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

[DuaneThomas71]

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.

You're not understanding what I'm saying AT ALL.

You are indirectly mandating that he WAS the team's only (as far as importance to "winning" is concerned) problem last year if you insist that the team MINUS Owens IS good enough to win, but the team WITH Owens is NOT good enough to win.

The difference between the two scenarios is Terrell Owens. That's it. The team as is vs. the team as is MINUS Owens. If the team as is minus Owens is good enough to win, but the team with him isn't (which is the reason so many people are freaking out--because they THINK the current team isn't good enough to win...which I completely disagree with, but that's beside the point), then Owens must be the make-or-break component.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

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

There's no doubt. (But I guess that's cool as long as the mods don't mind.)

And he seems to think that this really is Madden, where size and speed numbers are all that matter.

Even Archie Manning as much as said that it helped when Tiki was gone.

 

[Rampage]

:shush:

I knew it. nobody is as crazy over 81 as jordan or as he likes to be called duanethomas71 now.

 

[DuaneThomas71]

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

Yeah, that's why. It wasn't the emergence of Justin Tuck, the draft selection of Aaron Ross, and CERTAINLY it had nothing to do with the hiring of Steve Spagnuolo as defensive coordinator or anything!

Nope...Spags had nothing to do with their vast defensive improvement, which carried them to the Super Bowl title. It was because Tiki wasn't there that the defense started playing as a TEAM!

 

[Rampage]

There's no doubt. (But I guess that's cool as long as the mods don't mind.)

And he seems to think that this really is Madden, where size and speed numbers are all that matter.

Even Archie Manning as much as said that it helped when Tiki was gone.

what does Archie Manning know? he's only played in the NFL and has 2 Superbowl winning qbs that happen to be his sons. Archie who? it's all about T.O! right jordan or duane whatever you go by these days.

 

[dadymat]

Yeah, that's why. It wasn't the emergence of Justin Tuck, the draft selection of Aaron Ross, and CERTAINLY it had nothing to do with the hiring of Steve Spagnuolo as defensive coordinator or anything!

Nope...Spags had nothing to do with their vast defensive improvement, which carried them to the Super Bowl title. It was because Tiki wasn't there that the defense started playing as a TEAM!

look man, anybody with half a brain knows that Tiki and Shockey were in Eli's head challenging his leadership and when they were gone he became more relaxed and was able to focus on playing football instead of tip toeing around his own sideline.....which in part led to him becoming better leader.....because you cant lead those who wont follow....the Giants learned that and the Cowboys are learning that now......maybe someday you will too...

 

[DuaneThomas71]

Well if Archie Manning said it, then it must be so. After all, there couldn't be any animosity at work there after Tiki bashed his son in the press repeatedly.

This is all beside the point. Let's refocus here.

If we are to presume that the 2006 Giants WITH Tiki just flat-out weren't good enough to win, but that same exact team MINUS Tiki "was good enough to win without him," then Tiki would be THE reason the team wasn't good enough to win. The reason. Because he would be the only difference in those two scenarios.

Having said this, you could not then be logically consistent and insist "But Tiki isn't the only reason this team isn't winning." If the team is good enough to win without him, but can't possibly win with him as is, then he IS THE_Reason.

 

[Shake_Tiller]

Well if Archie Manning said it, then it must be so. After all, there couldn't be any animosity at work there after Tiki bashed his son in the press repeatedly.

This is all beside the point. Let's refocus here.

If we are to presume that the 2006 Giants WITH Tiki just flat-out weren't good enough to win, but that same exact team MINUS Tiki "was good enough to win without him," then Tiki would be THE reason the team wasn't good enough to win. The reason. Because he would be the only difference in those two scenarios.

Having said this, you could not then be logically consistent and insist "But Tiki isn't the only reason this team isn't winning." If the team is good enough to win without him, but can't possibly win with him as is, then he IS THE_Reason.

This is intriguing. I honestly don't know where you're going with this, Sybil Frisco. I thought I was pretty good with the language.

 

[DuaneThomas71]

look man, anybody with half a brain knows that Tiki and Shockey were in Eli's head challenging his leadership and when they were gone he became more relaxed and was able to focus on playing football instead of tip toeing around his own sideline.....which in part led to him becoming better leader.....because you cant lead those who wont follow....the Giants learned that and the Cowboys are learning that now......maybe someday you will too...

Tony Romo says you're wrong. Tony Romo says "leadership" as you think of it is a complete farce. Take it up with him...but he's far more knowledgeable than you on the subject.

And by chance did this less tip-toeing really make Manning any better? He threw for a whopping 92 more yards while having a worse TD/INT ratio (in 2007 it was 23/20, whereas in 2006 with Shockey and Tiki making him tip-toe, supposedly, it was 24/18).

 

[Rampage]

Well if Archie Manning said it, then it must be so. After all, there couldn't be any animosity at work there after Tiki bashed his son in the press repeatedly.

This is all beside the point. Let's refocus here.

If we are to presume that the 2006 Giants WITH Tiki just flat-out weren't good enough to win, but that same exact team MINUS Tiki "was good enough to win without him," then Tiki would be THE reason the team wasn't good enough to win. The reason. Because he would be the only difference in those two scenarios.

Having said this, you could not then be logically consistent and insist "But Tiki isn't the only reason this team isn't winning." If the team is good enough to win without him, but can't possibly win with him as is, then he IS THE_Reason.

yes cause of what he causes just like your hero who has never and will never win a championship.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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.

Thats your presumption based on nothing than an assertion. If you want to talk about logic causality or anything else which you claim to know, then you should realize thats just not good enough.

Your entire premise is that taking a players production off the field is paramount. YOu completely discount the distraction angle.

You wnat to talk logic then think about how your logic applies to different situations. I can talk about Hume, the empiricists, how Lockes state of nature goes against pretty much every scrap of emperical evidence, the glaring unfounded assumptions of Kant, etc.

Tiki Barber was a perrenial All Pro. He was clearly a better back than his replacement. You can talk about what they were capable all day long and it is absolutely meaningless. What you think they are capable with him is meaningless as it is just something in your or someone elses imagination. Thats not logic. Thats bullcrap that goes as follows.

1) I think that the Giants could have done better than they did in 2006
2) The Giants won it all in 2007.
3) The Giants did nothing they could not have done in 2006 anyway.

You claim to know logic well Aristotle would laugh his *** off with a train of 'logic' like that.

All we know is what they did with him and what they did without him. There is a correlation of removing a player considered a distraction and replacing with an inferior producer and improved performance.

Does it show causation? Of course it does not but at least it provides emerical evidence which is a fr cry better than your attempt to follow a train of logic based on unfounded assumptions.

 

[Rampage]

Tony Romo says you're wrong. Tony Romo says "leadership" as you think of it is a complete farce. Take it up with him...but he's far more knowledgeable than you on the subject.

And by chance did this less tip-toeing really make Manning any better? He threw for a whopping 92 more yards while having a worse TD/INT ratio (in 2007 it was 23/20, whereas in 2006 with Shockey and Tiki making him tip-toe, supposedly, it was 24/18).

this isn't baseball. their's more to this game than stats jordan.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

You're not understanding what I'm saying AT ALL.

You are indirectly mandating that he WAS the team's only (as far as importance to "winning" is concerned) problem last year if you insist that the team MINUS Owens IS good enough to win, but the team WITH Owens is NOT good enough to win.

The difference between the two scenarios is Terrell Owens. That's it. The team as is vs. the team as is MINUS Owens. If the team as is minus Owens is good enough to win, but the team with him isn't (which is the reason so many people are freaking out--because they THINK the current team isn't good enough to win...which I completely disagree with, but that's beside the point), then Owens must be the make-or-break component.

"The Cowboys are good enough to win without T.O."

You're addressing the above statement and only the above statement, correct?

If so, you're fallaciously implicating a meaning that the statement, taken of itself, does not possess.

Consider the following question:

Are the following statements contradictory?

1) The team can win without Owens.

2) Owens was not the team's only problem last season.

The answer, of course, is no. It is possible for a person to express both statements without contradicting himself or herself. He or she may simply believe that Owens was a problem, not the only problem. Therefore, your argument is flawed.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

this isn't baseball. their's more to this game than stats jordan.

Bill James who is the premiere statistician in baseball admits that there is more than stats to analyzing baseball. For example defense is typically underestimated in importance and no statistical model comes close to approximating it.

Stats are an excellent tool for predicting future performance but they are far from complete. Also James would look at Owens declining YPA and age and predict that trend to continue.

 

[Yoshimitsu]

I am hoping this happens.

3rd round DP for T.O.

hell yes.

Get his *** out of Dallas.

 

[Shake_Tiller]

This is getting beyond the bounds of my intellect, guys. And on top of that, I'm dealing here with Sybil Frisco, poster of multiple identities, all of them red and gold, tattooed 81. I'm battling to rid my head of this picture of Jack Nicholson, his hair standing on end, typing "All work and no play..." over and over again, under the name DuaneThomas71, and I'm having trouble, in my town, finding a really good cheeseburger.

 

[DuaneThomas71]

Thats your presumption based on nothing than an assertion. If you want to talk about logic causality or anything else which you claim to know, then you should realize thats just not good enough.

Your entire premise is that taking a players production off the field is paramount. YOu completely discount the distraction angle.

You wnat to talk logic then think about how your logic applies to different situations. I can talk about Hume, the empiricists, how Lockes state of nature goes against pretty much every scrap of emperical evidence, the glaring unfounded assumptions of Kant, etc.

Tiki Barber was a perrenial All Pro. He was clearly a better back than his replacement. You can talk about what they were capable all day long and it is absolutely meaningless. What you think they are capable with him is meaningless as it is just something in your or someone elses imagination. Thats not logic. Thats bullcrap that goes as follows.

1) I think that the Giants could have done better than they did in 2006
2) The Giants won it all in 2007.
3) The Giants did nothing they could not have done in 2006 anyway.

You claim to know logic well Aristotle would laugh his *** off with a train of 'logic' like that.

All we know is what they did with him and what they did without him. There is a correlation of removing a player considered a distraction and replacing with an inferior producer and improved performance.

Does it show causation? Of course it does not but at least it provides emerical evidence which is a fr cry better than your attempt to follow a train of logic based on unfounded assumptions.

What part of "THEIR arguments aren't consistent or logical" do you not follow?

Let me put it in a different format. The following doesn't work:

Premise 1: The team as is, team + Terrell Owens, is incapable of "winning" (this is obviously referring to winning in a general sense...nobody ever specifies exactly what they mean, but obviously, when they say this, 9-7 and missing the playoffs last year doesn't qualify)

Premise 2: The team as is WITHOUT Terrell Owens, team - Terrell Owens, IS capable of winning.

Conclusion: Terrell Owens isn't the only thing that's keeping this team from winning. There are other things as well. He's just part of it.



If you're going to say that there is no way the current team can win next year...and then in the next breath say that the current team is good enough to win WITHOUT Terrell Owens...then Terrell Owens IS the difference between winning and not winning.

 

[Shake_Tiller]

Bill James who is the premiere statistician in baseball admits that there is more than stats to analyzing baseball. For example defense is typically underestimated in importance and no statistical model comes close to approximating it.

Stats are an excellent tool for predicting future performance but they are far from complete. Also James would look at Owens declining YPA and age and predict that trend to continue.

I am not a huge baseball fan anymore, though I played the game in college, but Bill James' Historical Baseball Abstract was one of the most interesting books I've ever read. It was absolutely fascinating.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

This is getting beyond the bounds of my intellect, guys. And on top of that, I'm dealing here with Sybil Frisco, poster of multiple identities, all of them red and gold, tattooed 81. I'm battling to rid my head of this picture of Jack Nicholson, his hair standing on end, typing "All work and no play..." over and over again, under the name DuaneThomas71, and I'm having trouble, in my town, finding a really good cheeseburger.

 

[Rampage]

Bill James who is the premiere statistician in baseball admits that there is more than stats to analyzing baseball. For example defense is typically underestimated in importance and no statistical model comes close to approximating it.

Stats are an excellent tool for predicting future performance but they are far from complete. Also James would look at Owens declining YPA and age and predict that trend to continue.

out of the 4 major sports Baseball is the most commoningly used when it comes to stats cause they got one for everything. that's why I used it as an example. but to my point like you said a lot of stuff doesn't show up on the stat sheet.