Sources: Dallas may release Owens (ESPN) *Merge*

[Vintage]

Romo really isn't that young.

He's going to be approx 29.5 years old when next season starts up.

Not that we aren't married to him for the foreseeable future.... but....



Although, I am sure he is young in comparison to some here.

 

[khiladi]

Nope. Got the point fully. I simply do not regard the comments made by both Owens and Romo equally as you do. One set of comments is being relayed by the established franchise quarterback, who will not leaving regardless of potential coaching changes. The other set of coments are being made by a wide receiver who may or may not play out the extension of his contract. One could place the damning quote comments side-by-side in a graphic. I may even do that later on today. Both are not going to carry the same weight even if both comments were word-for-word duplications. The NFL doesn't work like that.

Your comments make no sense.. In fact, your latest comments are just ******** and actually proof against you. The fact is Tony Romo, even according to your graphic, never called out TO. He has always defended him, over and over again. But he has called out Garrett specifically, saying his schemes don't put people in a position to make plays. So Tony Romo is agreeing with the guy you claim is not relevant, TO, against Garrett... So why hasn't Romo called out TO, the guy whom you claim has no rela value in the Dallas organization, and spoken against the 'coach' Garrett, whom he allegedly has to play with?

 

[superpunk]

Romo really isn't that young.

He's going to be approx 29.5 years old when next season starts up.

Not that we aren't married to him for the foreseeable future.... but....



Although, I am sure he is young in comparison to some here.

I don't think you know the first thing about math.

 

[DallasEast]

Romo really isn't that young.

He's going to be approx 29.5 years old when next season starts up.

Not that we aren't married to him for the foreseeable future.... but....



Although, I am sure he is young in comparison to some here.

True, true.

Stop pointing that out!

 

[Vintage]

I don't think you know the first thing about math.

http://www.nfl.com/players/tonyromo/profile?id=ROM787981

Romo is listed as 28 years old. Turns 29 in April.

20 April (or whatever) to May 20 (or whatever) = 1 month
Rest of May - same point in June = 2nd month
Rest of June - same point in July = 3rd month
Rest of July - same point in Aug. = 4th month.
Rest of Aug - same point in Sept = 5th month.

Not quite half (6 months).

Which is why I said approx.



edit: imho, you should stop usurping my authoritaaaaaaaaaaaah

 

[Vintage]

True, true.

Stop pointing that out!

I hear old people like to call it "experience."

So you've got that going for you.

 

[DallasEast]

Your comments make no sense.. In fact, your latest comments are just ******** and actually proof against you. The fact is Tony Romo, even according to your graphic, never called out TO. He has always defended him, over and over again. But he has called out Garrett specifically, saying his schemes don't put people in a position to make plays. So Tony Romo is agreeing with the guy you claim is not relevant, TO, against Garrett... So why hasn't Romo called out TO, the guy whom you claim has no rela value in the Dallas organization, and spoken against the 'coach' Garrett, whom he allegedly has to play with?

I sincerely doubt that Romo will EVER call out Owens. It's seemingly not in his nature. And while Jerry Jones is paying Owens, it would be neither prudent nor smart for him to do so.

However, the franchise quarterback has publicly questioned the offensive coordinator's gameday schemes. In my opinion, he should have never done so publicly since any kind of public criticism can be twisted by the media, no matter how factual or false the claims may be.

Yet, that leads up back to WHO made the claims: Tony Romo and Terrell Owens.

What I'm about to say will be hard for some with strong opinions about Romo and/or Owens to accept.

Unless Romo states something derogratory in the public forum about Jason Garrett, his comments will not gain a lot of notoriety (sp?) with the media. They will not "push the issue". Why? Simple. He's not newsworthy enough.

Okay. Okay. Let's settle down. It's unfair. It's a crying shame. Everyone wants to shout, "BSPN sucks!!!"

I hope that everyone's got that out of their system, but it ain't gonna change what's happening in the real world of professional football one bit. Nothing. Nada. Zlitch.

Brace thyselves.

Owens will never receive the same treatment.

:scream:

Yeah. I know. "Shocking".

Perhaps if a skilled position player who doesn't have the same baggage as Terrell Owens were to make the same comments, the media would treat him differently; but we're not talking about someone else.

We're talking about Owens.

That's life and you, I or anyone else is going to change what will always happen in these types of scenarios simply because of what "we do not like", no matter how loud one may scream otherwise.

Romo will receive more latitude than Owens. It's a fact.

 

[Arch Stanton]

:laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1:

This part amuses me the most; the self-righteousness of fans of a team with a history of criminal players out the wazzu.

Classy players such as Michael Irvin, Alvin Harper, Nate Newton, Erik Williams, Leon Lett, Charles Haley...and the list goes on.

And you might check the jersey sale numbers, because Owens is in the NFL's top 10. So somebody's buying them, genius.

Interesting comment right there. Almost as if it were the comment of a fan from another team.

 

[tyke1doe]

:laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1:

This part amuses me the most; the self-righteousness of fans of a team with a history of criminal players out the wazzu.

Classy players such as Michael Irvin, Alvin Harper, Nate Newton, Erik Williams, Leon Lett, Charles Haley...and the list goes on.

First, you're making an assumption that all Cowboys fans agreed with the actions of Irvin, Harper (what did he do?), Newton, etc. And from what I remember, Irvin was suspended, Newton served jail time for his crime after he left the Cowboys, Williams' career was cut short because of his recklessness, Lett was suspended and Haley, well, we learned about his problems after he left too. In short, all of those Cowboys were punished for their deeds, which were legal in nature.

Second, you can tell the maturity/sophistication of a person based on his/her ability to make sweeping black-and-white statements as if life has no nuisances or his/her propensity to focus on other bad behavior to justify lesser bad behavior. To the first point, all situations which may seem the same aren't alike. Homicide is different than manslaughter and killing in self-defense, even though all three involve taking the life of an individual. Stealing because you are envious of someone else's possessions is not the same as stealing because you need food to feed your children, even though both are thefts.
To the second point, if worse behavior isn't a part of the discussion why bring it into discussion to detract from the issue at hand?

Which gets me to JordanTaber's comparison.

No one is arguing T.O. is a criminal. I don't know why people keep raising that as a point of comparison. It's not a comparison. T.O. is not a criminal.

But if isn't just about criminal activity, otherwise we would never be able to raise objection to someone's behavior. If that were the case, our response would be, "Well, he is a rude, mean SOB who disrespects his coworkers and boss, but at least he's not a criminal."

We expect people to not only not be criminals but to be decent human beings capable of living in community with others and respecting authority.

That is why people are upset with T.O., not because he's a criminal but because he whether intentionally or unintentionally criticizes his teammates and coaches all under the guise of "keeping it real." And because he just can't keep his mouth shut and runs to the camera every chance he gets, and because this behavior has been repeated at other stops in his career, he gets hammered when he does it again and causes turmoil - whether real or perceived - on teams he plays for.

Whether he stays or goes is out of my hands. I'm not going to get upset if he stays, but if he leaves, I'm not going to shed one tear.

 

[TheDude]

While this is a good reply. The fact is that half of this team's "classy stars" promoted in the quote couldn't work beside 99% of us in the workplace.

BUt its ok because they dont "speak" against the team. Alot of people have a very subjective moralistic view on behaviour.

Many would likely rather have your daughter date or marry TO but have Irvin as a football idol.

Very strange

 

[tyke1doe]

While this is a good reply. The fact is that half of this team's "classy stars" promoted in the quote couldn't work beside 99% of us in the workplace.

BUt its ok because they dont "speak" against the team. Alot of people have a very subjective moralistic view on behaviour.

Many would likely rather have your daughter date or marry TO but have Irvin as a football idol.

Very strange

Again, you presume too much.

First, if they couldn't work beside us, it's because they did something illegally. That situation takes care of itself.

Second, the issue isn't subjective morally but subjective penalty. Even the Bible suggests different punishments for different offenses. Don't confuse the two. Just because a person may be against the death penalty and for life in prison doesn't mean a person agrees with murder. Just because a person may not have said anything about Irvin and allowed the court system to render its verdict, doesn't mean one approves of what Irvin did.

And the daughter dating analogy is a strange one. I wouldn't want my daughter (if I had one) to marry Irvin or T.O. What does that have to do with anything?

Don't construct a straw man to support your argument.

 

[TheDude]

Well, that was an idiotic reply. Irvin was convicted of Drug felony, so was Newton, Holmes, Lett. Williams DUI, etc, ad nauseum. nad in football, the "situation" doesn't play out like in a company. Get busted for coke or some other felony and see if you get a 4 game suspension

TO has done nothing but speak. While I agree it is better to shut up if you don't have anything positive to say, it is hardly a "biblical sin" such as adultery. I don't even think you want to go down "biblical" roads.

My "daughter" poiunt is that I would have much less a problem with her judgement if she brought TO home than Irvin. However, 99% of Cowboy fans idolize Irvin because he won 3 SBs.

I cant figure out if any TO bashers actually work. If so, you are going to run in to MANY people you don't like working with, but you do anyway and if you let that affect your job, then you are the one that is fragile.

 

[TheDude]

My exec here is a huge egomaniac, but is the smartest men I have been around. I don't spend my day trying to run and create stories about him or gossip info about him to HR or Mktg.

And the "legal" system is 90% based on economic power. Do you think Irvin or Ray Lewis get off if they are Mienke Muffler mechanics? Hell no. But legal system tooks its course, they won so they deserve idoltry. Myopic

 

[gmb85]

Has TO left or is this all hogwash?

 

[tomson75]

Has TO left or is this all hogwash?

It's speculation.

 

[JordanTaber]

First, you're making an assumption that all Cowboys fans agreed with the actions of Irvin, Harper (what did he do?), Newton, etc. And from what I remember, Irvin was suspended, Newton served jail time for his crime after he left the Cowboys, Williams' career was cut short because of his recklessness, Lett was suspended and Haley, well, we learned about his problems after he left too. In short, all of those Cowboys were punished for their deeds, which were legal in nature.

Second, you can tell the maturity/sophistication of a person based on his/her ability to make sweeping black-and-white statements as if life has no nuisances or his/her propensity to focus on other bad behavior to justify lesser bad behavior. To the first point, all situations which may seem the same aren't alike. Homicide is different than manslaughter and killing in self-defense, even though all three involve taking the life of an individual. Stealing because you are envious of someone else's possessions is not the same as stealing because you need food to feed your children, even though both are thefts.
To the second point, if worse behavior isn't a part of the discussion why bring it into discussion to detract from the issue at hand?

Which gets me to JordanTaber's comparison.

No one is arguing T.O. is a criminal. I don't know why people keep raising that as a point of comparison. It's not a comparison. T.O. is not a criminal.

But if isn't just about criminal activity, otherwise we would never be able to raise objection to someone's behavior. If that were the case, our response would be, "Well, he is a rude, mean SOB who disrespects his coworkers and boss, but at least he's not a criminal."

We expect people to not only not be criminals but to be decent human beings capable of living in community with others and respecting authority.

That is why people are upset with T.O., not because he's a criminal but because he whether intentionally or unintentionally criticizes his teammates and coaches all under the guise of "keeping it real." And because he just can't keep his mouth shut and runs to the camera every chance he gets, and because this behavior has been repeated at other stops in his career, he gets hammered when he does it again and causes turmoil - whether real or perceived - on teams he plays for.

Whether he stays or goes is out of my hands. I'm not going to get upset if he stays, but if he leaves, I'm not going to shed one tear.

I'm not assuming anything of the sort: I'm just saying the self-righteousness of people who essentially ignored/downplayed (not "agreed with") the actions of all of those players is ridiculous.

The statement that the Cowboys have a "history of classy players" is naive and absurd.

For some reason, I doubt the vast majority of the T.O. Police would have been lambasting Irvin and co. back in the 90's.

Why? Well, because the modern media decides that those things, while newsworthy, are just not nearly as big a deal as saying something to the press.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

My anonymous sources will expose your antics/Go ahead cancer, explode your tantrums/Truthful reporting? This ain't no battle of semantics/I'll take my chances with what I suspect is happenin'/Behind the scenes, you won't believe/The drama is hotter than Jessica Alba's tight jeans

Where is this from?

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Check out Werder's Wikipedia page :laugh2:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Werder

Ali had his Cosell.... TO has his Werder........

 

[tyke1doe]

Well, that was an idiotic reply. Irvin was convicted of Drug felony, so was Newton, Holmes, Lett. Williams DUI, etc, ad nauseum. nad in football, the "situation" doesn't play out like in a company. Get busted for coke or some other felony and see if you get a 4 game suspension

Wow. Linear logic is hard to come by. Sigh.

Sometimes, it's hard to follow you guys. You jump all over the place.

Let me see if I can bring some clarity.

First, criminal charges have criminal consequences. What does that have to do with the team? What does that have to do with the punishment a team may give to a disruptive player in the locker room?

Second, you're comparing the league of the 90s with the league of today. And if you get busted for cocaine, that's a criminal issue. The league is going to be a bit more weary of handing out a punishment when it's a legal situation where the player is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Don't you guys understand the difference between legal and non-legal matters?

TO has done nothing but speak. While I agree it is better to shut up if you don't have anything positive to say, it is hardly a "biblical sin" such as adultery. I don't even think you want to go down "biblical" roads.

Huh?

My only example using the Bible is that wrong doesn't always involve the same punishment. Please keep on track with the conversation. It seem as if you got sidetracked simply because I gave an example.

My "daughter" poiunt is that I would have much less a problem with her judgement if she brought TO home than Irvin. However, 99% of Cowboy fans idolize Irvin because he won 3 SBs.

What does idolizing Irvin have to do with wanting your daughter to date Irvin?

Wow. You're confused. You're mixing concepts and principles. You probably need to step back an assess what we're actually arguing here.

I cant figure out if any TO bashers actually work. If so, you are going to run in to MANY people you don't like working with, but you do anyway and if you let that affect your job, then you are the one that is fragile.

Yes we do work. And I can almost guarantee you, if you criticize your boss publicly, even much more on television, you aint gonna be working at that place for long.

Tell me some place that allows you to do that other than the Dallas Cowboys. I'm all ears?

 

[tyke1doe]

I'm not assuming anything of the sort: I'm just saying the self-righteousness of people who essentially ignored/downplayed (not "agreed with") the actions of all of those players is ridiculous.

Who did that?

Second, you referenced players in the past. We are here at this moment in time. Why are you arguing 90s to prove a contemporary point? It doesn't make sense.

The statement that the Cowboys have a "history of classy players" is naive and absurd.

Who said that. I surely didn't. But that doesn't mean the Cowboys have never had classy players on their team.

For some reason, I doubt the vast majority of the T.O. Police would have been lambasting Irvin and co. back in the 90's.

Actually, some were. But that situation was taken care of, legally.

Why? Well, because the modern media decides that those things, while newsworthy, are just not nearly as big a deal as saying something to the press.

Huh?