rotoworld: All signs point to Owens leaving cowboys *Merge*

[ScipioCowboy]

We all know TO was the sole reason why we got our ***** handed to us 44-6 in a pivotal post November game that would have placed us squarely in said playoffs.

Oh wait...

I never said TO was the sole reason for anything. However, if my options are missing the playoffs with TO and missing the playoffs without TO, I'll select option two every time.

And it's not a matter of "hating" TO. It's an issue of logistics. TO is 35 with diminishing skills. The Cowboys have a bevy of young receivers who need to be assessed, and the best means of assessing them is giving them playing time.

 

[Bleu Star]

I never said TO was the sole reason for anything. However, if my options are missing the playoffs with TO and missing the playoffs without TO, I'll select option two every time.

 

[Rack]

Apparently it just sailed over your head. I guess you've never taken any philosophy courses.

Your philosophy is based on flawed logic.


Maybe you're the one that never took any philosophy courses.

 

[Route 66]

I did a rush job on the alteration but you get the idea.

Get it done Jerry.

http://img9.*************/img9/5849/terrellyk2.jpg

 

[5Countem5]

I never said TO was the sole reason for anything. However, if my options are missing the playoffs with TO and missing the playoffs without TO, I'll select option two every time.

And it's not a matter of "hating" TO. It's an issue of logistics. TO is 35 with diminishing skills. The Cowboys have a bevy of young receivers who need to be assessed, and the best means of assessing them is giving them playing time.

Their skills have been assessed and they can't carry TO's jock.

 

[Rack]

Their skills have been assessed and they can't carry TO's jock.

It's not all about the play on the field.


TO's presence in the lockerroom is a distraction. PERIOD.


Not saying he intentionally makes himself a distraction, but his presence there IS a distraction. The media blowing things out of proportion, making up stories, constantly questioning the players, etc... makes it a distraction.


He's 35, he obviously slowed down last year and he WILL continue to get worse. Better to move on w/o him then to hope he finds the fountain of youth.

 

[fanfromvirginia]

that is if we were to release him, trading works alittle different.

When you trade a player, his current contract remains in effect for the new team. They usually get reworked by the new team, sometimes before trade happens, but either case the new team assumes responsibility.

You're kidding, right?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

We all know TO was the sole reason why we got our ***** handed to us 44-6 in a pivotal post November game that would have placed us squarely in said playoffs.

Oh wait...

He may not be the sole reason but the team gave up. Now after two turnovers in the red zone taken back for TDs and an early score given it is very easy to get disheartened.

OTOH, one could very easily argue that that was exactly the time that the team needed to pull together. You saw Philly get dominated the first half the next week by the Cards on the road, a very similar circumstance, and they came out that second half and made a game out of it. We folded.

One could argue that TO going on national television and bashing the coach, complaining about the QB and Witten, and overall being aloof from his teammates contributed to an atmosphere where its hard to circle the wagons. Pulling together is a lot about trust and there wasn't a lot of that in the second half.

Do not get me wrong, I think TO pales in comparison to the obvious camps formed by the offense and the defense with the schism between Garrett and Phillips but then again TO did something to exacerbate that situation as well.

At the end of the day I see TO the boogeyman as an excuse. At the end of the day I see that we did not execute and we had key players out more than anything else. However to completely discount that TO did not contribute to that at all whatsoever is just asinine.

What you should really be arguing is they are making a mountain out of a molehill. Unfortunately, in this case perception is more important than reality. The thing is it has nothing to do with the perception of the fans but rather the perception in VR and no one here really knows what that is.

 

[5Countem5]

It's not all about the play on the field.


TO's presence in the lockerroom is a distraction. PERIOD.


Not saying he intentionally makes himself a distraction, but his presence there IS a distraction. The media blowing things out of proportion, making up stories, constantly questioning the players, etc... makes it a distraction.


He's 35, he obviously slowed down last year and he WILL continue to get worse. Better to move on w/o him then to hope he finds the fountain of youth.

The team is not distracted like posters here, I wonder why that is so hard to understand.

 

[DuaneThomas71]

Your philosophy is based on flawed logic.


Maybe you're the one that never took any philosophy courses.

How is it based on flawed logic?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The team is not distracted like posters here, I wonder why that is so hard to understand.

You don't know that. Quit acting like you know what the players think. That can go either way. OH and BTW Rack did play some college ball and a bit of pro. He has a better idea of what players think that you do.

 

[DuaneThomas71]

Your assumption is based upon limited variables. Perhaps some view Jerry Jones as THE problem but know that he isn't going anywhere. They may feel that parting ways with Owens (most high profile example of Jerry's decision making) but still going 9-7 is actually winning more because it would prove to Jerry that teams win, not players.

So in order to defend this rationale as consistent and logical, you have to completely alter the definition of winning.

Now the team ISN'T good enough to "win" on the field with Owens, but they can win in the game of "The Education of Jerry Jones?"

Somehow, I don't think that's what these people are talking about. Especially when they say "the team is good enough to win without him, we still have so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so." We had all of those guys + Terrell Owens last year and didn't win...and these same people insist that we CAN'T win with the current team WITH HIM.

But...we're good enough to win without him...so Terrell Owens must be THE reason we couldn't win with Current Team + Terrell Owens.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Those of you who recite this are apparently unaware of the fact that you're indirectly saying that Terrell Owens is single-handedly responsible for the team not winning.

The Cowboys aren't good enough to win WITH T.O. We found that out this year (supposedly), which is why you want him gone.

Yet when you claim this team can win WITHOUT HIM...what you are saying is that, if you remove T.O. from the equation, this is a team that can win.

With him, not good enough to win. Without him, good enough to win. Hence THE problem was--HIM.

You can't have it both ways.

Either Terrell Owens is THE reason the team wasn't winning...or he's merely part of it, but the Cowboys are NOT good enough to win without him. They can cut him and help themselves, but unless they make numerous other changes, they still aren't good enough, hence, in the end, the move will do them little good unless they make it in conjunction with other changes.

Is Tiki Barber a better RB than Brandon Jacobs?

 

[ScipioCowboy]

How is it based on flawed logic?

Because it's based on the erroneous supposition that those who believe "the team is good enough to win without TO" must also believe that "TO was the team's only problem last year."

The two beliefs aren't mutually inclusive, hence the terminal flaw in your logic.

 

[dadymat]

The team is not distracted like posters here, I wonder why that is so hard to understand.

because we have heard players say it out of their own mouths, and we have seen the obvious signs.....why is that so hard to understand...?
so pull your head out of the sand

 

[DuaneThomas71]

Is Tiki Barber a better RB than Brandon Jacobs?

He was more durable.

Do you honestly think the Giants had a better team because Tiki Barber was gone?

The Giants won more games because they made OTHER changes to better themselves. They would've been even better with Tiki in the mix.

Had the 2006 Giants just cut Tiki Barber and gone with the same team as the year before, they would not have been good enough if one presumes that the 2006 team was flat-out INCAPABLE OF WINNING with the current group of guys WITH Tiki.

 

[dadymat]

Is Tiki Barber a better RB than Brandon Jacobs?

and is Shockey a better TE than Boss?

 

[Rampage]

He was more durable.

Do you honestly think the Giants had a better team because Tiki Barber was gone?

The Giants won more games because they made OTHER changes to better themselves. They would've been even better with Tiki in the mix.

Had the 2006 Giants just cut Tiki Barber and gone with the same team as the year before, they would not have been good enough if one presumes that the 2006 team was flat-out INCAPABLE OF WINNING with the current group of guys WITH Tiki.

you don't think it helped that he was gone? does anybody else think this guy is Jordan?

 

[dadymat]

He was more durable.

Do you honestly think the Giants had a better team because Tiki Barber was gone?

The Giants won more games because they made OTHER changes to better themselves. They would've been even better with Tiki in the mix.

Had the 2006 Giants just cut Tiki Barber and gone with the same team as the year before, they would not have been good enough if one presumes that the 2006 team was flat-out INCAPABLE OF WINNING with the current group of guys WITH Tiki.

that and Shockey being gone produced a TEAM atmosphere...and let the rest of the team know that no ones job is safe

 

[dadymat]

you don't think it helped that he was gone? does anybody else think this guy is Jordan?

:shush: