]

I'm all for ball control too. I myself like the eight, six, and twelve yard runs consistently that keep our defense fresh.

Don't we all.

You guarantee me that and I would go cut TO myself...