Tom Jackson is a cowboy hater and anti- T.O.

[Hostile]

I have actually never seen him hate on the boys, just TO...which is understandable.

Yep...

Agreed. And can you blame him.

He said at the beginning of the season "With TO it's ALWAYS something."

And he is correct.

...yep...

Exactly...He has no beef with the Cowboys but Tom Jackson is old school and he wants the game to be represented the right way and T.O. is definitely not old school.

He like the Cowboys but he hates T.O. and to be honest I dont blame him. He is objective in his opinion that this guy is the worst teammate in NFL history and basically tell it like it is. I challenge you guys to listen to his radio rant on the spitting icident they have as a video on espn.com. (it on the first page to the right where they list the video and media clips)

He basically dogs T.O. and tells you why.

...and yep.

 

[tyke1doe]

Sheesh, you don't even know if he spit on him intentionally or not. I guess high horses allow people to declare facts without actual knowledge and dole out punishment without actual authority.

And I guess ignorance, idiocy and homerism allows people to ignore TO's own confession simply because he's a Cowboy and a Cowboy can never do wrong.

 

[juck]

him along with merril hoge,sean salisbury,solomon wilcotts,etc....

 

[theogt]

And I guess ignorance, idiocy and homerism allows people to ignore TO's own confession simply because he's a Cowboy and a Cowboy can never do wrong.

There's an entire thread on this. I'll allow you to read it so you can cure your ignorance on the subject.

 

[tyke1doe]

i don't know about being a cowboy hater but he certainly hates t.o. and i can see where lots of people hate t.o.
what i think is funny is how they gush all over merriman and rarely even mention his steroid use.
which is a bigger deal, using steroids, or being an idiot like t.o.
i'll take the idiot over the cheater every time

Again, you don't get it.

As far as we know, Merriman's issue was a one-time issue.

We will know more if he tests positive in the future.

But, as TJ says, "There's always something with TO."

TO perpetuates these issues.

If he doesn't sleep in meetings, if he doesn't criticize teammates, if he doesn't complain about the ball not being thrown to him, if he's not dancing in the end zone or sleeping on the football, if he's not spitting on other players, then there's no issue.

But these are re-occurring situations with him.

Tell me, has Shawne Merriman done any of those things?

Again, many posters seem unable to differentiate why Merriman isn't being singled out and why TO is.

Their logic is a grab-bag approach to life which looks at all wrongs the same and evaluates them on the same level without context to distinguish why one wrong might not apply to another wrong, even though the latter wrong may be a far worse trangression.

And people who take this approach seem to be saying they have a problem with critical-thinking skills.

As I've argued before, context is EVERYTHING.

A surgeon and a mugger can cut you and draw blood.

One action is benevolent (if a surgeon is removing a cancerous tumor). The other action is evil because it involves someone doing harm to you.

Under the grab-bag approach to life, both actions are equally evil even if they are equally violent.

Critical-thinking skills allow you to differentiate the two based on context.

Cutting a person to remove something that harms them = good.
Cutting a person to remove their valueables from them = bad.

Think people. Sheesh.

 

[tyke1doe]

There's an entire thread on this. I'll allow you to read it so you can cure your ignorance on the subject.

Actually, I participated in that discussion too.

But you have no point which is why you can't defend your position here.

Begone, minimizer.

 

[theogt]

Actually, I participated in that discussion too.

But you have no point which is why you can't defend your position here.

Actually I defended it quite well.

Begone, minimizer.

Same to you, over-reacter.

Edit:

As I posted in the other thread, here are the things we know about this incident:

1. D. Hall claims Owens spit in his face.

2. Owens apologized for spitting in Hall's face but did not specify whether it was an accidental spray or an intentional spit.

3. Owens later claims it was an accidental spray, not an intentional spit.

4. There is no video evidence of an intentional spit despite knowing exactly when the event occurred and having video of the players during that time.

Please, let me know how you can declare that TO intentionally spit in Hall's face. Like I said, it must be the high horse that allows you to declare facts without actual knowledge.

 

[tyke1doe]

Actually I defended it quite well.

Really?

Could have fooled me. But if saying it makes you feel better about your defense, I won't stand in the way.

Same to you, over-reacter.

No, overreaction here.

In fact, I said he shouldn't be suspended. But I'm not minimizing it either. Then again, you've got that position covered.

 

[charles hill]

Michael Irvin called him a cowboy hater on NFL countdown last night. I could care less when dallas wins the haters usually show up right on schedule.

 

[conner01]

i guess that depends on what you consider a worse offense. to me the steroid deal is as bad as anything you can do as a player.people talk about kids copying star athletes, well i would rather see a kid spit on someone that being on steroids.
but look at t.o.'s problems from all his years in the nfl and tell me just which are worse than using steroids.
i don't like t.o. as a person, doubt many do, but he shows up and plays and all his problems have been form his mouth running to much, not for any real things he did on the field.too my knwledge he has never been fined for anything but celebrations

 

[LaTunaNostra]

Tom's like Ditka...'likes' Cowboys (as defined by giving the team a fair shake), loves Parcells, hates Owens.

 

[theogt]

Really?

Could have fooled me. But if saying it makes you feel better about your defense, I won't stand in the way.



No, overreaction here.

In fact, I said he shouldn't be suspended. But I'm not minimizing it either. Then again, you've got that position covered.

As I posted in the other thread, here are the things we know about this incident:

1. D. Hall claims Owens spit in his face.

2. Owens apologized for spitting in Hall's face but did not specify whether it was an accidental spray or an intentional spit.

3. Owens later claims it was an accidental spray, not an intentional spit.

4. There is no video evidence of an intentional spit despite knowing exactly when the event occurred and having video of the players during that time.

Please, let me know how you can declare that TO intentionally spit in Hall's face. Like I said, it must be the high horse that allows you to declare facts without actual knowledge.

 

[iceberg]

As far as we know, Merriman's issue was a one-time issue.

We will know more if he tests positive in the future.

so, why would anyone take steroids ONCE? that makes even less sense to me.

getting caught once isn't the same as only doing it once, hence i doubt "doing" is simply a "one time thing".

 

[JPM]

As far as we know, Merriman's issue was a one-time issue.

We will know more if he tests positive in the future.

Do you mean he only did juice once and got caught or he was doing a cycle (more than once) and got caught ?

 

[trueblue1687]

Again, you don't get it.

As far as we know, Merriman's issue was a one-time issue.

We will know more if he tests positive in the future.

But, as TJ says, "There's always something with TO."

TO perpetuates these issues.

If he doesn't sleep in meetings, if he doesn't criticize teammates, if he doesn't complain about the ball not being thrown to him, if he's not dancing in the end zone or sleeping on the football, if he's not spitting on other players, then there's no issue.

But these are re-occurring situations with him.

Tell me, has Shawne Merriman done any of those things?

Again, many posters seem unable to differentiate why Merriman isn't being singled out and why TO is.

Their logic is a grab-bag approach to life which looks at all wrongs the same and evaluates them on the same level without context to distinguish why one wrong might not apply to another wrong, even though the latter wrong may be a far worse trangression.

And people who take this approach seem to be saying they have a problem with critical-thinking skills.

As I've argued before, context is EVERYTHING.

A surgeon and a mugger can cut you and draw blood.

One action is benevolent (if a surgeon is removing a cancerous tumor). The other action is evil because it involves someone doing harm to you.

Under the grab-bag approach to life, both actions are equally evil even if they are equally violent.

Critical-thinking skills allow you to differentiate the two based on context.

Cutting a person to remove something that harms them = good.
Cutting a person to remove their valueables from them = bad.

Think people. Sheesh.

The absolute dumbest statement I've heard this week.

 

[MS17]

ESPN or not, TJ is old school, and admires players who work hard and represent the game well. If I recall correctly, TJ did say 8 days ago that T.O. is a "dangerous teammate" and further, he's "embarrassed one of the NFL's great coaches" with his antics this season.
I understand the value and skill a T.O. brings to an NFL offense, but I cant say I disagree with Jackson here.

 

[conner01]

steroids are'nt gonna do a thing for you if you only use them once. you have to cycle them to get any real benefit. he has only been caught once, and hopefully he learns from it and stops.but to me thatsa much bigger thing than what t.o. did thus the punishment was alot more.my point was even the league considers it a big deal but those on espn seem to act like it's no big deal. i don't think any player caught using juice should be able to play in that years pro bowl. thats a reward for cheating. but everyone deserves a second chance and merriman got his. i just think the media, which roasted bonds for the same thing, should be a little less understanding of it. they where when it was bonds who the media hates, why is merriman any different? could be because they don't hate him, ya think
i think alot of people would be shocked if you found out how many players have been caught sleeping in meetings, and tons of guys have gotten penalties for celebrations, and every good wr in the nfl won'ts the ball thrown to them more. one of the worst was irvin. wanting the ball is what makes them good

 

[Mrfish]

well Tom jackson is a expert right? who cares what he thinks

 

[tyke1doe]

As I posted in the other thread, here are the things we know about this incident:

1. D. Hall claims Owens spit in his face.

2. Owens apologized for spitting in Hall's face but did not specify whether it was an accidental spray or an intentional spit.

3. Owens later claims it was an accidental spray, not an intentional spit.

4. There is no video evidence of an intentional spit despite knowing exactly when the event occurred and having video of the players during that time.

Please, let me know how you can declare that TO intentionally spit in Hall's face. Like I said, it must be the high horse that allows you to declare facts without actual knowledge.

It's not high horse. It's common sense and logic.

1. D. Hall claims Owens spit in his face.

2. When TO is confronted by it on national television, he doesn't say, "I accidentally sprayed him" - which is the comment you'd expect to hear from someone who actually did spray him. I mean, think about it. Someone has accused you of a degrading act on national television, and you admit it without even providing context?

3. When confronted by Deion Sanders again about how degrading the action is, he doesn't say, "Well, I simply sprayed him by talking to him."
FYI, "spraying" is not degrading. It may suggest a lack of manners, but it is not degrading because it's not intentional.

Again, let me repeat that.

SPRAYING IS NOT INTENTIONAL

Spitting is.

So there is no need to add intentional. The fact that TO was asked about this twice and the fact that Deion came back with a response, "You know how degrading an action that is" strongly suggests to everyone but homers that TO's act was intentional.

4. Just because there's no video doesn't mean it didn't occur. This really isn't an argument as to whether TO spit or not. It's more an excuse or alibi, i.e., "Well, you didn't see me kill that person."

5. Based on the testimony of TO himself, he received a $35,000 fine. If this were just a "spraying incident" you would likely see TO fighting his suspension. But TO has already confessed to the incident.

Only the homers can take something that is plainly obvious and spin it.

But if simple logic and understanding of human nature is a matter of being on a high horse, I guess I'll ride on.

 

[tyke1doe]

The absolute dumbest statement I've heard this week.

Judging by the reading comprehension and critical-thinking skills some have exhibited on this board, I don't take that as an insult.

Quite the contrary, I take it as a tremendous compliment.