T.O. says Jerry 'blindsided' him - 3/28/09

[DallasEast]

I'm sure they do. That still doesn't give the media the right to substantiate things with "anonymous" sources and demonize a man as a team wrecker. There is simply no way a single individual can polarize a team.

Really, what is so wrong with what TO said? Is it because of what he said, or is it because of who said it that makes it so wrong? If what he says is true, that Jerry told him he was safe, and then he was cut all of a sudden out of the blue which he and many in the organization among the players say he was, is that not the definition of being "blind sided"?

No. Of course not. What happened to him was not anticipated by him. He fully understands that, but he is instead taking the typical verbal stance of being "blindsided"--as if he was oblivious to all probabilities concerning his possible release. Heck, he himself admits to speaking with Jerry Jones because of said subject.

How can he be taken completely unawares (e.g. blindsided) if he had personally contemplated that the possibility existed? Did his conversation with Jerry Jones induce some form of self-amnesia and thus caused him to be totally surprised by the news of his release? Utter rubbish and that's essentially Terrell Owens in a nutshell.

 

[SultanOfSix]

It's utterly amazing.

You. Just. Don't. Get. It.

The media is what it is. And really that comes down to opinion.

The FACT of the matter is, this is a guy, who was an immensely talented player that got released from three - not one, but three - different teams while he could still play.

Talk conspiracy all you want. But even the dumbest owners of all time will not release a very very good player WITH NOTHING IN RETURN based on media opinion. Unless of course, the guy was criminally charged or something outlandish.

You speak of defending someone you like -- as another poster said, it's simply about truth. Defend all you want, but to not acknowledge the fact that this guy was cut for non-performance, non-criminal issues and to chalk it up to the media is complete and utter fantasy, not truth.

Yeah, billionaire Jerry Jones is going to release a talented player based on "anonymous sources" in the media. Not a chance. This is the guy who signed Pacman for crying out loud after every credible and verifiable news source said he was nuts to do so. Man, he really bows down to media pressure.

Inherent injustice? Can any TO supporter just once admit the guy played a role in what happens to him? Just a little bit? Because the way I read it here, he is the most victimized, mischaracterized, person ever to wear an NFL uniform.

I get it quite well. More than you ever will. Weren't you done talking about TO, or are you a liar?

Does it hurt that I called you a liar? How about if I persistently call you on it every time you post?

Whether he's who the media says he is or not isn't as important to me as what is they write about, what is their evidence for it, and how they defend it. Every individual is responsible for their own behavior.

The fact is, according to JJ himself, TO wasn't released because of his behavior. So, why is the anti-TO crowd persistent in saying that he was?

All of the three situations where he was released (actually it was just two) were different. His motives were completely different in each one. Anyone with a brain can see this. But, it's so easy to label him and be done with it.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Let's please not be so simplistic in our little black and white world that we pretend that all head cases are the same. Being occasionally sullen or loafing on a route on a horrible team is not the equivalent of having a penchant for almost a neurotic need to divide lockerrooms on a continual basis. If he just wanted out of a bad situation that would be one thing. He didn't want out, he wanted to divide the team into "them vs us" to prove some point he conjured up in his neurotic, convoluded head.

So Minnesota's teams were lousy? He was loafing all over the field with them as well.

So Moss yelling constantly at Daunte Culpepper on the field for not getting him the ball is not counterproductive?

Outside of the Pittsburgh game, I didn't see Owens yell at Romo about getting him the ball, and even in the Pgh game he was yelling at the WR coach (what about nobody but them really knows).

And call me crazy, but loafing on the field is detrimental to the team morale.

Not to forget that in the past when Owens wanted out, he made sure the entire world knew it and nobody on his team was safe (and he made sure the entire world knew that as well). Instead, he never once stated he wanted out of Dallas and never once publically dissed his teammates. He did say that he wants the ball more and he wasn't being used right (or to his fullest capabilities).

Well, guess what?

Every WR talks and acts that way.

Like I posted earlier, I really wish that it was just 'Owens divided the locker room and that pretty much caused Dallas to go 9-7.' If I really felt that way I would personally ship him to Buffalo myself. But, I think most of his stuff was either overblown or completely fabricated and when certain people in the organization needed to take accountability, they passed the buck to Owens and he got cut.

Terrell Owens didn't make Tony Romo fumble the ball. Terrell Owens didn't make Jason Garrett forget about the running game at times. Terrell Owens didn't make Garrett keep running to the left side despite having Corey Procter at left guard.

And I could go on and on.

To me, THAT is the problem. I would be confident if certain people in the organization recognized their faults and stated they are working to adjust and correct those problems. Unfortunately, the only guy who has been that way so far is Wade...yet he gets skewered all of the time.





YAKUZA

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

No because he is a turnover or bad decision in crunch time waiting to happen. Nothing to do with her at all.

Not anymore.

That "bad" gene have been removed from his DNA.

 

[DallasEast]

Can any TO supporter just once admit the guy played a role in what happens to him?

A very good question.

 

[theebs]

So Minnesota's teams were lousy? He was loafing all over the field with them as well.

So Moss yelling constantly at Daunte Culpepper on the field for not getting him the ball is not counterproductive?

Outside of the Pittsburgh game, I didn't see Owens yell at Romo about getting him the ball, and even in the Pgh game he was yelling at the WR coach (what about nobody but them really knows).

And call me crazy, but loafing on the field is detrimental to the team morale.

Not to forget that in the past when Owens wanted out, he made sure the entire world knew it and nobody on his team was safe (and he made sure the entire world knew that as well). Instead, he never once stated he wanted out of Dallas and never once publically dissed his teammates. He did say that he wants the ball more and he wasn't being used right (or to his fullest capabilities).

Well, guess what?

Every WR talks and acts that way.

Like I posted earlier, I really wish that it was just 'Owens divided the locker room and that pretty much caused Dallas to go 9-7.' If I really felt that way I would personally ship him to Buffalo myself. But, I think most of his stuff was either overblown or completely fabricated and when certain people in the organization needed to take accountability, they passed the buck to Owens and he got cut.

Terrell Owens didn't make Tony Romo fumble the ball. Terrell Owens didn't make Jason Garrett forget about the running game at times. Terrell Owens didn't make Garrett keep running to the left side despite having Corey Procter at left guard.

And I could go on and on.

To me, THAT is the problem. I would be confident if certain people in the organization recognized their faults and stated they are working to adjust and correct those problems. Unfortunately, the only guy who has been that way so far is Wade...yet he gets skewered all of the time.





YAKUZA

Oh boy.


T.O. didnt do anything wrong because Tony Romo Sucks and so does Jason Garrett. The people who take up for this guy are just like him, they all have the same "I confess, He did it" attitude.

Its going to be a long summer on here.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Can any TO supporter just once admit the guy played a role in what happens to him?

Absolutely. 100% I will admit to that. I have in the past and I do now.

He could have and should have handled things differently. He didnt.

We didnt do what we were supposed to do by bringing him in "a hired gun".

The chain of events to me are:

1. The organization failed
2. TO(because he just cant handle it) follows soon thereafter

 

[SultanOfSix]

No. Of course not. What happened to him was not anticipated by him. He fully understands that, but he is instead taking the typical verbal stance of being "blindsided"--as if he was oblivious to all probabilities concerning his possible release. Heck, he himself admits to speaking with Jerry Jones because of said subject.

How can he be taken completely unawares (e.g. blindsided) if he had personally contemplated that the possibility existed? Did his conversation with Jerry Jones induce some form of self-amnesia and thus caused him to be totally surprised by the news of his release? Utter rubbish and that's essentially Terrell Owens in a nutshell.

Well, that's some semantic garbage.

If someone is unsure about their position of employment, they're going ask with those who have the power to keep or release them. If your boss assures you that you won't be released from your job, but then does so several weeks later, are you telling me you're not going to feel some sort of resentment and feeling of being blind-sided? Are you really going to blame yourself for believing him and give the explanation you just gave above for yourself?

Anger has a sense of hurt in it, and it is the most painful when it is initiated from people you trust, love, or respect the most. Being blind-sided does that.

 

[Mash]

I still get a kick out of......TO forced Romo to pass the ball to him......and Garrett was forced to get the ball to Owens.

I really does hope this all works......I enjoyed watching Owens here and supported him because he was a Cowboy......now I dont care what he does....he is no longer a Cowboy.

Im more concern now about the ability our OL has to run block and pass block.......Romo decision making.....and Garretts scheme......because with TO or without TO......those questions still have to be answered.

 

[Mash]

Well, that's some semantic garbage.

If someone is unsure about their position of employment, they're going ask with those who have the power to keep or release them. If your boss assures you that you won't be released from your job, but then does so several weeks later, are you telling me you're not going to feel some sort of resentment and feeling of being blind-sided? Are you really going to blame yourself for believing him and give the explanation you just gave above for yourself?

Anger has a sense of hurt in it, and it is the most painful when it is initiated from people you trust, love, or respect the most. Being blind-sided does that.

I agree.....nice post....

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

I still get a kick out of......TO forced Romo to pass the ball to him......and Garrett was forced to get the ball to Owens.

I dont buy it. You get the ball to your playmaker. Its what you do. So I agree.

But I do think Romo FORCED the ball to Owens when he was open. Double and triple coverage. Same with Witten.

Poor decision making. That Redzone almost TD(INT) at the one? still boils my blood.

I really does hope this all works......

I enjoyed watching Owens here and supported him because he was a Cowboy......

now I dont care what he does....

he is no longer a Cowboy.

Me too.
Me too.
Me too.
Exactly.

Im more concern now about the ability our OL has to run block and pass block.......

Romo decision making.....

and Garretts scheme......

because with TO or without TO......those questions still have to be answered.

Agreed.
Agreed.
Major concerns on something as simple as adjustments and remembering we do have RB's
We will see.

 

[DallasEast]

Well, that's some semantic garbage.

If someone is unsure about their position of employment, they're going ask with those who have the power to keep or release them. If your boss assures you that you won't be released from your job, but then does so several weeks later, are you telling me your not going to feel some sort of resentment and feeling of being blind-sided? Are you really going to blame yourself for not believing him and give the explanation you just gave above for yourself?

Anger has a sense of hurt in it, and it is the most painful when it is initiated from people you trust, love, or respect the most. Being blind-sided does that.

Talk about garbage.

You've just made the comparison between everyday working society and a multi-millionaire professional athlete. That's pitiful in and of itself. Then, you morph your argument into some melodrama to defend Owens' nonsense.

If someone believes that their job is in jeopardy, he or she will be motivated to ask because of those concerns. It matters not what the employer has to say. Those concerns are now comtemplated. They are planted within one's consciousness. They are certainly not unquestioned or not thought of or oblivious to oneself.

That's the verbal stance which Owens has made. You talk about emotional response. Resentment. Anger. Love. Is that enough cause in your mind to justify someone to purposefully take the appearance of being "blindsided" when he was actually not anticipating his release? Please. That argument is worthy of an "unnamed source".

 

[SultanOfSix]

Talk about garbage.

You've just made the comparison between everyday working society and a multi-millionaire professional athlete. That's pitiful in and of itself. Then, you morph your argument into some melodrama to defend Owens' nonsense.

LMAO. So my comparison about human behavior related to job security is invalid because someone makes more money than another person? Are you serious? You're telling me I'm pitiful because I'm rational?

If someone believes that their job is in jeopardy, he or she will be motivated to ask because of those concerns. It matters not what the employer has to say. Those concerns are now comtemplated. They are planted within one's consciousness. They are certainly not unquestioned or not thought of or oblivious to oneself.

LOL. You criticize me for making an invalid comparison about job security due to people's salary levels, and then subsequently generalize human behavior.

Seriously, why are you still persisting in your semantic garbage? No one is disputing the reactions and thoughts that someone has when his job security is in question. It's being quelled about those concerns by someone who has power to determine your fate, and then having that same person turn around and then basically lie to you. That is the definition of being blind-sided.

You're simply weaseling your way out of your baseless argument.

That's the verbal stance which Owens has made. You talk about emotional response. Resentment. Anger. Love. Is that enough cause in your mind to justify someone to purposefully take the appearance of being "blindsided" when he was actually not anticipating his release? Please. That argument is worthy of an "unnamed source".

Who said he's making an "appearance" of being blind-sided? You can now gauge people's intentions, and can read his mind that he was always "anticipating" his release, or is that something that's true because you dislike him? Basically you're simply just questioning his credibility and calling him a liar. It would have been easier to just say he's lying.

 

[odog422]

I get it quite well. More than you ever will. Weren't you done talking about TO, or are you a liar?

Does it hurt that I called you a liar? How about if I persistently call you on it every time you post?

Whether he's who the media says he is or not isn't as important to me as what is they write about, what is their evidence for it, and how they defend it. Every individual is responsible for their own behavior.

The fact is, according to JJ himself, TO wasn't released because of his behavior. So, why is the anti-TO crowd persistent in saying that he was?

All of the three situations where he was released (actually it was just two) were different. His motives were completely different in each one. Anyone with a brain can see this. But, it's so easy to label him and be done with it.

Changed my mind. I have that right. And you call me a liar all you like. You have that right. Not pertinent to the discussion, which despite your claims, you don't get.

On one hand, you're saying Owens was released because Jerry said it wasn't about behavior. Which of course means, that notwithstanding the 1000 yards and 10 tds, it was more important to see what we have. In other words, bank on potential rather than production.

But then on the other, you're saying Jerry was influenced by "anonymous sources" because you keep bringing up that point as if it has relevance. And if that's not what you're saying, what is your point?

 

[peplaw06]

Well, that's some semantic garbage.

If someone is unsure about their position of employment, they're going ask with those who have the power to keep or release them. If your boss assures you that you won't be released from your job, but then does so several weeks later, are you telling me you're not going to feel some sort of resentment and feeling of being blind-sided? Are you really going to blame yourself for believing him and give the explanation you just gave above for yourself?

Anger has a sense of hurt in it, and it is the most painful when it is initiated from people you trust, love, or respect the most. Being blind-sided does that.

In that same vein, if you go to your employer because you are concerned about your job, and said employer has not made his decision on whether you are going to be there, do you really think that the employer is going to tell you he's still thinking about it?

Especially if this guy has a history of being divisive... if Jerry had told TO that he was contemplating releasing TO, but he hadn't made up his mind, we would have had World War III take place at Valley Ranch.

The very fact that TO asked Jerry should show you that he couldn't have possibly been blindsided. TO could say he was lied to, but of course he was lied to. If he hadn't been lied to, Jerry would have had to release him then and there.

 

[SultanOfSix]

Changed my mind. I have that right. And you call me a liar all you like. You have that right. Not pertinent to the discussion, which despite your claims, you don't get.

I know you have that right. You can waffle as much as you want.

I simply threw it out there to maybe let you think about your past behavior. For example, like the way TO's past behavior is used to judge him in the present, as the reason for why he was let go. Exactly the things which led you to ask the questions below based on invalid assumptions concerning my motive.

On one hand, you're saying Owens was released because Jerry said it wasn't about behavior. Which of course means, that notwithstanding the 1000 yards and 10 tds, it was more important to see what we have. In other words, bank on potential rather than production.

But then on the other, you're saying Jerry was influenced by "anonymous sources" because you keep bringing up that point as if it has relevance. And if that's not what you're saying, what is your point?

Where did I say or imply anywhere that Jerry was influenced by "anonymous sources" in making his decision?

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Changed my mind. I have that right. And you call me a liar all you like. You have that right. Not pertinent to the discussion, which despite your claims, you don't get.

On one hand, you're saying Owens was released because Jerry said it wasn't about behavior. Which of course means, that notwithstanding the 1000 yards and 10 tds, it was more important to see what we have. In other words, bank on potential rather than production.

But then on the other, you're saying Jerry was influenced by "anonymous sources" because you keep bringing up that point as if it has relevance. And if that's not what you're saying, what is your point?

You forgot about Austin Miles. He is slated to pick up where TO left off

Double digit TD's and over 1000 yards

 

[SultanOfSix]

In that same vein, if you go to your employer because you are concerned about your job, and said employer has not made his decision on whether you are going to be there...

Yes, because that's a totally different situation. When TO says that he was "assured" by the man in question that he would be there, that invalidates that premise, and leads to the notion of in fact being blind-sided.

 

[peplaw06]

Yes, because that's a totally different situation. When TO says that he was "assured" by the man in question that he would be there, that invalidates that premise, and leads to the notion of in fact being blind-sided.

No it doesn't. Jerry HAD to assure TO that he was going to still be there. Otherwise all hell breaks loose.

 

[SultanOfSix]

No it doesn't. Jerry HAD to assure TO that he was going to still be there.

So, what you're saying is TO couldn't have be blind-sided because he should have known Jerry was lying to him? That he shouldn't have trusted him?

Otherwise all hell breaks loose.

Wouldn't that be the perfect situation to let TO go then? Absolutely perfect for the TO haters. It would have settled everything. LOL.