This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I stopped there. REALLY?
He wasn't the whole problem for sure. I think this move is more about moving to a different style of Offense and to take away some of the media hype/interest for this club. Perhaps half the problem was...to use your own words......It was fun to see the Cowboys. Perhaps it's time for it's NOT fun to see the Cowboys. Running the ball, playing good defense and being about nothing but WINNING football games.I can dream can't I?
Well, it's a weird thing.Because making this move frees up a LOT of cap money this year, 5-7 mill or so.Cutting him would have actually cost a small amount of cap money. Soooooo, one could make the argument that this move frees up cap space to sign TO.This is one Raider fan that doesn't buy the TO thing. It's an easy call for media heads to say--any controversial figure+the Raiders, and the Raiders never say much, so they won't release any statements saying they have no interest.But it has to be on the end of the list for TO, and this moves smells like a 2008 offseason move for OAK, not 2009. This year they have re-signed their homegrown, and sat back and let the big ticket guys sign elsewhere, and looked for bargains on the O-line.I'd be a lot more nervous about TO if the Raiders had chased Housh or Bryant Johnson.
Hey Bankerguy. I'm on record as saying he wouldn't be released, and this move definitely surprised me. I still don't think it makes much sense given that the team didn't change coaches and given that this is a make or break year, especially for the offense. They now have no reliable receiving targets outside of Witten, something which Romo has never had to deal with before. And like I said I doubted they'd dump a still-good star player the year they were opening a new stadium.Clearly there must have been some meetings with players from which Jerry concluded that there was a net gain to be had by cutting TO, even without getting a cap savings as a result.
From Israel.
Think of it this way: it's like giving Gaza back to Egypt. Less is sometimes more.
I'm a little surprised as well after Jerry's assurance two weeks ago. I did think right after the Philly game that he was gone, but flip flopped. Despite what many think of Jerry (there is certainly some good AND bad). I have not found him to be one to not admit a mistake (aside from naming himself the GM). He will take gambles and he has won some and lost some. The TO signing was a pretty good one for a couple of years there, you have to admit. The mistake imo...was the last re-negotiation. This is costing the Cowboys over 9 million in dead space this year. Think about that.I think this move is more about wanting to simplify things moreso then TO being some villian like some want to believe. The problem with a guy like TO is...that even when he is doing the right things, the media will not leave him alone. The bait and try and try to get him to give them a story. He has proven he can't say the right things for long periods of time.
I agree that the running game is now the bargain value in that offense, diminished somewhat by an apparent RBBC. Roy and Romo are going to be overvalued. Witten's value should hold steady.
I think I'll stop there too. REALLY?You honestly think it doesn't make sense? How exactly, does it not make sense? They've decided to go with the Wittens (team), for example, and delete the Pacmans (individuals/cancers).
The irony of your first sentence in your last post is pretty funny. I bolded the part of my last post where I referenced ROY. I'll articulate it further now: If ROY develops into an upper echelon WR1 (i.e. has a pro bowl year in 2009, etc.), then defenses will be forced to gameplan around him, and Dallas should field a top 5 offense.What would be the point of having a rational conversation with somebody who is already biased? The fact that the offense struggled in weeks 16 & 17 of 2007 has what do do with anything? IF you take away a ceterpeice of an offense the last 2 games of the season, there is going to be a drop off.Nice rebuttal. Completely ignore the facts and attack the messenger.Andfissure man said:at accusing me of being biased. I specifically targetted TO and Witten in 2007 and they helped lead me to a championship. Come to think of it, I've had at least 1 Cowboy on each of my teams the last couple years, and I routinely get heckled during drafts by Cowboy fan for taking them.
Unless Roy develops into an upper echelon WR1 or Dallas acquires an elite WR from another team, this offense is going to take a step or 2 backwards in 2009. As of right now, Romo is a strong candidate to be the most overvalued player in FF drafts.
We absolutely shouldn't factor in the addition of Roy Williams and an entire offseason to work on a gameplan that doesn't involve TO.
I wasn't attacking you. I was pointing out that you're biased and are always quick to rush to a Dallas thread and throw some pot shots.
Let me elaborate. TO is a cancer and a complete pain in the ### to have around. He completely seems to dominate the conversation when he's on your team, and there is no bigger attention whore. On a personal level I detest the guy. That said, Dallas is at a crossroads this year. They've opted to give Wade Phillips one more year, and likewise Jason Garrett who had a poor year as the OC. Garrett's the head coach in waiting on paper, but one more bad showing out of him and I could see them cleaning house in Dallas. In fact, I think the only reason the two of them, and certainly Phillips, was brought back was because the team was going into a new stadium this year and the team didn't want to be perceived as rebuilding. If they miss the playoffs or are one-and-done one more time in the playoffs, I think the coaching staff is going to be gone and anyone not named Witten, Jones, Romo or Williams will be worried about their jobs on that offense.
it would be interesting and if Tomlin chose to pass more it might even work. But, do you see TO having a chance to get 90-100 receptions in that offense?
Thanks for making my point for me. Being a good guy didn't speed up the process for Monk (who was the ALL TIME receptions leader upon retirement) like it won't hinder the process for Owens.A player as dominating as Owens won't be overlooked. He can't be overlooked. The numbers are just too strong.I'm not even an Owens fan per se. I just don't believe for a moment that the 2nd Greatest Statistical Wide Receiver of ALL TIME isn't/won't be a 1st Ballot Hall of Famer despite how big of a jerk he may be.Monk didn't have the numbers that Owens has. If he did, he would have made it in his first or second year, easily. Thanks for throwing me a softball right over the heart of the plate.
He obviously meant Charlie Batch.Ben is a "top-3 QB"?!
If you are happy with a very talented team going 0-2 in the playoffs. Remember TO cost the Cowboys Bill Parcels who was the best thing to happen to Dallas since Jimmy Johnson.
I respect the work you always put into these kinds of threads/discussions, but I think you are too reliant on stats at times. I mean, no one is disputing Owens' statistical greatness. If he had no off-the-field problems (being a cancer in the locker room is not the same as having drug or legal problems, but it is still an off-the-field problem), he would be a 1st ballot lock, but that is not the case.
Okay, I don't want to get into the whole Art Monk debate, but Monk's overall numbers were not that great, which is why it took him so long to get in. He is the classic example of a compiler (only three top 10 receiving yards finishes in his 16 seasons, and he only broke 1,000 yards five times).Thanks for making my point for me. Being a good guy didn't speed up the process for Monk (who was the ALL TIME receptions leader upon retirement) like it won't hinder the process for Owens.A player as dominating as Owens won't be overlooked. He can't be overlooked. The numbers are just too strong.Monk didn't have the numbers that Owens has. If he did, he would have made it in his first or second year, easily.
Thanks for throwing me a softball right over the heart of the plate.
I'm not even an Owens fan per se. I just don't believe for a moment that the 2nd Greatest Statistical Wide Receiver of ALL TIME isn't/won't be a 1st Ballot Hall of Famer despite how big of a jerk he may be.
Peyton ManningBreesYep.Ben is a "top-3 QB"?!
Brees, Cutler, Rodgers, without even the slightest hesitation. Brees puts up great #s but throws 8,000 times a year. Let's not forget, he was so awesome the Chargers let him walk for Philip Rivers. Cutler and Rodgers... please.Peyton ManningBreesYep.Ben is a "top-3 QB"?!
Brady
Cutler
Rodgers
Which three of these five would you choose Ben over?
If you're from Baltimore, you should know better than most how good Ben is.He obviously meant Charlie Batch.Ben is a "top-3 QB"?!
Ben is a "top-3 QB"?!
Real football <> fantasy football.Brees, Cutler, Rodgers, without even the slightest hesitation. Brees puts up great #s but throws 8,000 times a year. Let's not forget, he was so awesome the Chargers let him walk for Philip Rivers. Cutler and Rodgers... please.Peyton ManningBreesYep.Ben is a "top-3 QB"?!
Brady
Cutler
Rodgers
Which three of these five would you choose Ben over?
Obviously this thread is about TO, but I can not see how Rodgers and Cutler are even close to Ben at this point and I am not a Steelers fan.
Hell ****ing no.
Peyton ManningBreesYep.Ben is a "top-3 QB"?!
Brady
Cutler
Rodgers
Which three of these five would you choose Ben over?
at the implication here that Cutler is a top 5 NFL QB.
That is like calling the guy who just robbed your house and letting him know that he forgot to take the laptop in the basement and you will leave the door open tonight in case he wants to swing back and get it.
He took a major pay cut.
Ben is great. I don't know if he's Top 3, but he's in the conversation after Brady and Manning.If you're from Baltimore, you should know better than most how good Ben is.He obviously meant Charlie Batch.Ben is a "top-3 QB"?!
Argument 1: Owens, great numbers - jerk. He won't be a 1st ballot HOFer.Argument 2: Monk, poor numbers - good guy. Wasn't a 1st ballot HOFer.So what have we learned? That being a good guy doesn't get you in the HOF on the 1st ballot alone. The numbers do.
Lets see, three years ago only one team was interested in Owens and that was Dallas. After three more drama filled years and run ins with coaches, his QB, and media how many suitors will be lining up this time?TO will not be able to pick his team, or if he plays for a contender or not.I would love to see him go the Bengals and play with Ocho Cinco.
yep, im from Israel & english is our second lan.second, i dont "understand" their move -from my point of view and be honest-without him they have less chance (on paper) getting into the SB .
You are such a one trick pony. I do "get it", but it sucks.Oh and I guess Ratliffe is a cancer too then?
Fair enough, I'm fine with that. I disagree, but I see why you think it. I love that football is such a team sport. So much so that you can take away a great individual player, and make a team better. That's awesome. And I really do think that is what will happen. Obviously, that is also what the Dallas brass are thinking...
Monk ranks as the 36th most statistically dominant WR of all time, so I'm with you there. That said, there is more to being a receiver, which includes Monk's great blocking and TO's craziness.I respect the work you always put into these kinds of threads/discussions, but I think you are too reliant on stats at times. I mean, no one is disputing Owens' statistical greatness. If he had no off-the-field problems (being a cancer in the locker room is not the same as having drug or legal problems, but it is still an off-the-field problem), he would be a 1st ballot lock, but that is not the case.Okay, I don't want to get into the whole Art Monk debate, but Monk's overall numbers were not that great, which is why it took him so long to get in. He is the classic example of a compiler (only three top 10 receiving yards finishes in his 16 seasons, and he only broke 1,000 yards five times).Thanks for making my point for me. Being a good guy didn't speed up the process for Monk (who was the ALL TIME receptions leader upon retirement) like it won't hinder the process for Owens.A player as dominating as Owens won't be overlooked. He can't be overlooked. The numbers are just too strong.Monk didn't have the numbers that Owens has. If he did, he would have made it in his first or second year, easily.
Thanks for throwing me a softball right over the heart of the plate.
I'm not even an Owens fan per se. I just don't believe for a moment that the 2nd Greatest Statistical Wide Receiver of ALL TIME isn't/won't be a 1st Ballot Hall of Famer despite how big of a jerk he may be.
This shouldn't be a debate. What makes the NFL HOF so great, despite the fact that Art Monk is in it, is that voters only concern themselves with what happens on the field.
I am aware of that although this is a fantasy football website so we often discuss things in fantasy terms. Regardless of "real" or "fantasy", there would be some hesitation to easily put Ben as the #3 QB behind Manning and Brady for those that don't see the world through black and gold colored glasses.
You don't think the Chargers have learned their lesson from the David Boston experiment?
:IBTL:
I don't know, that game winning drive in the SB sure puts him close.I am aware of that although this is a fantasy football website so we often discuss things in fantasy terms. Regardless of "real" or "fantasy", there would be some hesitation to easily put Ben as the #3 QB behind Manning and Brady for those that don't see the world through black and gold colored glasses.Real football <> fantasy football.Brees, Cutler, Rodgers, without even the slightest hesitation. Brees puts up great #s but throws 8,000 times a year. Let's not forget, he was so awesome the Chargers let him walk for Philip Rivers. Cutler and Rodgers... please.Peyton ManningBreesYep.Ben is a "top-3 QB"?!
Brady
Cutler
Rodgers
Which three of these five would you choose Ben over?
