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

[DuaneThomas71]

"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.

It is, but few are doing that.

The vast majority of the people who want Owens gone insist that there is no way the current team can win if Owens is here. Then they go on to say that the team is good enough to win without Owens. Then when someone calls them on it (so you're saying Terrell Owens is the reason the team can't win?), they respond with "I never said Terrell Owens is the only reason."

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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.

Oh I follow it. My point is your arguments are garbage. ITs called how can you possibly talk about someone elses 'logic' when yours is so bad. Its called look to yourself and your own logic.

Absolutes are nice and all but really given advances in quantum mechanics you should realize they have little basis in reality.

The argument SHOULD be does the team have a better probability of winning with TO or without TO.

If your entire point is about absolutes your really wasting all of our time. It does absolutely nothing to get to the heart of the matter.

 

[Real1st]

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.

Your right.

We can trade or cut T.O. and make changes that better this team.

 

[DuaneThomas71]

Your right.

We can trade or cut T.O. and make changes that better this team.

But that would mean that the team AS IS is certainly NOT good enough to win without him. If he's not the only reason the team can't win, then getting rid of him won't allow them to win.

 

[Real1st]

It is, but few are doing that.

The vast majority of the people who want Owens gone insist that there is no way the current team can win if Owens is here. Then they go on to say that the team is good enough to win without Owens. Then when someone calls them on it (so you're saying Terrell Owens is the reason the team can't win?), they respond with "I never said Terrell Owens is the only reason."

T.O. is not all at blame here. But damn the guy causes problems. If he would shut up and play and not have these media problems week in and week out nobody would give him any flak. We need a new culture here in the locker room and parting ways with T.O. is a great start.

 

[Real1st]

But that would mean that the team AS IS is certainly NOT good enough to win without him. If he's not the only reason the team can't win, then getting rid of him won't allow them to win.

Were good enough to win without him.

Your problem is you overrate T.O. and underrate this team.

We can become a running and good defensive team next year.

I like that formula.

 

[DuaneThomas71]

Oh I follow it. My point is your arguments are garbage. ITs called how can you possibly talk about someone elses 'logic' when yours is so bad. Its called look to yourself and your own logic.

Absolutes are nice and all but really given advances in quantum mechanics you should realize they have little basis in reality.

The argument SHOULD be does the team have a better probability of winning with TO or without TO.

If your entire point is about absolutes your really wasting all of our time. It does absolutely nothing to get to the heart of the matter.

So then is Terrell Owens THE reason the team has a low probability of winning, as opposed to a high one if he were to be released?

 

[Rampage]

T.O. is not all at blame here. But damn the guy causes problems. If he would shut up and play and not have these media problems week in and week out nobody would give him any flak. We need a new culture here in the locker room and parting ways with T.O. is a great start.

oh this should be good. Duane is gonna respond to this saying how it's all the media's fault and they blow everything out of perportion.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

It is, but few are doing that.

The vast majority of the people who want Owens gone insist that there is no way the current team can win if Owens is here. Then they go on to say that the team is good enough to win without Owens. Then when someone calls them on it (so you're saying Terrell Owens is the reason the team can't win?), they respond with "I never said Terrell Owens is the only reason."

It seems that your argument is rooted in a set of assumptions about the motivations of certain people. These assumptions are of questionable veracity, but you're treating them as if they are true.

 

[EPL0c0]

Maybe JJ can talk Al into giving him Johnnie Lee Higgins also!!

I like where your mind is!

Say it with me; IF Terrell Owens is traded to Oakland instead of a 3rd round pick, how about we get....Four Words: Johnnie Lee Higgins Jr!

PLUS, Dallas will be playing Oakland...@DALLAS next year.

 

[DuaneThomas71]

AND, Fuzzy:

Isn't the word "is" an "absolute?"

If someone says "this team IS good enough to win without him," that could mean there's a 1% chance...or a 99% chance. The statement would be true either way because there is a scenario in which they could win, hence they'd be good enough in that scenario.

When these same people say that the team IS not good enough to win, or CAN NOT win with him, or WILL NOT win with him, then they are saying there is a 0% chance.

Nobody merely says "the team has a better chance of winning without him than with him."

 

[Chocolate Lab]

I like where your mind is!

Say it with me; IF Terrell Owens is traded to Oakland instead of a 3rd round pick, how about we get....Four Words: Johnnie Lee Higgins Jr!

You're not going to get them to throw in Thomas Howard?

 

[dadymat]

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).

wow ...i missed that when did he say that....? or are you interpreting something else he said into something that fits your cause?

 

[Bleu Star]

The mods should thank TO for keeping their message board so vibrant and brisk during the offseason.

 

[Shake_Tiller]

The mods should thank TO for keeping their message board so vibrant and brisk during the offseason.

And it has a lustrous shine, you must admit!

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So then is Terrell Owens THE reason the team has a low probability of winning, as opposed to a high one if he were to be released?

HEre you go with absolutes again. As Scipio pointed out the argument is 'is he A reason.'

If he is then the prudent move would be to cut him. You can argue that point and come to a conclusion.

Fine he is not the only reason. Bravo you have won a meaningless point.

 

[dadymat]

And it has a lustrous shine, you must admit!

getting more polished as we speak.....

 

[Shake_Tiller]

I really don't think I'm gonna be able to sleep not knowing whether one of these cats is gonna reach for Descartes.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

AND, Fuzzy:

Isn't the word "is" an "absolute?"

If someone says "this team IS good enough to win without him," that could mean there's a 1% chance...or a 99% chance. The statement would be true either way because there is a scenario in which they could win, hence they'd be good enough in that scenario.

When these same people say that the team IS not good enough to win, or CAN NOT win with him, or WILL NOT win with him, then they are saying there is a 0% chance.

Nobody merely says "the team has a better chance of winning without him than with him."

You are making statements that are impossible to prove. 'good enough' is about impossible to quantify and doing it for past events is an exercise in futility. If you were to say you think that the 2006 Giants were good enough to win it all then all you would show is that you are wrong.

We are talking about future predictions.

 

[DuaneThomas71]

HEre you go with absolutes again. As Scipio pointed out the argument is 'is he A reason.'

If he is then the prudent move would be to cut him. You can argue that point and come to a conclusion.

Fine he is not the only reason. Bravo you have won a meaningless point.

If so, it would be a prudent move to cut him, sure.

But the team still wouldn't be "good enough to win without him" if he wasn't the only thing preventing the team from winning. You'd have to address those things, too. Thus, the team, as is, can not be said to be "good enough to win without him." They would only be good enough to win without him if they cut him AND made moves to eliminate whatever else was preventing them from winning.