Would you rather have a criminal or a big mouth on your team?

[zrinkill]

Or is the moral of the story, go ahead and beat your wife, just don't call out your QB.

Thats funny right there

 

[Doomsday101]

Not really. But if it makes you feel better let's assume the criminal won't be disruptive. I've heard OJ was great in the locker room. :laugh2: Of course he hadn't killed anyone back then.

TO to some is the antichrist but to my knowledge he doesn't use drugs, doesn't abuse women, hasn't been arrested. Yet people HATE him with a white hot passion. I'm just wondering if there would be any of that passion for an actual criminal, disruptive or not. Or is the moral of the story, go ahead and beat your wife, just don't call out your QB.

I have not seen 1 person justify one being right and the other being wrong. No I don't want a criminal on the team and was very disappointed in Irvin when he pulled his stuff as well as Lett and after the 2nd suspension I wanted Lett gone. Once all of these problems and suspensions started to take place and became an embarrassment to this organization I realized it is important how you are viewed and that while winning is the name of the game it should not be done at all cost. That is also why I have so much respect for Coach Landry because he would not tolerate this and would cut anyone regardless of who you were.

 

[RCowboyFan]

Lets not over simplify things...because the world is not simple.

"You say the world's black or white
You're either dirty or you're clean
Just be careful you don't slip
Through those spaces in between"
Bruce Springsteen

Thats something people who hate to make judgements or judged would love to hide under, IMO.

EVerything is black and white, right or wrong, when you break it down to nitty gritty details of situation and the act itself. Unless one wants to pretend, right or wrong is subjective that is.

In this case, its not about whether liking a Criminal player vs Loud Mouth player. Its about what it does to a team and its "Team" mentality. So Right or wrong should be put in the situation, not a blanket statement wise. If that is what it means, that there is a grey area, then you can say that, but thats not grey area to me.

So within such a team sport like Football is, it matters on whether the player is disruptive force like TO, vs say guy such as Ray Lewis, who keeps everyone in line. I would dislike Owens same as I did Deion Sanders when he was with Cowboys, since both are me first guys, while Deion Sanders was nowhere as disruptive as TO, but there is enough evidence to suggest he was one of the primary force in the break of discipline and team mentality break with Cowboys.

But then, I would still cheer for TO, when he does score TD. At the sametime I wont mince words when bashing him either, since I dislike the person he is, whether he is a nice guy off the field or not.

 

[DallasEast]

I didn't vote because the options are too simplistic.

First option: someone with a big mouth that could be disruptive

Well, the NFL is full of big mouths who are disruptive.

Second option: someone with a criminal record

Well, there are players with misdemeanor and felony records. Additionally, there are players with records which have not been widely reported to the public by the media. And quite likely, there are players who have engaged in criminal activities which no one has knowledge of.

I don't know. If it were a choice between Owens and Rafael Septien, I would choose Owens. Septien was a pedophile. Pedophiles destroy children's lives. Regardless of what Owens did to the 49ers, Eagles or what he could potentially do to our franchise, there is no comparison in the damage done.

If it were a choice between Owens and Irvin, I would choose Irvin. Irvin hurt himself. Irvin hurt his family. There is nothing which he has done that he or his family couldn't recover from. And the most that he ever did to the Cowboys was inflict negative superficial attention. Owens created daily media circuses in San Francisco and Philadelphia which directly impacted players and coaches abilities to focus on the day-to-day business of fielding a football team.

Can we have a new poll?

 

[RCowboyFan]

I didn't vote because the options are too simplistic.

First option: someone with a big mouth that could be disruptive

Well, the NFL is full of big mouths who are disruptive.

Second option: someone with a criminal record

Well, there are players with misdemeanor and felony records. Additionally, there are players with records which have not been widely reported to the public by the media. And quite likely, there are players who have engaged in criminal activities which no one has knowledge of.

I don't know. If it were a choice between Owens and Rafael Septien, I would choose Owens. Septien was a pedophile. Pedophiles destroy children's lives. Regardless of what Owens did to the 49ers, Eagles or what he could potentially do to our franchise, there is no comparison in the damage done.

If it were a choice between Owens and Irvin, I would choose Irvin. Irvin hurt himself. Irvin hurt his family. There is nothing which he has done that he or his family couldn't recover from. And the most that he ever did to the Cowboys was inflict negative superficial attention. Owens created daily media circuses in San Francisco and Philadelphia which directly impacted players and coaches abilities to focus on the day-to-day business of fielding a football team.

Can we have a new poll?

Well said.

 

[Rockytop6]

looks like both...

Your poll is well weighted to one side. Therefore, I will weight it to the other side. Poll: Would you rather have a loud mouth disruptive player that criticizes
every organization he has played for and evey QB he has ever played with or

would you rather have somebody who got a speeding ticket, ran a red light, etc. Both polls are absurd. You have to know the extent of a player's disruptive influence and the extent of the player's problem with the law.

Then analyze the potential influence, positive or negative, on achieving your goals and the long term ramifications.

My opinion is that JJ is in hog heaven rright now. He is on the beaches or (?)
somewhere tuned in to everything going on. By staying undercover, he is dominating the NFL media now and will milk it for all its worth. Then he will make a grand entrance at a press conference and announce they have worked out a contract that is a win-win situation for the Cowboys and for TO.

One thing he is underestimating or maybe just con't care and that is the amount of respect he has lost around the league and probably at home as
well. He must address these other issues in a wise manner to recover some of that influence. Someone might say, people will forgive all once they win a SB. Unless these other issues are addressed in a successful manner there will be no SB. TO has never won a SB nor got his team to a SB.

Were the Eagles as good of a team when TO joined them as the Cowboys are now when TO joins them? They were better but their trophy case is still empty.

 

[DLCassidy]

Your poll is well weighted to one side. Therefore, I will weight it to the other side. Poll: Would you rather have a loud mouth disruptive player that criticizes
every organization he has played for and evey QB he has ever played with or

would you rather have somebody who got a speeding ticket, ran a red light, etc. Both polls are absurd. You have to know the extent of a player's disruptive influence and the extent of the player's problem with the law.

A speeding ticket or red light is not a criminal offense, try again. I didn't have enough room to put the full text of your 1st option, but we all know who we're talking about so I'm not sure you extra text adds anything either way. The vast majority of the 21% that have criminal records referenced in the article are for serious offenses, let's make that clear. People seem to want to nit pick with the poll's wording so they don't have to face their own hypocrisy. The fact is we could easily sign a guy with a record for a serious offense, let's call it a violent crime, and this board wouldn't have one tenth the outrage from the "moral majority" "TO desecrated the star" crowd.

As I've said all along I think TO is a risky signing. He's an immature, self centered guy. But IMO there are scores of guys in this league whose actions should generate far more scorn than anything TO has done. But they don't.

 

[Doomsday101]

A speeding ticket or red light is not a criminal offense, try again. I didn't have enough room to put the full text of your 1st option, but we all know who we're talking about so I'm not sure you extra text adds anything either way. The vast majority of the 21% that have criminal records referenced in the article are for serious offenses, let's make that clear. People seem to want to nit pick with the poll's wording so they don't have to face their own hypocrisy. The fact is we could easily sign a guy with a record for a serious offense, let's call it a violent crime, and this board wouldn't have one tenth the outrage from the "moral majority" "TO desecrated the star" crowd.

As I've said all along I think TO is a risky signing. He's an immature, self centered guy. But IMO there are scores of guys in this league whose actions should generate far more scorn than anything TO has done. But they don't.

For me the star incident does not play any part of my distaste for FI (to). Like all Cowboy fans I did not like seeing him do that but what do you expect out of a jerk like FI (to) It has been his tendency to air the dirty laundry to the media instead of dealing with teammates behind closed doors. Face it you have 53 men in a locker room not all of these guys are going to get a long or even like each other but you don't take your complaint to the media and you don't rip your teammates to the media.

 

[blindzebra]

There is a huge difference, and this is the flaw in this pro-TO argument, Irvin and the rest were already Cowboys when they had their issues.

It's like having a child with a problem, you don't like it, but they are your kid so you attempt to work through it.

Keeping your kid in your home and trying to support them, is drastically different than inviting a stranger into your home that has issues too.

 

[DLCassidy]

There is a huge difference, and this is the flaw in this pro-TO argument, Irvin and the rest were already Cowboys when they had their issues.

It's like having a child with a problem, you don't like it, but they are your kid so you attempt to work through it.

Keeping your kid in your home and trying to support them, is drastically different than inviting a stranger into your home that has issues too.

Hmm... So if Irvin had been coming from another team prior to those 3 championships here and had been previously arrested for coke use, would you have said "we don't want a guy like that here"? Just want to make sure I'm following you.

 

[Chuck 54]

We all know Owens is a self centered big mouth who's had a history of calling out teammates and coaches. That's not good. Who knows whether BP can pull a rope around him. Personally I think it's worth the risk. But in an article from 5 years ago it was estimated that 21% of NFL players from 1996/97 had criminal records. 21%. Here's the link to the article. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21735

So I'm just curious whether the band of TO haters that have their Cowboy gear in a box waiting from a formal announcement of TO signing to set fire to it would prefer a guy who has comitted an actual crime on the roster, things like assault, using drugs, selling drugs, rape, etc, etc. I'm just wondering what the definition of a "bad guy" is these days.

Why would any normal person want either one on the team?

I certainly wouldn't go out looking for a guy with a criminal record, nor would I go out looking for a "self centered big mouth who's had a history of calling out teammates and coaches."

 

[blindzebra]

Hmm... So if Irvin had been coming from another team prior to those 3 championships here and had been previously arrested for coke use, would you have said "we don't want a guy like that here"? Just want to make sure I'm following you.

That is exactly what I'm saying.

The Irvin/TO comparison is one of the weakest arguments ever made on this forum, just because it is a complete apples and oranges comparison.

 

[Rack]

Would you rather have a criminal or a big mouth on your team?

I'd rather have a big mouth, but if you're trying to say that TO is nothing more then a "Big mouth" then you're ignorant.


Sorry, but TO goes way past "Big Mouth".

 

[DLCassidy]

Why would any normal person want either one on the team?

I certainly wouldn't go out looking for a guy with a criminal record, nor would I go out looking for a "self centered big mouth who's had a history of calling out teammates and coaches."

The bigger the talent the more people are willing to look past, in general. I respect the opinion of people that don't want TO and I understand the reasoning. But some of the same people that think TO is the devil would roll out the welcome mat for Eric Moulds. It's the double standard I don't understand and it's one that a lot of people won't even acknowledge exists. But it does. My theory is the level of hate is proportional to the level of media attention TO's issues received.

 

[DLCassidy]

That is exactly what I'm saying.

Ok then I can respect that. I wonder how many TO haters really agree.

 

[DLCassidy]

I'd rather have a big mouth, but if you're trying to say that TO is nothing more then a "Big mouth" then you're ignorant.


Sorry, but TO goes way past "Big Mouth".

Ok, I won't argue with that. I'm not shilling for TO, although I do think it can and will work here.