RECAP: T.O. sitting down with Screamin' A. Smith *Merge*

[Bleu Star]

Wait. Aren't you the guy who hoped we'd lose that game? Run, don't walk, to a dictionary and look up the word "nerve."

body blow

 

[ethiostar]

Wait. Aren't you the guy who hoped we'd lose that game? Run, don't walk, to a dictionary and look up the word "nerve."

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Yes, I need to you explain because you didn't answer my questions.

Again, please explain in some quantitive way how ESPN is going to lose even more credibility in the long term?

I gave you the most quantitive way ESPN would lose credibility - in viewers.

Is there something else you might be referring to?

I did answer your question. ESPN and their antics are making it possible for some other network to come in and take a substantial piece of that pie.

This will aid in that "shotty journalism" created drama.

re: viewers..... you mentioned specifically cz'ers.... so you dont believe it affects other fans not on this site.

In reality.... it will.

Its human nature to want better things... "latest and the greatest" that applies here as well.

ESPN = telling stories and not giving me what I want = real info
NEW network = telling the facts, giving me what I want.... backed up info

 

[Boysboy]

Wait. Aren't you the guy who hoped we'd lose that game? Run, don't walk, to a dictionary and look up the word "nerve."

Let's just say I was sucked into BSPN.

 

[Rampage]

Let's just say I was sucked into BSPN.

FLIP-FLOPPER!

 

[jobberone]

Wow. Just wow. I'm still surrounded.

 

[bbgun]

Let's just say I was sucked into BSPN.

ESPN has nothing to do with it. A loss wouldn't have compelled Jerry to "learn" a valuable lesson, or change his management style, or cut TO. None of those things is going to happen (not this year, anyway), so you might as well win.

 

[Seven]

Wow...I am SHOCKED everyone is falling for Stephen A's BS.

It was a zoo last week here, too bad even after an outstanding win this week, the zoo is continuing.

Wait. Aren't you the guy who hoped we'd lose that game? Run, don't walk, to a dictionary and look up the word "nerve."

Let's just say I was sucked into BSPN.

ESPN has nothing to do with it. A loss wouldn't have compelled Jerry to "learn" a valuable lesson, or change his management style, or cut TO. None of those things is going to happen (not this year, anyway), so you might as well win.

Add to the fact that he was the flippin' Zoo keeper all week.

I distinctly remember him posting "the good thing is my post count is going way up. This week, you wrote.

Make a decision and run with it, man.

 

[dbair1967]

I certainly hope Terrell Owens didn't tell Stephen A. Smith that this lockerroom was divided among racial lines.

He may have inferred that on his own. ESPN radio was just eating it up this afternoon, that Seibel guy was all over "the Cowboys are a racist team" crap. Steven A apparently came on at some point and said the team wasnt divided or torn over racism, and Seibel continued to run with it the rest of the afternoon anyway.

ESPN is just garbage at this point. They got called out over a b/s report and now are doing anything and everything to cover their arses.

 

[Maikeru-sama]

He may have inferred that on his own. ESPN radio was just eating it up this afternoon, that Seibel guy was all over "the Cowboys are a racist team" crap. Steven A apparently came on at some point and said the team wasnt divided or torn over racism, and Seibel continued to run with it the rest of the afternoon anyway.

ESPN is just garbage at this point. They got called out over a b/s report and now are doing anything and everything to cover their arses.

You are probably right.

However, why would Terrell Owens do an interview with ESPN at this juncture.

Not sure why this interview couldn't have waited until after the season.

 

[Boysboy]

You are probably right.

However, why would Terrell Owens do an interview with ESPN at this juncture.

Not sure why this interview couldn't have waited until after the season.

The interview was done on SATURDAY(a day before our game, of course).

While I agree with you, just to clarify-the interview DIDN'T take place after the game.

 

[jobberone]

I don't have a problem with TO doing it. But BSPN is going to just keep fabricating stuff. For those who actually saw the interview, how in the world can they get race issues out of this. The league is 70% black players anyway not that it has anything to do with the Cowboys or TO. Just makes them look more stupid.

Time to pull into the shell and turtle IMO. Not just go away but just don't give them anything.

 

[TNCowboy]

I don't have a problem with TO doing it. But BSPN is going to just keep fabricating stuff. For those who actually saw the interview, how in the world can they get race issues out of this. The league is 70% black players anyway not that it has anything to do with the Cowboys or TO. Just makes them look more stupid.

Time to pull into the shell and turtle IMO. Not just go away but just don't give them anything.

The race comments were Steven A. Smith's after spending a few days in Dallas, not TO's.

 

[tyke1doe]

I did answer your question. ESPN and their antics are making it possible for some other network to come in and take a substantial piece of that pie.

This will aid in that "shotty journalism" created drama.

re: viewers..... you mentioned specifically cz'ers.... so you dont believe it affects other fans not on this site.

In reality.... it will.

Its human nature to want better things... "latest and the greatest" that applies here as well.

ESPN = telling stories and not giving me what I want = real info
NEW network = telling the facts, giving me what I want.... backed up info

So your argument is that another network is going to rise up and be an ESPN sans the "sensational" stories?

And you believe that this network is going to sustain itself by offering only hard football news to its viewers? This, despite the fact that NFL Network has covered that market backed by the earning power of the league itself?

Okay, thanks for making that clearer than your previous post.

But I will tell you that based on industry trends, viewers and readers are wanting more than just "hard" news items. They're wanting more entertainment-type news. That's what's fueling ESPN's coverage.

But we shall see if this trend continues and whether your NEW network can sustain itself on just positive, non-sensationalized stories, as you define them.

 

[Dave_in-NC]

I don't have a problem with TO doing it. But BSPN is going to just keep fabricating stuff. For those who actually saw the interview, how in the world can they get race issues out of this. The league is 70% black players anyway not that it has anything to do with the Cowboys or TO. Just makes them look more stupid.

Time to pull into the shell and turtle IMO. Not just go away but just don't give them anything.

Wouldn't that have been the smart thing to do all allong?

 

[tomson75]

This is now the top story on ESPN.com.

Surprise!

 

[dbair1967]

This is now the top story on ESPN.com.

Surprise!

They just cant let it go.

I was laughing today when that bonehead Seibel was saying "this is the story that just wont die, obviously there's alot to it!!!!"

No arsewipe, it wont die because your shi! for brains network wont let it go.

 

[Oldschool7]

More excuses, blames, lies and

"I am (boo-hoo) such a victim."

And Stephen Smith has psychological issues. I see why he sees a brother in the player.

 

[theogt]

What happened?
I think it came out with the reports -- Ed Werder accused me of saying [some things] with an anonymous player. There was a meeting held by Jason Garrett on Monday. He initiated -- he called me into the office before the team meeting. He understood that everyone was upset about the Pittsburgh loss and he just wanted me to vent to him about how we can get better as a team -- my input on anything that he may have a question about. It was an open honest conversation between the two of us. That's where it should have stayed, but obviously that didn't happen. There were reports that Roy, Patrick and myself went in there and kicked his door in and had this meeting. That's not what happened. The meeting was held on Monday. All of these reports from an anonymous player came out on Thursday. That's where I feel like I have been unfairly criticized. People won't let go of the past. When I say the past, I mean things that happened in San Francisco and Philly. I've tried to remove myself from those situations, and it seems like everytime something happens, I'm to blame. I'm the [fall guy] for everything. And with this situation, I can't take it because the accusation that Werder made, regardless of who told him, I didn't say those thigns.

You're saying that what he reported is completely false, never happened?
I never said none of those things. It was reported that I said Tony and Witten were drawing up plays and freezing me out. I didn't say any of that.

What was said with Jason Garrett?
We just addressed a disappointing loss and what we can do to move forward to get better as a team. We're in a playoff push and every game is critical. We want to be on the same page. When you look at the film, there were plays where I was open, Roy was open, Patrick was open and these are the thigns that need to be addressed amongst us as an offense. We have a lot of capable players.

Let's get back to Werder. Jason Garrett is your OC and you go to talk to him. If Ed Werder reported it, obviously someone said something to him that is inside the locker room. Why is your problem with Ed and not the person in the locker room?
Well, that wasn't the initial problem. The meeting wasn't the controversy. The controversy was about an anonymous player saying I said that Witten and Tony were drawing up plays.

And you don't believe someone said that about you?
I believe someone said it. But I didn't say it. So, why would someone jump to the conclusion that I said it and cause all this controversy throughout the course of the week? Again, if you look at situations in the past -- look at this incident for example. You have reporters in the locker room. All those guys are gonna ask people, "What happened?" Sure there may be some guys, if I was at fault, that will say that I'm at fault. So someone could confirm it.

(((Basically here I think he was trying to say that if there was a problem, someone would come on record and say something happened. But it's all anonymous sources.)))

There were reports that you were peeved and of an altercation between you and Witten. Any truth to that?
None. I will say I was peeved -- I was pissed off about everything that was going on. I had so many teammates that called me and was like, "Bro what's going on? Who said this? Why is this getting out? We're supposed to be a family." I've gone overboard to do the necessary things to not create controversy. If I have a problem with anythign going on, with any of my teammates, I feel like I did the best thing I knew to do -- to go into Jason Garett and talk to him about. The thing with Jason Witten, I have no idea where that came from. I will say that he tried to come up to me during a period and asked me about what was going, and I said, "I'm done with it, let's forget it." As far as anyone coming in between us, and going to blows, nothing happened.

Still confident in your quarterback?
Definitely I'm confident in him. When he's back there and he gets the necessary time to do what he does back, to drop back and get the ball into his playmakers hands, that's when he's at his best. That's when we're at out best.

Still going to stand by him, like last year?
Oh yeah, I'm going to stand by him regardless. No matter what transpires or changes his thoughts about him, I'm still going to stand by him.

So there are no problems in Big D?
None at all. None whatsoever.

Look into the camera and say it.
None whatsoever. You can say what you want to say.

 

[tyke1doe]

What happened?
I think it came out with the reports -- Ed Werder accused me of saying [some things] with an anonymous player. There was a meeting held by Jason Garrett on Monday. He initiated -- he called me into the office before the team meeting. He understood that everyone was upset about the Pittsburgh loss and he just wanted me to vent to him about how we can get better as a team -- my input on anything that he may have a question about. It was an open honest conversation between the two of us. That's where it should have stayed, but obviously that didn't happen. There were reports that Roy, Patrick and myself went in there and kicked his door in and had this meeting. That's not what happened. The meeting was held on Monday. All of these reports from an anonymous player came out on Thursday. That's where I feel like I have been unfairly criticized. People won't let go of the past. When I say the past, I mean things that happened in San Francisco and Philly. I've tried to remove myself from those situations, and it seems like everytime something happens, I'm to blame. I'm the [fall guy] for everything. And with this situation, I can't take it because the accusation that Werder made, regardless of who told him, I didn't say those thigns.

You're saying that what he reported is completely false, never happened?
I never said none of those things. It was reported that I said Tony and Witten were drawing up plays and freezing me out. I didn't say any of that.

What was said with Jason Garrett?
We just addressed a disappointing loss and what we can do to move forward to get better as a team. We're in a playoff push and every game is critical. We want to be on the same page. When you look at the film, there were plays where I was open, Roy was open, Patrick was open and these are the thigns that need to be addressed amongst us as an offense. We have a lot of capable players.

Let's get back to Werder. Jason Garrett is your OC and you go to talk to him. If Ed Werder reported it, obviously someone said something to him that is inside the locker room. Why is your problem with Ed and not the person in the locker room?
Well, that wasn't the initial problem. The meeting wasn't the controversy. The controversy was about an anonymous player saying I said that Witten and Tony were drawing up plays.

And you don't believe someone said that about you?
I believe someone said it. But I didn't say it. So, why would someone jump to the conclusion that I said it and cause all this controversy throughout the course of the week? Again, if you look at situations in the past -- look at this incident for example. You have reporters in the locker room. All those guys are gonna ask people, "What happened?" Sure there may be some guys, if I was at fault, that will say that I'm at fault. So someone could confirm it.



Basically, in the end I think he was trying to say that if there was a problem, someone would come on record and say something happened. But it's all anonymous sources.

Thanks, theogt.

As hard as I've been on T.O. I will say that he has a point there. That "drawing plays up" sounds like it could have been someone's perspective on the issue. Without proof (and I don't know how you would get that other than anonymously), that could have been left out of the story. But that's one of those "tintillating" tidbits that makes a story that much more interesting. Hhhmm, T.O. thinks Jason and Witten are drawing up plays.

But the other stuff still applies. I doubt the meeting was as docile as T.O. makes it out to be, especially as demonstrative as he gets.

And what hurts him is that he has said these things in public, i.e., that he needs to get the ball more and that he can't catch balls if they're not thrown to him. Furthermore, T.O.'s image is that he is a very paranoid, insecure individual. And, yes, that goes back to his Philadelphia and San Francisco days.

Therefore, he's not given the benefit of the doubt. And if an anonymous player or two say, "T.O. is mad because he thinks Jason and Witten are making plays up" and you trust your source and consider T.O.'s reputation you probably conclude, "This sounds JUST like T.O." and you run the story.

Anyway, T.O. has had his say. I hope this dies down and hope the Cowboys use it to continue to play well to get to the playoffs and beyond.