JoeCorrado;3455237 said:
So, you are basically admitting that he accomplished the goal that the team had for him when they signed him. They brought him in because Owens DOES have value- and that value has to be balanced against his personality, or baggage if you wish. Teams make those decisions everyday. Even in Dallas
I always aim to please. No need to thank me..
You appear to be on some sort of "value" kick. Where exactly did I state that Owens had 'small' or 'zero' value as a wide receiver
As far as the "thank" response is concerned, you've overlooked a comment made earlier in the thread (although not by me).
JoeCorrado;3455237 said:
I agree. He just can't help himself. Self inflicted damage for the most part. The mentality of a child in many ways. I can't hold that against him any more than I could hold Lett's boo-boos against him. It came as part of the package. Owens just couldn't help himself- and every opportunity that he gave to ESPN, or his other distractors was pounced on, magnified and generally blown out of proportion. So what- that's life. His fault? ESPN's fault? Your fault? What's the difference, right? Everybody has a finger in the pie.
:laugh2: @ "everybody".
JoeCorrado;3455237 said:
See my previous post for a few examples.
It always funny whenever his supporters do not allow Owens to be seen as is. It's always,
"He's equal to this player or that player." Thankfully, the Hollywood Hendersons, Duane Thomases and Michael Irvins have not promoted their personal shortcomings as media victimization.
JoeCorrado;3455237 said:
'nough said. And THAT was my point. Thank YOU, for agreeing.
Your point is irrelevant. In his unique case, it's the same point which would be incorrectly emphasized immediately following after his departures from
San Francisco AND
Philadelphia AND
Dallas AND now (to a certain extent)
Buffalo. Thus, I ask again, "What of it"? His production on the field has not secured his spot on multiple rosters or made him appear 'indisposable'. It should have, but it hasn't. The question is why?
Who knows? Let's not ask those in-the-know within the front offices of his former teams or others throughout the league. Let's ask ESPN instead (the dirty scoundrels).
JoeCorrado;3455237 said:
So far as his leaving last season- if he had not, do you think that Austin would have had the opportunity to do what he did? Nope.
Of course not. Perhaps you should pose the question to others here who fretted over his release on this forum. I (on the other hand) am on forum record before, during
and after his release stating (either verbally or though illustrations) that Owens removal from the offense would not be detrimental, but acknowledged that the wide receiver corp
as a group could succeed without him in the mix. And this was before many outside the team itself had any idea of what Miles Austin could do.
I certainly wished you had posed a similar question to me
way back then. It would have saved you the trouble of asking this redundant question nearly 1 1/2 years after it was necessary.
JoeCorrado;3455237 said:
And giving the youngsters the OPPORTUNITY to play was one of the reasons given for his release. Or is my recollection wrong?
If you sincerely mean "one of the reasons", my answer would be 'no'. If not, my answer would be 'oy'.
JoeCorrado;3455237 said:
Did JJ or Wade say a negative thing about him as a reason for his release?
Umm.
Wade Phillips has been around the NFL for a long, LONG time.
Does anyone ever recall him saying a negative thing about a player which was worthy of conversation? Ever?
So, my answer would be no. Still, since you're questioning whether Wade Phillips (of all people) would publicly comment in a negative fashion about ANY player (much less Terrell Owens), I am honestly tempted to retract my answer and replace it with,
"Where's the relevance?"
Bill Parcells? Sure. Jimmy Johnson. Yep. Wade Phillips? Good grief.
And
Jerry Jones? You've included his name as well?
"Jerral Wayne Jones"? That guy??? You're talking about the same guy who's been kickin' it around Valley Ranch for 20+ years? That guy? The same guy whom you have to get drunk first in order to capture a not so politically correct response on a cameraphone AND he can still manage to turn a negative characterization into a flippin' joke
Jerry Jones?
In my best Tom Jackson voice, "Come on, man".
[Oops! I mentioned someone from ESPN. Dang!]
JoeCorrado;3455237 said:
Please feel free to reference any negative behavior as a reason for his release. I sure don't recall it.
No kidding.