What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Players union wants Eagles to cut Owens (1 Viewer)

2) He's acting like this is some loophole that teams are going to exploit

What scenarios can Upshaw come up with that would prompt more teams to start sending high paid veterans home for half the season WITH pay?
it is a loophole, because deactivation was not meant to be used as a punishment. which is exactly the scenario Upshaw is defending, using deactivation as a punishment, thus exceeding the 4 game rule.also your first point about rookies, the rookie would play if he was better, TO would play on any team. so the deactivation is obviously being used as a punishment, the eagles have said it, and everyone knows it.

also the talk of using him on special teams or keeping him off the field if the arbitrator rules against it, would I believe fall under the same argument, since TO would never be used like that, hence it is a form of punishment.

IMO, the arbitrator will force them do limit their punishment to 4 games, then the eagles either take him back or cut him. If I were the eagles, I would take him back, and TO either behaves or doesn't, whereupon they suspend him another 4 games. I don't see how the eagles lose, other than their pride and inability to spite him. Looks like a win-win. TO plays hard gets a contract with another team. Eagles gets a motivated top-flight WR that doesn't cause any trouble.
The Eagles don't want to activate T.O. He's not a better player than any of the other WRs on the team. He has better physical skills, but (in the coaches' opinion) he doesn't give the team the best chance to win.
Virtually every team has distractions in the form of players. YOU may believe that TOs distraction does not make him the best wide receiver on the Eagles but if Reid believes it, and that having TO off the field gives the Eagles a better chance to win, then he needs to be fired right now.Admitting a player is a distraction is drastically different than saying a player hurts a teams chance to win because of his (in)ability, or simply his presence, on the field.

I can't believe that anyone would think having TO on the field does NOT give the Eagles their best chance to win. The idea that the Eagles are sacrificing premium offensive talent, and thereforefore lowering their chances to win games, for locker room chemistry would be a fair assesment. But I think it foolish to say that the Eagles have a better chance to win with TO at home eating cheesy poofs on Sundays. :hophead:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
2) He's acting like this is some loophole that teams are going to exploit

What scenarios can Upshaw come up with that would prompt more teams to start sending high paid veterans home for half the season WITH pay?
it is a loophole, because deactivation was not meant to be used as a punishment. which is exactly the scenario Upshaw is defending, using deactivation as a punishment, thus exceeding the 4 game rule.also your first point about rookies, the rookie would play if he was better, TO would play on any team. so the deactivation is obviously being used as a punishment, the eagles have said it, and everyone knows it.

also the talk of using him on special teams or keeping him off the field if the arbitrator rules against it, would I believe fall under the same argument, since TO would never be used like that, hence it is a form of punishment.

IMO, the arbitrator will force them do limit their punishment to 4 games, then the eagles either take him back or cut him. If I were the eagles, I would take him back, and TO either behaves or doesn't, whereupon they suspend him another 4 games. I don't see how the eagles lose, other than their pride and inability to spite him. Looks like a win-win. TO plays hard gets a contract with another team. Eagles gets a motivated top-flight WR that doesn't cause any trouble.
Deactivation is meant to be used to deactivate players the team doesn't want to activate. The Eagles don't want to activate T.O. He's not a better player than any of the other WRs on the team. He has better physical skills, but (in the coaches' opinion) he doesn't give the team the best chance to win. He's a distraction.The coaches are allowed to play the guys they think give the team the best chance to win, and their judgment on that isn't reviewable by the league or the NFLPA.

T.O. probably has the right to attend practice and work out with the team. But no way does he have the right to be activated or to get playing time.
I wouldn't even go that far. If the Eagles feel his presence at practice is detrimental to the team, he does not have the "right" to be there.
After his 4 game suspension if the Eagles feel that TO's presence at practice is detrimental then their only recourse is to release him because there is a 4 game suspension limit on conduct deterimental to the team.
 
Maurile's post was more about a player's rights and coach's rights. That snip didn't do it justice IMO.

 
I thought Irvin said that..TO just agreed. TO did not bring the topic up.
Not to make this thread any longer, but this is the most stupid argument I have ever heard.So if I asked Bill Parcells if he thought Hitler was brilliant and he agreed would he not get fired? Agreeing with a statement is just as bad as making the statement itself.
 
And that's the Union's gripe. The most a team can suspend a player under the CBA is four games. They're going to claim this psuedo-inactive-suspension violates the spirit of the agreement.
Except that he is getting paid if he is just not starting. A team has a right to do whatever they want (play or not) as long as they are paying him.As another poster said, if a team can choose not to start a player because he sucks, why cant the not start him because he is an ####? If they are paying him what is the difference?
 
The Eagles have all kinds of latitude here. Even if the arbitrator rules that they must let TO back, they could just wait until the next time he whines about his groin and then put him on IR. They could have him practice by running laps all day.

 
T.O. to Denver would make that team instant favorites in the AFC alongside the Colts IMO. Shanahan would sign him for sure.
Denver GM, on the radio yesterday, said that the Broncos have no interest in TO this year.
The more I think about what happened, the more I think the Eagles dropped the ball. Their failure to capitulate on ANY level to keep their team a Superbowl contender is a huge failure on their part. We'll see how happy the Eagles fans are not being in the post season this year. Why? Because a guy feels betrayed by the team and lashes out immaturely? Should be a manageable problem IMO.
Yeah, it is the Eagles fault TO is a complete jerk and destroys team chemestry.
 
2) He's acting like this is some loophole that teams are going to exploit

What scenarios can Upshaw come up with that would prompt more teams to start sending high paid veterans home for half the season WITH pay?
it is a loophole, because deactivation was not meant to be used as a punishment. which is exactly the scenario Upshaw is defending, using deactivation as a punishment, thus exceeding the 4 game rule.also your first point about rookies, the rookie would play if he was better, TO would play on any team. so the deactivation is obviously being used as a punishment, the eagles have said it, and everyone knows it.

also the talk of using him on special teams or keeping him off the field if the arbitrator rules against it, would I believe fall under the same argument, since TO would never be used like that, hence it is a form of punishment.

IMO, the arbitrator will force them do limit their punishment to 4 games, then the eagles either take him back or cut him. If I were the eagles, I would take him back, and TO either behaves or doesn't, whereupon they suspend him another 4 games. I don't see how the eagles lose, other than their pride and inability to spite him. Looks like a win-win. TO plays hard gets a contract with another team. Eagles gets a motivated top-flight WR that doesn't cause any trouble.
Deactivation is meant to be used to deactivate players the team doesn't want to activate. The Eagles don't want to activate T.O. He's not a better player than any of the other WRs on the team. He has better physical skills, but (in the coaches' opinion) he doesn't give the team the best chance to win. He's a distraction.The coaches are allowed to play the guys they think give the team the best chance to win, and their judgment on that isn't reviewable by the league or the NFLPA.

T.O. probably has the right to attend practice and work out with the team. But no way does he have the right to be activated or to get playing time.
I don't know if there are any, but what about performance money? Wouldn't there be some kind of argument for Philly keeping TO from achieving his contract by not playing him? :shrug:

 
2) He's acting like this is some loophole that teams are going to exploit

What scenarios can Upshaw come up with that would prompt more teams to start sending high paid veterans home for half the season WITH pay?
it is a loophole, because deactivation was not meant to be used as a punishment. which is exactly the scenario Upshaw is defending, using deactivation as a punishment, thus exceeding the 4 game rule.also your first point about rookies, the rookie would play if he was better, TO would play on any team. so the deactivation is obviously being used as a punishment, the eagles have said it, and everyone knows it.

also the talk of using him on special teams or keeping him off the field if the arbitrator rules against it, would I believe fall under the same argument, since TO would never be used like that, hence it is a form of punishment.

IMO, the arbitrator will force them do limit their punishment to 4 games, then the eagles either take him back or cut him. If I were the eagles, I would take him back, and TO either behaves or doesn't, whereupon they suspend him another 4 games. I don't see how the eagles lose, other than their pride and inability to spite him. Looks like a win-win. TO plays hard gets a contract with another team. Eagles gets a motivated top-flight WR that doesn't cause any trouble.
Deactivation is meant to be used to deactivate players the team doesn't want to activate. The Eagles don't want to activate T.O. He's not a better player than any of the other WRs on the team. He has better physical skills, but (in the coaches' opinion) he doesn't give the team the best chance to win. He's a distraction.The coaches are allowed to play the guys they think give the team the best chance to win, and their judgment on that isn't reviewable by the league or the NFLPA.

T.O. probably has the right to attend practice and work out with the team. But no way does he have the right to be activated or to get playing time.
I wouldn't even go that far. If the Eagles feel his presence at practice is detrimental to the team, he does not have the "right" to be there.
This is not about rights, its about legal contracts that already exist between the player's union and the owners.
 
3. I don't disagree that TO has been a distraction here. I don't dispute that he stupidly keeps saying really dumb things. If I was an owner I would not want him as I don't think you can win with people like that. But with that being said, I think the punishment that the Eagles are trying to do here does not fit the crime. They purposely entered into an agreement where they knew they would rent TO for two years max. The big lump sum was NEVER going to be paid. The Eagles knew that TO was going to be a very unhappy camper if he did not renegotiate after year 1. In my opinion, the Eagles were never honest in this situation. They made it sound like a seven year deal, but had no intention of it going past two years. They do not offer long-term contracts to people over 30. To those that say TO signed the deal...That is correct, but if you remember he had no options. His previous agent screwed him by not filing paperwork, etc. He was first traded to Baltimore. He never got months to test the FA market, etc. So he signed the only deal he could. and he did so with TO's old agent. Once Drew saw the contract, he told TO you are never seeing any money after the 2nd year no matter how well you play. Again not trying to say TO is without fault, but the Eagles created part of this disaster with the first contract. I would be interested in seeing a vote of the players whether they would want TO back on their roster. Most commented after the long apology that he appeared sincere. Does anyone think TOs actions were worse than what Ricky Williams did? and the Dolphins gave him another chance.
I disagree with a lot of this.Saying TO never would have gotten his bonus after two years is nothing but speculation. Sure, the contract gave the team the option of a "two year rental", but had TO simply performed like he has when on the field and kept his mouth shut off the field, I think he would have gotten the bonus. Seriously, at that point he would clearly still be a top 3 WR in the game, assuming his performance on the field carried through the end of this season.Perhaps you are suggesting that the Eagles KNEW he would not behave off the field and thus knew they would not be willing to keep him around any more...? But that really isn't logical, since that would imply they never should have signed him in the first place.So I think your reasoning about the contract situation is flawed. And I also think you are understating TO's responsibility in the chain of events that led him to the current contract situation.Do I think TO's actions were worse than Williams' actions? Hard to say, but it's closer than you probably think. At least Williams never threw his teammates under the bus.Do I think a vote of the Eagles team would show they want him back? No. McNabb stood up last week and told the team "you're either with me or against me." IMO that means anyone voting for TO is voting against McNabb. I don't see such a vote coming out in TO's favor.
 
2) He's acting like this is some loophole that teams are going to exploit

What scenarios can Upshaw come up with that would prompt more teams to start sending high paid veterans home for half the season WITH pay?
it is a loophole, because deactivation was not meant to be used as a punishment. which is exactly the scenario Upshaw is defending, using deactivation as a punishment, thus exceeding the 4 game rule.also your first point about rookies, the rookie would play if he was better, TO would play on any team. so the deactivation is obviously being used as a punishment, the eagles have said it, and everyone knows it.

also the talk of using him on special teams or keeping him off the field if the arbitrator rules against it, would I believe fall under the same argument, since TO would never be used like that, hence it is a form of punishment.

IMO, the arbitrator will force them do limit their punishment to 4 games, then the eagles either take him back or cut him. If I were the eagles, I would take him back, and TO either behaves or doesn't, whereupon they suspend him another 4 games. I don't see how the eagles lose, other than their pride and inability to spite him. Looks like a win-win. TO plays hard gets a contract with another team. Eagles gets a motivated top-flight WR that doesn't cause any trouble.
Deactivation is meant to be used to deactivate players the team doesn't want to activate. The Eagles don't want to activate T.O. He's not a better player than any of the other WRs on the team. He has better physical skills, but (in the coaches' opinion) he doesn't give the team the best chance to win. He's a distraction.The coaches are allowed to play the guys they think give the team the best chance to win, and their judgment on that isn't reviewable by the league or the NFLPA.

T.O. probably has the right to attend practice and work out with the team. But no way does he have the right to be activated or to get playing time.
I wouldn't even go that far. If the Eagles feel his presence at practice is detrimental to the team, he does not have the "right" to be there.
This is not about rights, its about legal contracts that already exist between the player's union and the owners.
People have contract rights too, Nimrod.
 
2) He's acting like this is some loophole that teams are going to exploit

What scenarios can Upshaw come up with that would prompt more teams to start sending high paid veterans home for half the season WITH pay?
it is a loophole, because deactivation was not meant to be used as a punishment. which is exactly the scenario Upshaw is defending, using deactivation as a punishment, thus exceeding the 4 game rule.also your first point about rookies, the rookie would play if he was better, TO would play on any team. so the deactivation is obviously being used as a punishment, the eagles have said it, and everyone knows it.

also the talk of using him on special teams or keeping him off the field if the arbitrator rules against it, would I believe fall under the same argument, since TO would never be used like that, hence it is a form of punishment.

IMO, the arbitrator will force them do limit their punishment to 4 games, then the eagles either take him back or cut him. If I were the eagles, I would take him back, and TO either behaves or doesn't, whereupon they suspend him another 4 games. I don't see how the eagles lose, other than their pride and inability to spite him. Looks like a win-win. TO plays hard gets a contract with another team. Eagles gets a motivated top-flight WR that doesn't cause any trouble.
Deactivation is meant to be used to deactivate players the team doesn't want to activate. The Eagles don't want to activate T.O. He's not a better player than any of the other WRs on the team. He has better physical skills, but (in the coaches' opinion) he doesn't give the team the best chance to win. He's a distraction.The coaches are allowed to play the guys they think give the team the best chance to win, and their judgment on that isn't reviewable by the league or the NFLPA.

T.O. probably has the right to attend practice and work out with the team. But no way does he have the right to be activated or to get playing time.
I wouldn't even go that far. If the Eagles feel his presence at practice is detrimental to the team, he does not have the "right" to be there.
This is not about rights, its about legal contracts that already exist between the player's union and the owners.
People have contract rights too, Nimrod.
Nimrod? That's the best you got?My point was that "contract rights" are written into the contracts themselves. So produce the contracts than talk about rights, what you are doing now is simply talking ####.

 
My take on this whole thing:

The Eagles are violating the spirit of the CBA by trying to both suspend him and then keep him away from all team functions going forward after the suspension. Hence the grievance.

If he serves the maximum suspension according to the CBA, then the team really has two options:

1. Allow him to come back to the team (or)

2. Cut him

No one disagrees that the team can make him inactive every week. That is their right. They can also ask the player to stay home while they pay him (Keyshawn Johnson). But if the player decides he wants to attend all the team meetings, use the whirlpool and workout with the team, I believe he has that right.

I also think the Eagles gave him one suspension and then turned around and added another one after they did not like the depth of his apology. That likely won't fly either.

Don't think for a minute this is NOT a huge CBA issue going forward. Players already don't have guaranteed money. Now they also could be sent home for up to 4 games for conduct detrimental to the team. How many times do we see a player fired up on the sidelines, or things get heated in practice. The Eagles are saying he parked in handicapped parking places, etc. Do these things qualify for the 4 games, etc? What about an injured player. Can a team state something like this and not have to pay somebody that they won't be able to use, etc?

This is likely the reason that this was CAPPED at 4 games maximum. The CBA wants to make sure that owners don't use this to keep finances in order on under-performing players, etc.

When all the smoke clears, I think TO will receive a 1 to 2 game suspension without pay. Since this will be determined on the 18th, he will effectively be cleared to return to practice.

I think if the Eagles create a separate time for practice, exclude him from meetings, etc this will be grieved again with the outcome that the Eagles can not do this. He has the right to use participate as a team member according to the CBA.

The Eagles are likely going to have to make a decision. Is TO being around the club too much of a distraction? If so they are going to need to cut him. If they do not want to do that (because of cap problems, not wanting someone this talented on another roster, etc) then they will need to suck it up and deal with him at their facilities and their meetings. They negotiated this CBA and must abide by it as well. Failure to do this is really going to screw up negotions going forward with the players.

When all the dust settles, I think we will see TO practicing in a Eagles uniform. I doubt he will play again for them, but stranger things have happened.

------------------------------

Some other points:

1. I have heard some people say: In the real world, a company has this right. That is simply not true. If you do something that is deemed "conduct detrimental to your job", you are going to be either sent home for a specified period or fired. If you are sent home and come back, then you are free to work again after serving the penalty. If they fire you, you are free to seek employment elsewhere(provided you don't have a no-compete agreement). And no-competes rarely hold up in court. people have a right to earn a living.

2. For those that say they are paying him, so this is only the one suspension, the union will successfully argue that they are applying the team rules differently to TO. He should be allowed all the same priviliges as other CBA member on a roster. And that includes the whirlpool, access to the team doctor, film review, team meetings, getting a locker back etc. And if I am TO, I would want to participate in film review, game plans, meetings, etc because these things could be the very reason some other NFC team gives him a contract.

3. I don't disagree that TO has been a distraction here. I don't dispute that he stupidly keeps saying really dumb things. If I was an owner I would not want him as I don't think you can win with people like that. But with that being said, I think the punishment that the Eagles are trying to do here does not fit the crime. They purposely entered into an agreement where they knew they would rent TO for two years max. The big lump sum was NEVER going to be paid. The Eagles knew that TO was going to be a very unhappy camper if he did not renegotiate after year 1. In my opinion, the Eagles were never honest in this situation. They made it sound like a seven year deal, but had no intention of it going past two years. They do not offer long-term contracts to people over 30. To those that say TO signed the deal...That is correct, but if you remember he had no options. His previous agent screwed him by not filing paperwork, etc. He was first traded to Baltimore. He never got months to test the FA market, etc. So he signed the only deal he could. and he did so with TO's old agent. Once Drew saw the contract, he told TO you are never seeing any money after the 2nd year no matter how well you play. Again not trying to say TO is without fault, but the Eagles created part of this disaster with the first contract. I would be interested in seeing a vote of the players whether they would want TO back on their roster. Most commented after the long apology that he appeared sincere. Does anyone think TOs actions were worse than what Ricky Williams did? and the Dolphins gave him another chance.

4. From what I have seen with how the Eagles cut everyone over 30 and how they are pushing so hard on this situation, I think there will be backlash from FA players wanting to play there. Their formula has been successful to date, but I could see it backfiring bigtime if the players do not trust management. and I think that's exactly what is brewing here.
All respect Dodds, you miss the mark on this passionate diatribe in a multitude of ways.1) In my opinion, you are ABSOLUTELY right that the Eagles can't keep TO from the facilities or practice sessions. That said, do you honestly think the Eagles won't call that bluff? Let's say the Special Master says..."either you let him practice and study film or you cut him"...the Eagles will ABSOLUTELY allow that and one of three outcomes will occur. A) He will be the good soldier, the team will ignore his presence, and the time will pass for the remainder of the season as he collects checks and is deactivated. B) He comes back and the team makes it VERY uncomfortable for him...the document EVERY SINGLE potential violation (late for a meeting, check...too much time in the whirlpool? check...and TO will undoubtedly react poorly and be suspended AGAIN. C) They invite him back calling his bluff and he says..."I'm not going to give my heart and soul to this team if they won't play me" and he goes home to ATL and collects his remaining game checks while doing situps waiting for his next big contract in 2006.

2) As to your comments about the Eagles being dishonest in their intentions, not only are your comments off the mark, they belie everything in this teams history under Reid/Banner. Are you forgetting how TO got to the team in the first place? He was traded to the RAVENS and TO begged out and cried foul. The Eagles were under no obligation to to acquire him and yet still A) made no secret that they did want him and would be willing to negotiate, B) had a plan in place (including giving up players and draft picks) to facilitate the trade. Oh, and then they went ahead and ripped up his EXISTING deal and gave him a NEW ONE including a ENORMOUS roster bonus.

2a) This notion that it was a 2-year rental? Certainly that's what many of us like to call a "sound business decision." The Eagles knew TO's history and were aware of his age, so OF COURSE they're going to put the financial onus on Owens to earn the rest of his contract. Guess what? ALL THE GREAT TEAMS DO THAT. If you want to get technical, every single player in the league is playing for a series of ONE YEAR DEALS WITH A TEAM OPTION. The difference is that most teams are so tight against the cap and not forward thinking that they load huge SIGNING bonuses into long term deals so effectively they can't cut a player if the cause presents itself. Again, the Eagles gave TO a huge ROSTER bonus so that they wouldn't be stuck with a huge cap hit. But where you REALLY miss the point is suggesting that they never intended to give him this roster bonus in the first place.

--- Let's say you're right for a second...when they constructed this deal they had no intentions of every paying him that $$$. That's STANDARD PROCEDURE. Teams constantly backend load cap hits for even their best players with the /wink wink/ understanding that once those later years come due, either both sides will work out a new extension OR the player will be subject to release. EVERY SINGLE team does this all the time.

--- But the REAL situation is that the Eagles would most certainly have exercised that roster bonus if things had gone well. After that Super Bowl, I have ZERO doubt that the team was not only open to the idea but was thinking about giving TO a new long term deal in the process. HE and ROSENHAUS killed that with their year to date shenanigans. Why would the Eagles not want to keep TO around if this year had been yet another successful year? You seem to imply that your skepticism as to whether they ever intended to give him roster bonus relates to some long-standing history of how they operate...yet, history says QUITE the different story.

J. Trotter and H. Douglas were both highly productive leaders on Philly's D...and both were let go from the team for different reasons. Few negotiations were as acrimonious as Trotter's were and yet...THEY BOTH CAME BACK TO THE EAGLES FOR VETERAN MINIMUMS. Does that sound like a franchise that doesn't treat its players right? Why on Earth would these two guys actually come back to a team that publicly said, "you're not worth what you think you're worth"...hmmm, do you think it's because maybe, just maybe the Eagles and everything they do is FIRST CLASS? That's certainly how Douglas and Trotter saw it. :yes:

Donovan McNabb, David Akers, Brian Westbrook, Greg Lewis, Lito Sheppard, Sheldon Brown, Brian Dawkins, Tra Thomas, Artis Hicks, Hank Fraley, N.D. Kalu, Sam Rayburn...what do these guys have in common? They all got long-term extensions before they hit free agency. And you think that doesn't paint a picture of taking care of your own?
2) He's acting like this is some loophole that teams are going to exploit

What scenarios can Upshaw come up with that would prompt more teams to start sending high paid veterans home for half the season WITH pay?
it is a loophole, because deactivation was not meant to be used as a punishment. which is exactly the scenario Upshaw is defending, using deactivation as a punishment, thus exceeding the 4 game rule.also your first point about rookies, the rookie would play if he was better, TO would play on any team. so the deactivation is obviously being used as a punishment, the eagles have said it, and everyone knows it.

also the talk of using him on special teams or keeping him off the field if the arbitrator rules against it, would I believe fall under the same argument, since TO would never be used like that, hence it is a form of punishment.

IMO, the arbitrator will force them do limit their punishment to 4 games, then the eagles either take him back or cut him. If I were the eagles, I would take him back, and TO either behaves or doesn't, whereupon they suspend him another 4 games. I don't see how the eagles lose, other than their pride and inability to spite him. Looks like a win-win. TO plays hard gets a contract with another team. Eagles gets a motivated top-flight WR that doesn't cause any trouble.
Deactivation is meant to be used to deactivate players the team doesn't want to activate. The Eagles don't want to activate T.O. He's not a better player than any of the other WRs on the team. He has better physical skills, but (in the coaches' opinion) he doesn't give the team the best chance to win. He's a distraction.The coaches are allowed to play the guys they think give the team the best chance to win, and their judgment on that isn't reviewable by the league or the NFLPA.

T.O. probably has the right to attend practice and work out with the team. But no way does he have the right to be activated or to get playing time.
:goodposting: as usual
 
T.O. to Denver would make that team instant favorites in the AFC alongside the Colts IMO.  Shanahan would sign him for sure. 
Denver GM, on the radio yesterday, said that the Broncos have no interest in TO this year.
The more I think about what happened, the more I think the Eagles dropped the ball.  Their failure to capitulate on ANY level to keep their team a Superbowl contender is a huge failure on their part.  We'll see how happy the Eagles fans are not being in the post season this year.  Why?  Because a guy feels betrayed by the team and lashes out immaturely?  Should be a manageable problem IMO.
Yeah, it is the Eagles fault TO is a complete jerk and destroys team chemestry.
in regards to supe chances and team-well in a way yes it is, in a small way. This isn't the first TO issue. They should have been prepared(and maybe they are and this is the plan) don't ya think?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh...and one more :rant:

From what I have seen with how the Eagles cut everyone over 30 and how they are pushing so hard on this situation, I think there will be backlash from FA players wanting to play there. Their formula has been successful to date, but I could see it backfiring bigtime if the players do not trust management. and I think that's exactly what is brewing here.
Right...so:Great coaching

Money to spend
State-of-the-art facilities
Loyal fan base
Competitive corps of players signed long termwon't be enough to lure free agents because of how we treated T.O.? :lmao:

 
2) He's acting like this is some loophole that teams are going to exploit

What scenarios can Upshaw come up with that would prompt more teams to start sending high paid veterans home for half the season WITH pay?
it is a loophole, because deactivation was not meant to be used as a punishment. which is exactly the scenario Upshaw is defending, using deactivation as a punishment, thus exceeding the 4 game rule.also your first point about rookies, the rookie would play if he was better, TO would play on any team. so the deactivation is obviously being used as a punishment, the eagles have said it, and everyone knows it.

also the talk of using him on special teams or keeping him off the field if the arbitrator rules against it, would I believe fall under the same argument, since TO would never be used like that, hence it is a form of punishment.

IMO, the arbitrator will force them do limit their punishment to 4 games, then the eagles either take him back or cut him. If I were the eagles, I would take him back, and TO either behaves or doesn't, whereupon they suspend him another 4 games. I don't see how the eagles lose, other than their pride and inability to spite him. Looks like a win-win. TO plays hard gets a contract with another team. Eagles gets a motivated top-flight WR that doesn't cause any trouble.
Deactivation is meant to be used to deactivate players the team doesn't want to activate. The Eagles don't want to activate T.O. He's not a better player than any of the other WRs on the team. He has better physical skills, but (in the coaches' opinion) he doesn't give the team the best chance to win. He's a distraction.The coaches are allowed to play the guys they think give the team the best chance to win, and their judgment on that isn't reviewable by the league or the NFLPA.

T.O. probably has the right to attend practice and work out with the team. But no way does he have the right to be activated or to get playing time.
I wouldn't even go that far. If the Eagles feel his presence at practice is detrimental to the team, he does not have the "right" to be there.
This is not about rights, its about legal contracts that already exist between the player's union and the owners.
People have contract rights too, Nimrod.
Nimrod? That's the best you got?My point was that "contract rights" are written into the contracts themselves. So produce the contracts than talk about rights, what you are doing now is simply talking ####.
#### in, #### out.If you're going to attempt to correct others, you should learn to be more articulate.

 
Christo, you are out of line.He's right and you are wrong. You don't need to call people names, especially when you are making stuff up.This is a contractual discussion.

 
Christo, you are out of line.

He's right and you are wrong. You don't need to call people names, especially when you are making stuff up.

This is a contractual discussion.
Christo is right, but he is also out of line.
 
Did Upshaw take the same position when the Bucs did the same thing to Keyshawn a couple of years ago? Just curious because I don't recall. If he did then he's being consistent but if he didn't you have to wonder why he's making an issue here when he didn't then.
He didn't have to. Keyshawn never filed a grievence with the NFLPA.
Yeah if i remeber corectly it was voluntary on Meshawns part.
 
Lets say that the arbitrater rules that TO is allowed back to the teams facilities? Which I say is probably about 75% chance of happening based on what has been discussed.I personally think that this could work out for both. Lets face it the Eagles are a better team with TO. He and McNabb may not get along off the field, but on the field they do perform well. And it is the Eagles goal to make the playoffs and win the SB. The problem has not been TO on the field it has been the defence that has not been able to stop anyone this year.TO will be on his best behavior so that way he does not get suspended again and also to set up his contract next year. And he will put up solid numbers. I would look for Drew to advise TO just to keep his mouth shut till the end of the season. To me it all depends on how committed the Eagles are to winning this year. If they want to WIN this year they will let TO come back and not waive him. And lets face it TO has to play ball till the end of the season or it will cost him and Drew $$$$ for next year.

 
Lets say that the arbitrater rules that TO is allowed back to the teams facilities? Which I say is probably about 75% chance of happening based on what has been discussed.

I personally think that this could work out for both.

Lets face it the Eagles are a better team with TO. He and McNabb may not get along off the field, but on the field they do perform well. And it is the Eagles goal to make the playoffs and win the SB. The problem has not been TO on the field it has been the defence that has not been able to stop anyone this year.

TO will be on his best behavior so that way he does not get suspended again and also to set up his contract next year. And he will put up solid numbers. I would look for Drew to advise TO just to keep his mouth shut till the end of the season.

To me it all depends on how committed the Eagles are to winning this year. If they want to WIN this year they will let TO come back and not waive him. And lets face it TO has to play ball till the end of the season or it will cost him and Drew $$$$ for next year.
If the Eagles felt TO's presence in the locker room and on the field would allow them to WIN more games this year, he wouldn't be gone for the year. We as fans may disagree with their analysis, but there is really ZERO question that Reid and Banner and Lurie believe that the Eagles without TO (and his distractions) are a better team THIS YEAR.
 
Now the Rev. Jesse Jackson and Ralph Nader are jumping into the fray. I have a feeling the Eagles will have their hand "forced" and will either have to activate TO or release him:

PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- The Rev. Jesse Jackson called the Philadelphia Eagles' punishment of Terrell Owens "much too severe."

Jackson said in a statement released Friday that Owens could have been more professional when he publicly complained about his contract, his team and the Eagles' organization.

But Jackson said Owens' suspension without pay for four games and deactivation for the rest of the season is "much too severe for the charge" and hurts the athlete's NFL career at its height.

The civil rights activist said the level of punishment could have been warranted if Owens had been caught shaving points, selling drugs, carrying a gun or fighting fans without sufficient restraint.

"This does not warrant a one-year ban from the game," Jackson said, adding that the Eagles should release Owens to the open market or free agency if they no longer want to associate with him.

Ralph Nader, a consumer activist and former presidential candidate, has already called for the suspension to be rescinded.

Owens was suspended last week after he said in an interview that the Eagles showed "a lack of class" for not publicly recognizing his 100th career touchdown catch, and that the team would be better off with Green Bay's Brett Favre as quarterback. He has since apologized.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/foot...ex.html?cnn=yes

 
The more i read about this, the more I begin to believe the following:I think the Eagles thought that TO was either faking or over-stating his injury. With important divisional matchups coming up, they felt he was holding the team hostage to his contract demand. It's not like they could say , C'mon TO, get out there and tough it out for the team. Knowing he would not come back next year, there's no reason for him to risk aggravating any injury. The fact that he risked his career to come back for the SB, gives him instant toughness credibility, making it difficult to take the position that he's unwilling to play hurt.The Eagles could not continue, knwing that an any moment - perhaps the most inopprtune moment, that TO might pull the plug on them. They were uneilling to budge on the contract, so the only choice left was to be done with him. They decided to Keyshawn him. :tinfoilhat:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
No..what this is all about is simple insubordination....Andy Reid and the Eagles organization expects its employees to act in a fitting manner that they have no doubt outlined and left no doubt about....When Rosenhaus and TO began their campaign for a new contract....it frustrated Owens that the eagles would not budge an inch...What followed was TO's backlash to that...alienating teammates...talking back to the head coach...telling the offensive coordinator not to speak directly to him...late for team meetings...failure to follow team rules regarding mandatory autograph sessions...parking in coaches parking spots...not adhering to team rules regarding attire....constantly brewing controversy with disparaging remarks about both the organization and the starting quarterback whenever a microphone was put in front of his face...trying to pick a fight with your own teammates in the locker room by asking if anyone wants a piece of him...I'm sure im forgetting others but those are what come to mind....the eagles increasingly warned Owens where his behavior was headed and he still couldnt stop his own destructive course....the eagles already at the end of their rope with him....gave him instructions on what he had to do to remain on the team....and in his final act of defiance....he yet again did not do what his employer required of him....This was a long procession of increasingly offensive behavior on Owens part that he was warned about at every step of the way...no one is to blame here excpet TO. Just think about how badly the eagles organization must feel about him for them to take this drastic step...everyone is complaining about the punishment without really thinking of how bad it must have gotten for them to go that route...I also find TO calling the eagles classless incredibly ironic.

 
Now the Rev. Jesse Jackson and Ralph Nader are jumping into the fray. I have a feeling the Eagles will have their hand "forced" and will either have to activate TO or release him:

PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- The Rev. Jesse Jackson called the Philadelphia Eagles' punishment of Terrell Owens "much too severe."

Jackson said in a statement released Friday that Owens could have been more professional when he publicly complained about his contract, his team and the Eagles' organization.

But Jackson said Owens' suspension without pay for four games and deactivation for the rest of the season is "much too severe for the charge" and hurts the athlete's NFL career at its height.

The civil rights activist said the level of punishment could have been warranted if Owens had been caught shaving points, selling drugs, carrying a gun or fighting fans without sufficient restraint.

"This does not warrant a one-year ban from the game," Jackson said, adding that the Eagles should release Owens to the open market or free agency if they no longer want to associate with him.

Ralph Nader, a consumer activist and former presidential candidate, has already called for the suspension to be rescinded.

Owens was suspended last week after he said in an interview that the Eagles showed "a lack of class" for not publicly recognizing his 100th career touchdown catch, and that the team would be better off with Green Bay's Brett Favre as quarterback. He has since apologized.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/foot...ex.html?cnn=yes
Because Nader and Jackson decided to weigh in on their worthless opinions on the matter...you think that somehow outweighs the CBA, Contract Law, labor laws and everything else already discussed ad naseaum here in this thread? Sheesh....
 
No..what this is all about is simple insubordination....Andy Reid and the Eagles organization expects its employees to act in a fitting manner that they have no doubt outlined and left no doubt about....When Rosenhaus and TO began their campaign for a new contract....it frustrated Owens that the eagles would not budge an inch...What followed was TO's backlash to that...alienating teammates...talking back to the head coach...telling the offensive coordinator not to speak directly to him...late for team meetings...failure to follow team rules regarding mandatory autograph sessions...parking in coaches parking spots...not adhering to team rules regarding attire....constantly brewing controversy with disparaging remarks about both the organization and the starting quarterback whenever a microphone was put in front of his face...trying to pick a fight with your own teammates in the locker room by asking if anyone wants a piece of him...I'm sure im forgetting others but those are what come to mind....the eagles increasingly warned Owens where his behavior was headed and he still couldnt stop his own destructive course....the eagles already at the end of their rope with him....gave him instructions on what he had to do to remain on the team....and in his final act of defiance....he yet again did not do what his employer required of him....

This was a long procession of increasingly offensive behavior on Owens part that he was warned about at every step of the way...no one is to blame here excpet TO. Just think about how badly the eagles organization must feel about him for them to take this drastic step...everyone is complaining about the punishment without really thinking of how bad it must have gotten for them to go that route...

I also find TO calling the eagles classless incredibly ironic.
:goodposting:
 
All respect Dodds, you miss the mark on this passionate diatribe in a multitude of ways.

1) In my opinion, you are ABSOLUTELY right that the Eagles can't keep TO from the facilities or practice sessions. That said, do you honestly think the Eagles won't call that bluff? Let's say the Special Master says..."either you let him practice and study film or you cut him"...the Eagles will ABSOLUTELY allow that and one of three outcomes will occur. A) He will be the good soldier, the team will ignore his presence, and the time will pass for the remainder of the season as he collects checks and is deactivated. B) He comes back and the team makes it VERY uncomfortable for him...the document EVERY SINGLE potential violation (late for a meeting, check...too much time in the whirlpool? check...and TO will undoubtedly react poorly and be suspended AGAIN. C) They invite him back calling his bluff and he says..."I'm not going to give my heart and soul to this team if they won't play me" and he goes home to ATL and collects his remaining game checks while doing situps waiting for his next big contract in 2006.

2) As to your comments about the Eagles being dishonest in their intentions, not only are your comments off the mark, they belie everything in this teams history under Reid/Banner. Are you forgetting how TO got to the team in the first place? He was traded to the RAVENS and TO begged out and cried foul. The Eagles were under no obligation to to acquire him and yet still A) made no secret that they did want him and would be willing to negotiate, B) had a plan in place (including giving up players and draft picks) to facilitate the trade. Oh, and then they went ahead and ripped up his EXISTING deal and gave him a NEW ONE including a ENORMOUS roster bonus.

2a) This notion that it was a 2-year rental? Certainly that's what many of us like to call a "sound business decision." The Eagles knew TO's history and were aware of his age, so OF COURSE they're going to put the financial onus on Owens to earn the rest of his contract. Guess what? ALL THE GREAT TEAMS DO THAT. If you want to get technical, every single player in the league is playing for a series of ONE YEAR DEALS WITH A TEAM OPTION. The difference is that most teams are so tight against the cap and not forward thinking that they load huge SIGNING bonuses into long term deals so effectively they can't cut a player if the cause presents itself. Again, the Eagles gave TO a huge ROSTER bonus so that they wouldn't be stuck with a huge cap hit. But where you REALLY miss the point is suggesting that they never intended to give him this roster bonus in the first place.

--- Let's say you're right for a second...when they constructed this deal they had no intentions of every paying him that $$$. That's STANDARD PROCEDURE. Teams constantly backend load cap hits for even their best players with the /wink wink/ understanding that once those later years come due, either both sides will work out a new extension OR the player will be subject to release. EVERY SINGLE team does this all the time.

--- But the REAL situation is that the Eagles would most certainly have exercised that roster bonus if things had gone well. After that Super Bowl, I have ZERO doubt that the team was not only open to the idea but was thinking about giving TO a new long term deal in the process. HE and ROSENHAUS killed that with their year to date shenanigans. Why would the Eagles not want to keep TO around if this year had been yet another successful year? You seem to imply that your skepticism as to whether they ever intended to give him roster bonus relates to some long-standing history of how they operate...yet, history says QUITE the different story.

J. Trotter and H. Douglas were both highly productive leaders on Philly's D...and both were let go from the team for different reasons. Few negotiations were as acrimonious as Trotter's were and yet...THEY BOTH CAME BACK TO THE EAGLES FOR VETERAN MINIMUMS. Does that sound like a franchise that doesn't treat its players right? Why on Earth would these two guys actually come back to a team that publicly said, "you're not worth what you think you're worth"...hmmm, do you think it's because maybe, just maybe the Eagles and everything they do is FIRST CLASS? That's certainly how Douglas and Trotter saw it. :yes:

Donovan McNabb, David Akers, Brian Westbrook, Greg Lewis, Lito Sheppard, Sheldon Brown, Brian Dawkins, Tra Thomas, Artis Hicks, Hank Fraley, N.D. Kalu, Sam Rayburn...what do these guys have in common? They all got long-term extensions before they hit free agency. And you think that doesn't paint a picture of taking care of your own?
:goodposting: :own3d:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If I was an owner I would not want him as I don't think you can win with people like that.
DavidI agree with your post and your premise, except this point. I'm quoting it because I've seen it a lot and I completely disagree.

The Eagles represented the NFC in the Superbowl last year, and Owens had a huge game. They arguably would have won the game if McNabb had been able to run a two minute drill.

In fact, his individual performance throughout the 2004 season was a big part of their first round bye and home field throughout the playoffs. He's also the reason the 49ers stayed in contention with Jeff Garcia at QB, which becomes even more evident now that we've seen how Garcia and the 9ers have fared without Owens.

Sure, it would be nice if he was an upstanding citizen. But the fact that he isn't doesn't diminish the fact that he makes any team an instant playoff contender and he makes a good team an instant Superbowl contender.

 
If the Eagles felt TO's presence in the locker room and on the field would allow them to WIN more games this year, he wouldn't be gone for the year. We as fans may disagree with their analysis, but there is really ZERO question that Reid and Banner and Lurie believe that the Eagles without TO (and his distractions) are a better team THIS YEAR.
It's also possible (and IMO more likely) that the team realizes they will be worse this year without Owens, but making an example of Owens this year may help them with discipline in this and later years, and will prevent the hangover effect that they would have had in 2006 if they let Owens go in the offseason. If you considered 2005 a lost season, and/or felt that you still had a shot without Owens, you might be willing to make that trade even though it makes you worse this year.
 
Sure, it would be nice if he was an upstanding citizen. But the fact that he isn't doesn't diminish the fact that he makes any team an instant playoff contender and he makes a good team an instant Superbowl contender.
I don't agree with that and I think it vastly overstates his impact. There are plenty of teams that would not become playoff contenders with the addition on a premiere WR. Houston, Green Bay, Tennessee, plenty of others.
 
Sure, it would be nice if he was an upstanding citizen.  But the fact that he isn't doesn't diminish the fact that he makes any team an instant playoff contender and he makes a good team an instant Superbowl contender.
I don't agree with that and I think it vastly overstates his impact. There are plenty of teams that would not become playoff contenders with the addition on a premiere WR. Houston, Green Bay, Tennessee, plenty of others.
OK, I disagree, but I'll gladly say that the FACT is he HAS helped turn a playoff contender into a Superbowl team, and he HAS helped turn a bad team with a bad QB into a playoff team whose QB had a good statistical season. My OPINION is that he would have made Green Bay an instant playoff team and possibly a Superbowl team if he'd played from game one this year, and while Houston and Tennessee wouldn't have a shot at the division, they'd at least be a lot closer to a wild card game with him than without him.

 
I say Lift his suspension.Dress him.and Sit him. It would be worth the 800K to see hims sulk on the bench all year long. all the talent in the world with a MUSH filled brain.

 
I say Lift his suspension.

Dress him.

and Sit him. It would be worth the 800K to see hims sulk on the bench all year long. all the talent in the world with a MUSH filled brain.
That is sort of what I would do.I would also put his ### on the the kickoff and punt coverage teams and I would have him returning kickoffs and punts (hey, look at what Koren did yesterday, maybe TO could return a couple of kicks for TDs and get back in the team's good graces); and if he refused to play I would suspend him again and again all year.

 
I gotta believe the Eagles initial request to slam dunk TO was generated to the Front office first. figuring it had to be about the money initially. Asking Lurie to swallow an aufully big nickle to prove a point would require ALOT of persuasion. Then I'm rather sure that the Eagles have some very well paid Contract Lawyers on retainer that made sure they crossed their T's and dotted their I's before they pulled the plug on his season.

Nader and Jackson are Grandstanding news hounds (IMO) that perpetually are looking for a reason to get in front of the camera and plead the cause of the little guy against The Man. How many guys get boned by Big Brother on a daily basis and yet not a peep from either of these two. Why? No news crews flocking to the story before hand.

When's the last time either of these two yahoos went quietly to help someone out? I can't remember. Seems there's always a press release and an on-the-evening-news interview or shot of them sitting and "negotiating".

Not to say they don't believe in their cause of the month, but I do doubt their ability to do it "behind the scenes".

Don't know if this was initiated by TO, Rosenhaus or the Jackson/Nader ca

mps but it's clearly damage control.

TO knows he's done. He and Joe Pesci are posturing him for next years negotiations. If he come's off as a self centered cry baby then he's liable to entertain fewer offers for a lot less money. But if he positions himself with the NFLPA, Nader, Jackson and a host of other yet to appear do gooders, he's making himself out to be the little guy being roughed up by the big bully.

Sad thing is, if he had kept his mouth shut and put up the numbers he's capable of, and win the Super Bowl or not, the Eagles had no problems with him, he's gets a pay raise either during the season or after. And probably Marvin Harrison type $$.

No way this was a knee jerk reaction by the Eagles. I figure it was something they probably knew was coming since Camp and did everything by the book to make sure when/if they did do it, they did it right.

Long winded , :soap: I know, but I had toget my :2cents: in

 
I say Lift his suspension.

Dress him.

and Sit him. It would be worth the 800K to see hims sulk on the bench all year long. all the talent in the world with a MUSH filled brain.
That is sort of what I would do.I would also put his ### on the the kickoff and punt coverage teams and I would have him returning kickoffs and punts (hey, look at what Koren did yesterday, maybe TO could return a couple of kicks for TDs and get back in the team's good graces); and if he refused to play I would suspend him again and again all year.
The eagles do not want him around the organization and the players....that is why they have gone this route.....a lot of suggestions here are petty spiteful remarks on how best to screw TO over...and thats not what eagles are doing....if he's going to be allowed to be around the team....he's going to play....but they have determined that his antics and the distractions he's causing outweigh what he brings on the field at this point...and that's why this is happening.
 
Are you forgetting how TO got to the team in the first place? He was traded to the RAVENS and TO begged out and cried foul.
:goodposting: :own3d:
Prehaps you are forgetting how he ended up there. His old agent screwed him by not filing the contract papers properly and got screwed out of being an UNRESTRICTED FA.
 
I say Lift his suspension.

Dress him.

and Sit him. It would be worth the 800K to see hims sulk on the bench all year long. all the talent in the world with a MUSH filled brain.
That is sort of what I would do.I would also put his ### on the the kickoff and punt coverage teams and I would have him returning kickoffs and punts (hey, look at what Koren did yesterday, maybe TO could return a couple of kicks for TDs and get back in the team's good graces); and if he refused to play I would suspend him again and again all year.
:goodposting: Now this is thinking. Good job.

The union cannot tell Reid how to coach his team. This is exactly how to use him if they want to

(A) try to humble him

(B) utilize his talent while keeping him away from McNabb

© tell the union to shove it - "This is OUR team"

(D) Keep TO from helping other teams

 
I say Lift his suspension.

Dress him.

and Sit him. It would be worth the 800K to see hims sulk on the bench all year long. all the talent in the world with a MUSH filled brain.
That is sort of what I would do.I would also put his ### on the the kickoff and punt coverage teams and I would have him returning kickoffs and punts (hey, look at what Koren did yesterday, maybe TO could return a couple of kicks for TDs and get back in the team's good graces); and if he refused to play I would suspend him again and again all year.
:goodposting: Now this is thinking. Good job.

The union cannot tell Reid how to coach his team. This is exactly how to use him if they want to

(A) try to humble him

(B) utilize his talent while keeping him away from McNabb

© tell the union to shove it - "This is OUR team"

(D) Keep TO from helping other teams
I think as was discussed here or in one of countless Owens threads, this would make the Eagles appear with egg on their face. The proper response is to do as they did until a judge says differently. It serves no purpose to punish someone a 2nd time which is what you're promoting.It is also possible Philly fans would be unhappy and feel they paid money to see the best players play and are entitled to that.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top