TO didn't know the plays? (1 Viewer)

[bostonfred]

Owens was tried in a kangaroo court in the press and it's framed so many people's opinions of him that people are not only implying he shouldn't be in the hall of fame, but that he's not even worth having on a roster.

FWIW, my opinion that Owens isn't worth having on a roster does not come from reading anything in the press. It comes from having read the arbitrator's decision two years ago, in which he describes in meticulous detail (sometimes by quoting Andy Reid's letters to Owens) all the ways in which Owens was such a huge distraction and had such a negative influence on the team.

I read that. Did the arbitrator's decision state that Owens was doing this as a negotiating ploy? He had clearly stated before the season that, while he wouldn't hold out and hurt the team, he was going to be a pain in the ### to the coaches to try to force their hand to either give him an extension, or gain his release. Let's set aside the fact that it was a terrible negotiating tactic. If this is not his typical behavior, then why would you let it decide whether you want him on your team in 2007?

First of all, yes, the arbitrator made clear to my reading that both Owens and Rosenhaus stated that the attitude was meant to generate leverage in contract negotiations. For example:

Owens skipped a mandatory team mini-camp in late April and, shortly thereafter, announced his appearance at the pre-season training camp on a “satisfactory? re-negotiation of the contract.[7] Rosenhaus and Owens were unequivocal in letting the team know that Owens’ happiness was tied toward renegotiating the contract. Coach Andy Reid testified as to their communications to him:

A. [Drew and Terrell said]… that things weren’t going to be pretty if he did come to camp. Somewhere in there, you know, T.O. mentioned that he knew how I was wired and the discipline that I asked of the Players, and that I wouldn’t be happy with what I saw. [8]

Exactly. So why would you apply Owens' negotiating tactic after an obviously low-ball deal (the NFLPA correctly cautioned Owens against signing the contract but he made - surprise surprise - another bad business decision) to his future performance once on a market sized, year-by-year, incentive laden deal? Problem solved.

Second, you have to be joking about the bolded part above, no? Why would any team put itself at the mercy of Owens' whims about his contract situation? He may be content now, but what about this coming offseason if he thinks he "outperformed his contract"? He's a loose cannon, so pointing out that he doesn't always misbehave misses the point. Sometimes the pistol doesn't fire in Russian roulette too.

I blame Reid for lowballing Owens, and I blame him for failing to do what the Cowboys correctly did - give him a year-by-year, incentive laden contract where he is compensated for not misbehaving. It would have been very simple and it wouldn't have broken the Eagles' typical precedent for them to negotiate incentives with him in turn for club-friendly options that allowed them to break away if he stopped being a pain. But Reid's ego was too big to make that kind of move, and it cost him a season in their window of opportunity.Why would a team put itself at the "mercy of Owens' whims"? Because he's a hall of famer. And he's only had those whims when the Eagles lowballed him. Otherwise, while he's no angel, he's been a great performer for his team.

 

[redman]

Owens was tried in a kangaroo court in the press and it's framed so many people's opinions of him that people are not only implying he shouldn't be in the hall of fame, but that he's not even worth having on a roster.

FWIW, my opinion that Owens isn't worth having on a roster does not come from reading anything in the press. It comes from having read the arbitrator's decision two years ago, in which he describes in meticulous detail (sometimes by quoting Andy Reid's letters to Owens) all the ways in which Owens was such a huge distraction and had such a negative influence on the team.

I read that. Did the arbitrator's decision state that Owens was doing this as a negotiating ploy? He had clearly stated before the season that, while he wouldn't hold out and hurt the team, he was going to be a pain in the ### to the coaches to try to force their hand to either give him an extension, or gain his release. Let's set aside the fact that it was a terrible negotiating tactic. If this is not his typical behavior, then why would you let it decide whether you want him on your team in 2007?

First of all, yes, the arbitrator made clear to my reading that both Owens and Rosenhaus stated that the attitude was meant to generate leverage in contract negotiations. For example:

Owens skipped a mandatory team mini-camp in late April and, shortly thereafter, announced his appearance at the pre-season training camp on a “satisfactory? re-negotiation of the contract.[7] Rosenhaus and Owens were unequivocal in letting the team know that Owens’ happiness was tied toward renegotiating the contract. Coach Andy Reid testified as to their communications to him:

A. [Drew and Terrell said]… that things weren’t going to be pretty if he did come to camp. Somewhere in there, you know, T.O. mentioned that he knew how I was wired and the discipline that I asked of the Players, and that I wouldn’t be happy with what I saw. [8]

Exactly. So why would you apply Owens' negotiating tactic after an obviously low-ball deal (the NFLPA correctly cautioned Owens against signing the contract but he made - surprise surprise - another bad business decision) to his future performance once on a market sized, year-by-year, incentive laden deal? Problem solved.

Second, you have to be joking about the bolded part above, no? Why would any team put itself at the mercy of Owens' whims about his contract situation? He may be content now, but what about this coming offseason if he thinks he "outperformed his contract"? He's a loose cannon, so pointing out that he doesn't always misbehave misses the point. Sometimes the pistol doesn't fire in Russian roulette too.

I blame Reid for lowballing Owens, and I blame him for failing to do what the Cowboys correctly did - give him a year-by-year, incentive laden contract where he is compensated for not misbehaving. It would have been very simple and it wouldn't have broken the Eagles' typical precedent for them to negotiate incentives with him in turn for club-friendly options that allowed them to break away if he stopped being a pain. But Reid's ego was too big to make that kind of move, and it cost him a season in their window of opportunity.

First of all, at placing the blame with the team over the contract. Are TO and his agent, Rosenhaus, such morons that the team has to think for them too? If this is a defense of TO, it's about as insulting as one could get. You're forgetting, however, an important circumstance relating to Owens' signing with the Eagles: he wanted to go to a team that could win a Super Bowl. He also wanted to be with a good QB. In fact, the latter part was in all likelihood why he reneged on the Baltimore deal, because he wanted McNabb throwing to him rather than Boller. The Eagles had been in the conference championship game for three straight years. It made perfect sense for a guy who supposedly wanted to be on a winning team to go there for less money than he might get elsewhere.

Somehow both TO and you seemed to forget about that supposed priority between 2004 and now.

 

[bostonfred]

First of all, at placing the blame with the team over the contract. Are TO and his agent, Rosenhaus, such morons that the team has to think for them too? If this is a defense of TO, it's about as insulting as one could get. You're forgetting, however, an important circumstance relating to Owens' signing with the Eagles: he wanted to go to a team that could win a Super Bowl. He also wanted to be with a good QB. In fact, the latter part was in all likelihood why he reneged on the Baltimore deal, because he wanted McNabb throwing to him rather than Boller. The Eagles had been in the conference championship game for three straight years. It made perfect sense for a guy who supposedly wanted to be on a winning team to go there for less money than he might get elsewhere. Somehow both TO and you seemed to forget about that supposed priority between 2004 and now.

He went to the Superbowl. He risked his hall of fame career by coming back early from an injury to play in that championship. He did this on a below-market contract. And he watched an out-of-shape McNabb puking because he was out of shape. It's not unreasonable for him to want to get paid. And no, the team doesn't have to think for him. Owens signed a bad contract. But the team made a bad decision by failing to renegotiate. Reid had a hall of fame talent, one of the best players ever at his position at the peak of his career, in the middle of their window of opportunity, and all they had to do was pay him market value, but Reid refused to do it. He let it get out of hand because his ego got in the way.

 

[redman]

First of all, at placing the blame with the team over the contract. Are TO and his agent, Rosenhaus, such morons that the team has to think for them too? If this is a defense of TO, it's about as insulting as one could get. You're forgetting, however, an important circumstance relating to Owens' signing with the Eagles: he wanted to go to a team that could win a Super Bowl. He also wanted to be with a good QB. In fact, the latter part was in all likelihood why he reneged on the Baltimore deal, because he wanted McNabb throwing to him rather than Boller. The Eagles had been in the conference championship game for three straight years. It made perfect sense for a guy who supposedly wanted to be on a winning team to go there for less money than he might get elsewhere. Somehow both TO and you seemed to forget about that supposed priority between 2004 and now.

He went to the Superbowl. He risked his hall of fame career by coming back early from an injury to play in that championship. He did this on a below-market contract. And he watched an out-of-shape McNabb puking because he was out of shape. It's not unreasonable for him to want to get paid. And no, the team doesn't have to think for him. Owens signed a bad contract. But the team made a bad decision by failing to renegotiate. Reid had a hall of fame talent, one of the best players ever at his position at the peak of his career, in the middle of their window of opportunity, and all they had to do was pay him market value, but Reid refused to do it. He let it get out of hand because his ego got in the way.

It's simply amazing to me that you can maintain a straight face while putting all of the blame at Reid's and the Eagles' feet for this situation, even when it has you assuming that Owens is a mental and emotional infant and should be assumed to behave accordingly. In addition, whatever else "Hall of Fame Talent" means, you apparently use it as a catch-all excuse for any type of behavior. I don't buy that.

 

[bostonfred]

First of all, at placing the blame with the team over the contract. Are TO and his agent, Rosenhaus, such morons that the team has to think for them too? If this is a defense of TO, it's about as insulting as one could get. You're forgetting, however, an important circumstance relating to Owens' signing with the Eagles: he wanted to go to a team that could win a Super Bowl. He also wanted to be with a good QB. In fact, the latter part was in all likelihood why he reneged on the Baltimore deal, because he wanted McNabb throwing to him rather than Boller. The Eagles had been in the conference championship game for three straight years. It made perfect sense for a guy who supposedly wanted to be on a winning team to go there for less money than he might get elsewhere. Somehow both TO and you seemed to forget about that supposed priority between 2004 and now.

He went to the Superbowl. He risked his hall of fame career by coming back early from an injury to play in that championship. He did this on a below-market contract. And he watched an out-of-shape McNabb puking because he was out of shape. It's not unreasonable for him to want to get paid. And no, the team doesn't have to think for him. Owens signed a bad contract. But the team made a bad decision by failing to renegotiate. Reid had a hall of fame talent, one of the best players ever at his position at the peak of his career, in the middle of their window of opportunity, and all they had to do was pay him market value, but Reid refused to do it. He let it get out of hand because his ego got in the way.

It's simply amazing to me that you can maintain a straight face while putting all of the blame at Reid's and the Eagles' feet for this situation, even when it has you assuming that Owens is a mental and emotional infant and should be assumed to behave accordingly. In addition, whatever else "Hall of Fame Talent" means, you apparently use it as a catch-all excuse for any type of behavior. I don't buy that.

Of course I blame Owens for his actions. He does stupid things. I don't think that being a hall of fame talent means he can do anything. I just don't think he's done anything unforgivable. The media's had a field day with him, he made an ill-advised holdout decision, and he's been way too honest in interviews. But none of that changes the fact that he's a phenomenal talent, and with the exception of his non-holdout-holdout (shall we call it a jerkout?) he has been an acceptable player in the locker room. His one bad year, he was bad because he was trying to get out from under the lowball contract his previous agent let him sign, and the Eagles made a bad decision to keep him. His main sins there were taking bad advice from his first agent, and taking worse advice from his second agent. I don't feel the need to condemn a man for making bad business decisionsThe rest of the time, I don't think he's as bad as a lot of players out there who are not labeled cancers. I'd much rather share a locker room with an Owens than a wifebeater, a drug addict, a lazy but very talented player, a guy who is slow to come back from injury, or a guy who steals from his teammates. There are plenty of players who are far less vilified than Owens, who have not had their careers ruined like Owens, and who people actively want on their team unlike Owens. On the other hand, I used to have a lot of respect for Reid. He generally made good business decisions. He assembled several conference championship teams and a Superbowl team on a shoestring budget. He let players go when they were looking for overpriced contracts, and he brought them back cheap when they were ready to come back. And it looked like he made a great deal with Owens, getting him cheaply and when it appeared he wouldn't be available. But when Owens started to act up, he should have nipped it in the bud. He knew he was acquiring a volatile personality. He also knew that Owens took the team from NFC Championship game material to #1 seed in the NFC and a near Superbowl winner. It would have been so easy for him to add incentives to the contract, especially as a reward for his Superbowl performance. If Reid knew he wouldn't renegotiate a contract, he shouldn't have lowballed Owens so ridiculously. It was too likely to blow up on him if he played a hard line. Either sign him, or don't, but don't come crying to the media when the volatile player you lowballed starts making noise, and don't act like a hero for benching the evil villain just because you had too big an ego to keep your Superbowl window open. I can understand you hating Owens. I can understand you thinking that he caused the situation, and I have can understand you thinking that a coach should be able to bench/suspend him in that situation. I disagree, but it's probably because I'm a lot more skeptical of the made for TV version of the evil Terrell Owens. What I just don't get is how you hold Reid blameless here. He made a huge mistake as a head coach/GM. I simply don't see how his actions are excusable if you're an Eagles fan.

 

[Hairy Snowman]

First, after reading the script my first comment is every highlighted excerpt was something that Andy Ried wrote. Not that Coach Reid might have had an agenda in this proceeding......

"As we have discussed previously, you breached your contract by refusing to report to the clubs mandatory mini-camp. Your refusal to report is a default under the Signing Bonus addendum in your contract. In accordance with the terms of the Signing Bonus addendum of your contract, the club hereby demands repayment of $1,725,000 (i.e., the portion of your Signing Bonus that you are required to repay to the club as a result of your breach) by August 12, 2005. Should you fail to repay that total amount by August 12, 2005, we will begin deducting the above amount in equal installments from your game checks, and any other compensation owed to you by the club, or we will initiate a non-injury grievance for repayment of money owed to the club due to your breach."

To me, docking TO 1.7 million dollars for missing a mini-camp - lets just say I think that might have been a little steep and may have really gotten this ball rolling the wrong way in the first place. 90% of TO's antics followed that "fine". Fine the guy 5, even 10 grand a day. 100, 200 thousand would still be pretty steep for missing a mini-camp. But 1.7 million dollars?! Just a few months after he plays hurt for you in the superbowl?! I think that would have left bad blood between me and the GM/Coach too.

Do any of you really think that was a fair fine at that time? After the way TO had performed that season and in the superbowl? This is way before TO was pulling his schtick and going public.

And as credible as a witness as Reid may be, it can easily be argued that his letters are clearly from his point of view. Mostly biased and one-way in nature. And from what I could tell all responses from Owens were quotes also from Andy Reid. Seems like Andy was spending alot of time documenting why it was OK for the Eagles management to take that 1.7 million after IMO he started the bad feelings by disciplining Owens over the minicamp IMO way too far.

As usual, it boils down to money and greed. But I don't think that Owens was the only greedy fish in the pond here. Not that the Eagles have ever been accused of shady contractual practices............

Personally, I hate the greed almost as much as the egos. 2 things that really turns me off to professional sports in general.

Oh, where did you go Walter Payton?

 

[bostonfred]

Very good post HS.

 

[redman]

First, after reading the script my first comment is every highlighted excerpt was something that Andy Ried wrote. Not that Coach Reid might have had an agenda in this proceeding......

Of course, if Owens disputed any of it he or his agent could have responded at the time . . . but they didn't . . .

 

[SSOG]

And yet he still put up 85 catches for 1180 yards and 13 TDs in his first year in an offense he didn't fully understand while playing hurt and undergoing a QB change. This guy is supremely talented.

And all it took was a mere 152 targets, third most in the entire league!Owens may be good, but every time the team threw his way, they were only hurting themselves, because Glenn was much, much better last season (64% catch% to TO's 56%, 15.0 ypc to TO's 13.9). TO is a very good red-zone threat (although his numbers are inflated again due to the unnaturally high number of targets that result when he whines), but outside of the Red Zone, he was just a guy.

Throwing to their injured WR1 was not as good as throwing to their healthy WR2 from whom he drew coverage? I'm shocked.

Funny, Terry Glenn was pretty darn good the year before when he was paired with Keyshawn Johnson, too. But I suppose that was only because teams were rolling coverage towards Keyshawn Johnson, right?

And yet he still put up 85 catches for 1180 yards and 13 TDs in his first year in an offense he didn't fully understand while playing hurt and undergoing a QB change. This guy is supremely talented.

And all it took was a mere 152 targets, third most in the entire league!Owens may be good, but every time the team threw his way, they were only hurting themselves, because Glenn was much, much better last season (64% catch% to TO's 56%, 15.0 ypc to TO's 13.9). TO is a very good red-zone threat (although his numbers are inflated again due to the unnaturally high number of targets that result when he whines), but outside of the Red Zone, he was just a guy.

Redzone guy?Go check the length of his TD catches last year and report back I would do it for you, but it has already been covered in another thread. Tentative conclusions...you don't know what you are talking about.

I do know what I'm talking about. So he caught a lot of TDs in the red zone? So what? He *SHOULD* have caught a lot of TDs in the red zone, given the number of red zone targets he had. Just because he caught his TDs in the red zone doesn't mean anything.You could separate out his red zone performance, if you wanted to. I'll save you the trouble, since I've already done so. About 1/3 of his targets in the red zone resulted in a touchdown. About 50% of his targets in goal-to-go situations resulted in a touchdown. He wound up with 6 TDs on 13 targets from 10 yards out or closer, which is phenominal. It's not best-in-the-league, but it's very, very good. Here's a quick list of players with a better target-to-conversion ratio: Marvin Harrison, Andre Johnson, Plaxico Burress, Troy Brown, Chris Henry, Mike Furrey, Marty Booker, and Muhsin Muhammed. If you want to talk about the entire red-zone instead of just 10 yards and in, Owens had 21 passes and caught 7 TDs, a ratio surpassed by Marvin Harrison, Larry Fitzgerald, Mike Furrey, Plaxico Burress, Steve Smith, Chris Henry, Muhsin Muhammad.So yes, Terrell Owens is a phenominal red-zone threat, the equal of Muhsin Muhammad, Chris Henry, and Mike Furrey. Of course, those other three gentlemen aren't being trumpeted as among the best WRs in the entire NFL, and somehow Terrell Owens is. For the life of me, I can't think of why, because outside of the red zone, he's really nothing special, the second-best WR on his own team.At one point in time (read: in San Francisco and Philly), Owens was one of the best WRs in the entire league, but he spent too much time throwing his QB under the bus and not enough time improving as a player. Now, he's probably the second-best WR on his own team (although, granted, still one of the top 20 WRs in the league).

 

[Hairy Snowman]

First, after reading the script my first comment is every highlighted excerpt was something that Andy Ried wrote. Not that Coach Reid might have had an agenda in this proceeding......

Of course, if Owens disputed any of it he or his agent could have responded at the time . . . but they didn't . . .

Who says he didn't? Those were letters simply presented as evidence to prove TO had been undermining and provide a timeline. The article makes no mention of anything TO said or didn't say in that room or whether he even had an opportunity to cross-examine or call his own witnesses for that matter. This wasn't a court case, this was a.........I don't even know what you would call this? Arbitration? Personally, I'm sure TO was not walking into this "hearing" and saying "oh, yeah - I'm totally guilty! Please, fine me all the game checks I was going to earn this year!" I'm pretty sure he had his own side to this case also. Unfortuantely, the man has a terrible case of foot in mouth disease. Combine that with not so bright and the scintillating advice of DR as your agent and.......Valla! Wrong actions bringing wrong results.Please, don't confuse this with me saying TO was right either. TO is immature and egocentric. But Reid, as coach, had to know that fining him that much was going to bring trouble when he did it. So IMO he started documenting the reaction for leverage later.Again, this is just my opinion.ETA its late and I may be a little groggy. I'll revisit this some other time and reread my posts when I'm awake to find mistakes.

 

[bostonfred]

I do know what I'm talking about. So he caught a lot of TDs in the red zone? So what? He *SHOULD* have caught a lot of TDs in the red zone, given the number of red zone targets he had. Just because he caught his TDs in the red zone doesn't mean anything.You could separate out his red zone performance, if you wanted to. I'll save you the trouble, since I've already done so. About 1/3 of his targets in the red zone resulted in a touchdown. About 50% of his targets in goal-to-go situations resulted in a touchdown. He wound up with 6 TDs on 13 targets from 10 yards out or closer, which is phenominal. It's not best-in-the-league, but it's very, very good. Here's a quick list of players with a better target-to-conversion ratio: Marvin Harrison, Andre Johnson, Plaxico Burress, Troy Brown, Chris Henry, Mike Furrey, Marty Booker, and Muhsin Muhammed. If you want to talk about the entire red-zone instead of just 10 yards and in, Owens had 21 passes and caught 7 TDs, a ratio surpassed by Marvin Harrison, Larry Fitzgerald, Mike Furrey, Plaxico Burress, Steve Smith, Chris Henry, Muhsin Muhammad.So yes, Terrell Owens is a phenominal red-zone threat, the equal of Muhsin Muhammad, Chris Henry, and Mike Furrey. Of course, those other three gentlemen aren't being trumpeted as among the best WRs in the entire NFL, and somehow Terrell Owens is. For the life of me, I can't think of why, because outside of the red zone, he's really nothing special, the second-best WR on his own team.At one point in time (read: in San Francisco and Philly), Owens was one of the best WRs in the entire league, but he spent too much time throwing his QB under the bus and not enough time improving as a player. Now, he's probably the second-best WR on his own team (although, granted, still one of the top 20 WRs in the league).

I think he was telling you that Owens caught more TDs from outside 10 yards than inside. Which is why your long story about his TDs on targets from inside 10 yards is silly. Especially when you add in guys who had fewer TDs inside the 10. Muhammad had 5 TDs last year, but apparently was equal to Owens, who had more TDs inside the 10 than Muhammad had total TDs. While injured. And changing QBs. In fact, Owens had more TDs than Furrey and Muhammad combined, and had more TDs from outside the red zone, where you claimed he's really nothing special, than either of them had total TDs. I don't understand how you could do so much research without noticing how far off you were.

 

[SSOG]

I do know what I'm talking about. So he caught a lot of TDs in the red zone? So what? He *SHOULD* have caught a lot of TDs in the red zone, given the number of red zone targets he had. Just because he caught his TDs in the red zone doesn't mean anything.You could separate out his red zone performance, if you wanted to. I'll save you the trouble, since I've already done so. About 1/3 of his targets in the red zone resulted in a touchdown. About 50% of his targets in goal-to-go situations resulted in a touchdown. He wound up with 6 TDs on 13 targets from 10 yards out or closer, which is phenominal. It's not best-in-the-league, but it's very, very good. Here's a quick list of players with a better target-to-conversion ratio: Marvin Harrison, Andre Johnson, Plaxico Burress, Troy Brown, Chris Henry, Mike Furrey, Marty Booker, and Muhsin Muhammed. If you want to talk about the entire red-zone instead of just 10 yards and in, Owens had 21 passes and caught 7 TDs, a ratio surpassed by Marvin Harrison, Larry Fitzgerald, Mike Furrey, Plaxico Burress, Steve Smith, Chris Henry, Muhsin Muhammad.So yes, Terrell Owens is a phenominal red-zone threat, the equal of Muhsin Muhammad, Chris Henry, and Mike Furrey. Of course, those other three gentlemen aren't being trumpeted as among the best WRs in the entire NFL, and somehow Terrell Owens is. For the life of me, I can't think of why, because outside of the red zone, he's really nothing special, the second-best WR on his own team.At one point in time (read: in San Francisco and Philly), Owens was one of the best WRs in the entire league, but he spent too much time throwing his QB under the bus and not enough time improving as a player. Now, he's probably the second-best WR on his own team (although, granted, still one of the top 20 WRs in the league).

I think he was telling you that Owens caught more TDs from outside 10 yards than inside. Which is why your long story about his TDs on targets from inside 10 yards is silly. Especially when you add in guys who had fewer TDs inside the 10. Muhammad had 5 TDs last year, but apparently was equal to Owens, who had more TDs inside the 10 than Muhammad had total TDs. While injured. And changing QBs. In fact, Owens had more TDs than Furrey and Muhammad combined, and had more TDs from outside the red zone, where you claimed he's really nothing special, than either of them had total TDs. I don't understand how you could do so much research without noticing how far off you were.

Once again, my point is that Owens only had so many TDs because he had far more targets.Production = Talent + Opportunity. Raise the opportunity, and Production rises accordingly. I mean, heck, compare Terrell Owens to Chris Chambers in 2005 sometime. Chambers had 8 red zone TDs in 2005, and Owens had 7 in 2006, so is Chambers a much better red-zone target than Owens? Of course not- it took Chambers 29 targets to get those 8 TDs, while it took Owens 21 Targets to get his 7. Obviously, Owens was a more efficient red zone target.Of course, when you apply that same logic, Furrey only took 16 red zone targets to get his 6 red zone TDs last year. Furrey was an even better redzone target than Terrell Owens, yet I don't hear anyone gushing over Mike Furrey here.As for the claim that Owens caught more TDs outside of the 10 yard line than inside of it... barely. He caught 6 inside the 10, and 7 outside of it. Change the delineation to "red zone/non-red zone", and Owens caught 7 red zone TDs and 6 non-red zone TDs. Once again, my main assertion here is that a large part of that is a function of targets. Get targeted 130 times outside of the red zone and you're bound to put up some pretty heady numbers.I'm not saying that Owens is a bad receiver. I'm just saying that he's not one of the top-5 WRs in the NFL, as is commonly claimed, and he's only the second best WR on his own team.

 

[bostonfred]

I do know what I'm talking about. So he caught a lot of TDs in the red zone? So what? He *SHOULD* have caught a lot of TDs in the red zone, given the number of red zone targets he had. Just because he caught his TDs in the red zone doesn't mean anything.You could separate out his red zone performance, if you wanted to. I'll save you the trouble, since I've already done so. About 1/3 of his targets in the red zone resulted in a touchdown. About 50% of his targets in goal-to-go situations resulted in a touchdown. He wound up with 6 TDs on 13 targets from 10 yards out or closer, which is phenominal. It's not best-in-the-league, but it's very, very good. Here's a quick list of players with a better target-to-conversion ratio: Marvin Harrison, Andre Johnson, Plaxico Burress, Troy Brown, Chris Henry, Mike Furrey, Marty Booker, and Muhsin Muhammed. If you want to talk about the entire red-zone instead of just 10 yards and in, Owens had 21 passes and caught 7 TDs, a ratio surpassed by Marvin Harrison, Larry Fitzgerald, Mike Furrey, Plaxico Burress, Steve Smith, Chris Henry, Muhsin Muhammad.So yes, Terrell Owens is a phenominal red-zone threat, the equal of Muhsin Muhammad, Chris Henry, and Mike Furrey. Of course, those other three gentlemen aren't being trumpeted as among the best WRs in the entire NFL, and somehow Terrell Owens is. For the life of me, I can't think of why, because outside of the red zone, he's really nothing special, the second-best WR on his own team.At one point in time (read: in San Francisco and Philly), Owens was one of the best WRs in the entire league, but he spent too much time throwing his QB under the bus and not enough time improving as a player. Now, he's probably the second-best WR on his own team (although, granted, still one of the top 20 WRs in the league).

I think he was telling you that Owens caught more TDs from outside 10 yards than inside. Which is why your long story about his TDs on targets from inside 10 yards is silly. Especially when you add in guys who had fewer TDs inside the 10. Muhammad had 5 TDs last year, but apparently was equal to Owens, who had more TDs inside the 10 than Muhammad had total TDs. While injured. And changing QBs. In fact, Owens had more TDs than Furrey and Muhammad combined, and had more TDs from outside the red zone, where you claimed he's really nothing special, than either of them had total TDs. I don't understand how you could do so much research without noticing how far off you were.

Once again, my point is that Owens only had so many TDs because he had far more targets.Production = Talent + Opportunity. Raise the opportunity, and Production rises accordingly. I mean, heck, compare Terrell Owens to Chris Chambers in 2005 sometime. Chambers had 8 red zone TDs in 2005, and Owens had 7 in 2006, so is Chambers a much better red-zone target than Owens? Of course not- it took Chambers 29 targets to get those 8 TDs, while it took Owens 21 Targets to get his 7. Obviously, Owens was a more efficient red zone target.Of course, when you apply that same logic, Furrey only took 16 red zone targets to get his 6 red zone TDs last year. Furrey was an even better redzone target than Terrell Owens, yet I don't hear anyone gushing over Mike Furrey here.As for the claim that Owens caught more TDs outside of the 10 yard line than inside of it... barely. He caught 6 inside the 10, and 7 outside of it. Change the delineation to "red zone/non-red zone", and Owens caught 7 red zone TDs and 6 non-red zone TDs. Once again, my main assertion here is that a large part of that is a function of targets. Get targeted 130 times outside of the red zone and you're bound to put up some pretty heady numbers.I'm not saying that Owens is a bad receiver. I'm just saying that he's not one of the top-5 WRs in the NFL, as is commonly claimed, and he's only the second best WR on his own team.

And I'm just saying that your claim from one season, his first on a new team, that changed QBs midstream, while he was injured, and put up better numbers than the guys you called comparable, while looking at sample sizes of 6 or 7 TDs on the season, is wrong on so many levels that reiterating it really isn't worth discussing.

 

[Hairy Snowman]

I'm not saying that Owens is a bad receiver. I'm just saying that he's not one of the top-5 WRs in the NFL, as is commonly claimed, and he's only the second best WR on his own team.

You aren't serious.......are you? 2nd best on the Cowboys? Seriously?Please tell me you are fishing with that.TO had alot of drops last year also. That may have led to more targets too. After all, he still runs like a deer. Wouldn't you keep trying to get it into his (broken) hands?

 

[Liquid Tension]

The Red Sox accepted their guy and went on to win a championship with him. Parcells accepted his guy and today he's considered the best ever to play the position.

Lawrence Taylor and Manny Ramirez never ripped management or other players in the press, nor (to my knowledge) did all the things listed in the arbitrator's report, though. Big difference.

Completely disagree. Manny has requested a trade several years in a row, missed games, and many people think he quit at the end of 2006. He went to the bathroom in the outfield wall mid-game. I still cheer for him, although I sure wish he wouldn't do things like that.

LT did crazy amounts of hard drugs and got other players into them, too. That's far more destructive than anything Owens did in the locker room.

2 Super Bowls worth of destructive so I can't agree at all.

We can disagree about the impact TO has on a team, but he has complained everywhere he has been before Dallas. Great players don't usually move off of teams unless there is an issue. As for some blame on the media, I think that is a cop out when TO didn;t see a microphone he didn't like. I mean TO called Garcia gay and said he had a terrible arm. then he goes to Philly and has a rocket arm throwing him the ball and he says he is out of shape. You think the Eagles could have handled it differently, OK, but I think you let TO run the show and the next ##### has precedent set for his actions. That would be bad for the Eagles organization.

 

[Liquid Tension]

First, after reading the script my first comment is every highlighted excerpt was something that Andy Ried wrote. Not that Coach Reid might have had an agenda in this proceeding...... "As we have discussed previously, you breached your contract by refusing to report to the clubs mandatory mini-camp. Your refusal to report is a default under the Signing Bonus addendum in your contract. In accordance with the terms of the Signing Bonus addendum of your contract, the club hereby demands repayment of $1,725,000 (i.e., the portion of your Signing Bonus that you are required to repay to the club as a result of your breach) by August 12, 2005. Should you fail to repay that total amount by August 12, 2005, we will begin deducting the above amount in equal installments from your game checks, and any other compensation owed to you by the club, or we will initiate a non-injury grievance for repayment of money owed to the club due to your breach."To me, docking TO 1.7 million dollars for missing a mini-camp - lets just say I think that might have been a little steep and may have really gotten this ball rolling the wrong way in the first place. 90% of TO's antics followed that "fine". Fine the guy 5, even 10 grand a day. 100, 200 thousand would still be pretty steep for missing a mini-camp. But 1.7 million dollars?! Just a few months after he plays hurt for you in the superbowl?! I think that would have left bad blood between me and the GM/Coach too.Do any of you really think that was a fair fine at that time? After the way TO had performed that season and in the superbowl? This is way before TO was pulling his schtick and going public. And as credible as a witness as Reid may be, it can easily be argued that his letters are clearly from his point of view. Mostly biased and one-way in nature. And from what I could tell all responses from Owens were quotes also from Andy Reid. Seems like Andy was spending alot of time documenting why it was OK for the Eagles management to take that 1.7 million after IMO he started the bad feelings by disciplining Owens over the minicamp IMO way too far.As usual, it boils down to money and greed. But I don't think that Owens was the only greedy fish in the pond here. Not that the Eagles have ever been accused of shady contractual practices............Personally, I hate the greed almost as much as the egos. 2 things that really turns me off to professional sports in general.Oh, where did you go Walter Payton?

HS, you are incorrect here, TO had already criticized McNabb about being tired at the SB. The fine came after his "crap."

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

First, after reading the script my first comment is every highlighted excerpt was something that Andy Ried wrote. Not that Coach Reid might have had an agenda in this proceeding......

Of course, if Owens disputed any of it he or his agent could have responded at the time . . . but they didn't . . .

Who says he didn't? Those were letters simply presented as evidence to prove TO had been undermining and provide a timeline. The article makes no mention of anything TO said or didn't say in that room or whether he even had an opportunity to cross-examine or call his own witnesses for that matter. This wasn't a court case, this was a.........I don't even know what you would call this? Arbitration?

This is not true.It was an arbitration, which is similar in structure to a trial. Witnesses for both sides were called to the stand, examined and cross-examined. Evidence was submitted, including the letters from Reid, and both parties had an opportunity to comment on the content of those letters.The arbitrator's opinion notes that the facts of the case were generally not in dispute. That means Owens (through himself or his counsel) did not contradict Reid's letters or his testimony. Both sides agreed that the stuff Reid describes in his letters actually happened.Also, the arbitrator's opinion does mention Terrell's testimony at the hearing. (The arbitrator consistently refers to him as "the Player" -- I wonder if that's where Parcells got that.) He says that the Player testified that his "I wasn't the one who got tired in the Super Bowl" comment was not directed at McNabb. He also notes that the Player testified that he was still unhappy with his contract situation and -- even as of the time of the arbitration hearing -- he did not think that his contract required him to talk to Donovan McNabb. (One of the many ongoing issues with TO that whole season was that he refused to ever talk to QB McNabb or OC Childress.)

Personally, I'm sure TO was not walking into this "hearing" and saying "oh, yeah - I'm totally guilty! Please, fine me all the game checks I was going to earn this year!" I'm pretty sure he had his own side to this case also.

Yes, his side to the story was that (a) even though all the stuff Reid accused him of was true, it didn't deserve a four-week suspension; and (b) Reid has no right to decide which players are allowed to practice with the team. (Reid had banned TO from practices and games even after the suspension was completed. TO stipulated that Reid gets to decide which guys play in games, but argued that practices were a different matter.)He lost on both issues.

 

[Hairy Snowman]

First, after reading the script my first comment is every highlighted excerpt was something that Andy Ried wrote. Not that Coach Reid might have had an agenda in this proceeding...... "As we have discussed previously, you breached your contract by refusing to report to the clubs mandatory mini-camp. Your refusal to report is a default under the Signing Bonus addendum in your contract. In accordance with the terms of the Signing Bonus addendum of your contract, the club hereby demands repayment of $1,725,000 (i.e., the portion of your Signing Bonus that you are required to repay to the club as a result of your breach) by August 12, 2005. Should you fail to repay that total amount by August 12, 2005, we will begin deducting the above amount in equal installments from your game checks, and any other compensation owed to you by the club, or we will initiate a non-injury grievance for repayment of money owed to the club due to your breach."To me, docking TO 1.7 million dollars for missing a mini-camp - lets just say I think that might have been a little steep and may have really gotten this ball rolling the wrong way in the first place. 90% of TO's antics followed that "fine". Fine the guy 5, even 10 grand a day. 100, 200 thousand would still be pretty steep for missing a mini-camp. But 1.7 million dollars?! Just a few months after he plays hurt for you in the superbowl?! I think that would have left bad blood between me and the GM/Coach too.Do any of you really think that was a fair fine at that time? After the way TO had performed that season and in the superbowl? This is way before TO was pulling his schtick and going public. And as credible as a witness as Reid may be, it can easily be argued that his letters are clearly from his point of view. Mostly biased and one-way in nature. And from what I could tell all responses from Owens were quotes also from Andy Reid. Seems like Andy was spending alot of time documenting why it was OK for the Eagles management to take that 1.7 million after IMO he started the bad feelings by disciplining Owens over the minicamp IMO way too far.As usual, it boils down to money and greed. But I don't think that Owens was the only greedy fish in the pond here. Not that the Eagles have ever been accused of shady contractual practices............Personally, I hate the greed almost as much as the egos. 2 things that really turns me off to professional sports in general.Oh, where did you go Walter Payton?

HS, you are incorrect here, TO had already criticized McNabb about being tired at the SB. The fine came after his "crap."

I did say 90%, no? TO was still a walking foot in mouth. He was the year before too. Although from what I've read that comment may have been more correct than not. It just lacked class on TOs part spouting it off to the media and not taking it to Donovan personally.But does Foot in Mouth = 1.725 million? Does missing a mini-camp = 1.725 million? Some people might argue that statement by TO could have been a (albiet childish) motivation ploy to DMac to forget about the honeys he was chasing at the palladium and get his lazy #### in shape for next season. With DMac losing his cookies the way he did in the superbowl, I actually agree with TO on the statement that DMac needed better conditioning. I just think TO lacked class (maturity) by saying it to the media.But, IMO it was the fine set off a chain reaction from TO and his agent. Remember, (to the best of my knowledge), DR would have to pay back a percetage of that money to the Eagles too. Pretty sure agents work on a percentage basis, no?

 

[Hairy Snowman]

First, after reading the script my first comment is every highlighted excerpt was something that Andy Ried wrote. Not that Coach Reid might have had an agenda in this proceeding......

Of course, if Owens disputed any of it he or his agent could have responded at the time . . . but they didn't . . .

Who says he didn't? Those were letters simply presented as evidence to prove TO had been undermining and provide a timeline. The article makes no mention of anything TO said or didn't say in that room or whether he even had an opportunity to cross-examine or call his own witnesses for that matter. This wasn't a court case, this was a.........I don't even know what you would call this? Arbitration?

This is not true.

??? All I was saying was the article didn't mention any of TO's side of the case. It seemed all of the highlighted material was from letters Andy Ried wrote. And the letters, IMO, are reactionary from the side of managment.Again, I am not defending TO's actions. They were unprofessional and irresponsible. But I'm not defending Ried in this case either.I'm curious. How much was Thomas Jones fined for missing mandatory minicamps last year?You don't think being fined that much had ANYTHING to do with his soured attitude going into fall? I'd settle for a maybe......ETA I have been wrong before (its true! ) and I really am not too clear the format of the arbitration proceeding. Was trying to convey that I wasn't clear on the format, not that TO got no representation.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

First, after reading the script my first comment is every highlighted excerpt was something that Andy Ried wrote. Not that Coach Reid might have had an agenda in this proceeding......

Of course, if Owens disputed any of it he or his agent could have responded at the time . . . but they didn't . . .

Who says he didn't? Those were letters simply presented as evidence to prove TO had been undermining and provide a timeline. The article makes no mention of anything TO said or didn't say in that room or whether he even had an opportunity to cross-examine or call his own witnesses for that matter. This wasn't a court case, this was a.........I don't even know what you would call this? Arbitration?

This is not true.

??? All I was saying was the article didn't mention any of TO's side of the case.

It isn't an article. It's the arbitrator's opinion. And yes it does clearly set forth TO's side of the case. TO's side of the case was that his behavior improved after he returned from his preseason suspension (which the Eagles admit), and that his behavior did not warrant a suspension. Further, he should have been allowed to practice with the team after the suspension was served since a four-week suspension was the maximum allowable punishment, so the team shouldn't have been able to punish him any further by banning him from practice. If the Eagles were going to ban him from practice, they should be forced to release him instead.

It seemed all of the highlighted material was from letters Andy Ried wrote. And the letters, IMO, are reactionary from the side of managment.

The letters document TO's antics. That's why they were written in the first place. TO did not dispute the content of any of the letters.

You don't think being fined that much had ANYTHING to do with his soured attitude going into fall?

I could be wrong, but I don't think TO was actually fined until the point when he was suspended. The Eagles told him they were going to fine him $1.7m (not actually a fine, but a return of part of his signing bonus), but I don't think they followed through on that. I could be wrong, though. The arbitrator's decision doesn't say anything one way or the other about whether they followed through.In any event, TO had a terrible attitude that whole offseason, starting before there was any threat of having to return a portion of his signing bonus, but that's not the point. I was just correcting your statement that "The article makes no mention of anything TO said or didn't say in that room or whether he even had an opportunity to cross-examine or call his own witnesses for that matter." The opinion directly quotes TO's testimony at the hearing (both on direct and on cross) a number times.

 

[Hairy Snowman]

ugh.

Just waking up. I've been doing 16 hour days for a few weeks now and THEN decided to stay up late on the board. I skimmed over alot of what you are telling me. Happens when I'm trying to read exausted at 1:00 am sometimes.

It just struck me that 1.7 M was too hefty price to pay for missing a minicamp. Subtract that from what would have been a relatively low salary already and I could see TO getting upset after the pro bowl season he had just had. Almost like punishing him for the season. Certainly wouldn't motivate me.

Doesn't excuse his actions though. Also doesn't make the punishment fair IMO. I think there needed to be a middle ground in there somewhere.

To me it is a big difference in fault for this fiasco if the Eagles relented on the "Salary Repayment" or stood their ground. If they relented, then TO really is a donkey. Well, TO is a donkey most of the time anyways , but as far as this situation goes........ But if they pressed that going into training camp ~ well, they were applying the pressure to a person they knew wasn't stable after he had just given you what you couldn't do before him or since - get over the top to the superbowl.

Just my take on it.

Much respect. And thanks for all the work M.

 

[Liquid Tension]

First, after reading the script my first comment is every highlighted excerpt was something that Andy Ried wrote. Not that Coach Reid might have had an agenda in this proceeding......

"As we have discussed previously, you breached your contract by refusing to report to the clubs mandatory mini-camp. Your refusal to report is a default under the Signing Bonus addendum in your contract. In accordance with the terms of the Signing Bonus addendum of your contract, the club hereby demands repayment of $1,725,000 (i.e., the portion of your Signing Bonus that you are required to repay to the club as a result of your breach) by August 12, 2005. Should you fail to repay that total amount by August 12, 2005, we will begin deducting the above amount in equal installments from your game checks, and any other compensation owed to you by the club, or we will initiate a non-injury grievance for repayment of money owed to the club due to your breach."

To me, docking TO 1.7 million dollars for missing a mini-camp - lets just say I think that might have been a little steep and may have really gotten this ball rolling the wrong way in the first place. 90% of TO's antics followed that "fine". Fine the guy 5, even 10 grand a day. 100, 200 thousand would still be pretty steep for missing a mini-camp. But 1.7 million dollars?! Just a few months after he plays hurt for you in the superbowl?! I think that would have left bad blood between me and the GM/Coach too.

Do any of you really think that was a fair fine at that time? After the way TO had performed that season and in the superbowl? This is way before TO was pulling his schtick and going public.

And as credible as a witness as Reid may be, it can easily be argued that his letters are clearly from his point of view. Mostly biased and one-way in nature. And from what I could tell all responses from Owens were quotes also from Andy Reid. Seems like Andy was spending alot of time documenting why it was OK for the Eagles management to take that 1.7 million after IMO he started the bad feelings by disciplining Owens over the minicamp IMO way too far.

As usual, it boils down to money and greed. But I don't think that Owens was the only greedy fish in the pond here. Not that the Eagles have ever been accused of shady contractual practices............

Personally, I hate the greed almost as much as the egos. 2 things that really turns me off to professional sports in general.

Oh, where did you go Walter Payton?

HS, you are incorrect here, TO had already criticized McNabb about being tired at the SB. The fine came after his "crap."

I did say 90%, no? TO was still a walking foot in mouth. He was the year before too. Although from what I've read that comment may have been more correct than not. It just lacked class on TOs part spouting it off to the media and not taking it to Donovan personally.But does Foot in Mouth = 1.725 million? Does missing a mini-camp = 1.725 million?

Some people might argue that statement by TO could have been a (albiet childish) motivation ploy to DMac to forget about the honeys he was chasing at the palladium and get his lazy #### in shape for next season. With DMac losing his cookies the way he did in the superbowl, I actually agree with TO on the statement that DMac needed better conditioning. I just think TO lacked class (maturity) by saying it to the media.

But, IMO it was the fine set off a chain reaction from TO and his agent. Remember, (to the best of my knowledge), DR would have to pay back a percetage of that money to the Eagles too. Pretty sure agents work on a percentage basis, no?

That and this statement from you "This is way before TO was pulling his schtick and going public." were the reasons I wrote what I did. I was questioning that TO did go public way before this.

 

[Hairy Snowman]

First, after reading the script my first comment is every highlighted excerpt was something that Andy Ried wrote. Not that Coach Reid might have had an agenda in this proceeding......

"As we have discussed previously, you breached your contract by refusing to report to the clubs mandatory mini-camp. Your refusal to report is a default under the Signing Bonus addendum in your contract. In accordance with the terms of the Signing Bonus addendum of your contract, the club hereby demands repayment of $1,725,000 (i.e., the portion of your Signing Bonus that you are required to repay to the club as a result of your breach) by August 12, 2005. Should you fail to repay that total amount by August 12, 2005, we will begin deducting the above amount in equal installments from your game checks, and any other compensation owed to you by the club, or we will initiate a non-injury grievance for repayment of money owed to the club due to your breach."

To me, docking TO 1.7 million dollars for missing a mini-camp - lets just say I think that might have been a little steep and may have really gotten this ball rolling the wrong way in the first place. 90% of TO's antics followed that "fine". Fine the guy 5, even 10 grand a day. 100, 200 thousand would still be pretty steep for missing a mini-camp. But 1.7 million dollars?! Just a few months after he plays hurt for you in the superbowl?! I think that would have left bad blood between me and the GM/Coach too.

Do any of you really think that was a fair fine at that time? After the way TO had performed that season and in the superbowl? This is way before TO was pulling his schtick and going public.

And as credible as a witness as Reid may be, it can easily be argued that his letters are clearly from his point of view. Mostly biased and one-way in nature. And from what I could tell all responses from Owens were quotes also from Andy Reid. Seems like Andy was spending alot of time documenting why it was OK for the Eagles management to take that 1.7 million after IMO he started the bad feelings by disciplining Owens over the minicamp IMO way too far.

As usual, it boils down to money and greed. But I don't think that Owens was the only greedy fish in the pond here. Not that the Eagles have ever been accused of shady contractual practices............

Personally, I hate the greed almost as much as the egos. 2 things that really turns me off to professional sports in general.

Oh, where did you go Walter Payton?

HS, you are incorrect here, TO had already criticized McNabb about being tired at the SB. The fine came after his "crap."

I did say 90%, no? TO was still a walking foot in mouth. He was the year before too. Although from what I've read that comment may have been more correct than not. It just lacked class on TOs part spouting it off to the media and not taking it to Donovan personally.But does Foot in Mouth = 1.725 million? Does missing a mini-camp = 1.725 million?

Some people might argue that statement by TO could have been a (albiet childish) motivation ploy to DMac to forget about the honeys he was chasing at the palladium and get his lazy #### in shape for next season. With DMac losing his cookies the way he did in the superbowl, I actually agree with TO on the statement that DMac needed better conditioning. I just think TO lacked class (maturity) by saying it to the media.

But, IMO it was the fine set off a chain reaction from TO and his agent. Remember, (to the best of my knowledge), DR would have to pay back a percetage of that money to the Eagles too. Pretty sure agents work on a percentage basis, no?

That and this statement from you "This is way before TO was pulling his schtick and going public." were the reasons I wrote what I did. I was questioning that TO did go public way before this.

What I meant by TO's schtick was TO riding over his teammates and coaches like a bus in the media and the his games in house. I wasn't considering the games TO was playing in the media the previous year as the schtick I was talking about. The previous year his comments were basically harmless. The comment about DMac being out of shape IMO could have been considered constructive criticism to a certain degree. Dumb. Classless. But possibly inteded to be motivational. I didn't consider that conduct detrimental.

The stuff that went on later though was poison. And I'm pretty sure the real media poo didn't start until after the draft at the earliest (after they drafted Reggie Brown in the first round) and didn't really ramp up to venomous until late June-July ~ basically right before training camp. I could be wrong, but I would say 90% of the BS he pulled happened after the minicamp, no?

 

[redman]

First, after reading the script my first comment is every highlighted excerpt was something that Andy Ried wrote. Not that Coach Reid might have had an agenda in this proceeding......

Of course, if Owens disputed any of it he or his agent could have responded at the time . . . but they didn't . . .

Who says he didn't? Those were letters simply presented as evidence to prove TO had been undermining and provide a timeline. The article makes no mention of anything TO said or didn't say in that room or whether he even had an opportunity to cross-examine or call his own witnesses for that matter. This wasn't a court case, this was a.........I don't even know what you would call this? Arbitration? Personally, I'm sure TO was not walking into this "hearing" and saying "oh, yeah - I'm totally guilty! Please, fine me all the game checks I was going to earn this year!" I'm pretty sure he had his own side to this case also.

Unfortuantely, the man has a terrible case of foot in mouth disease. Combine that with not so bright and the scintillating advice of DR as your agent and.......Valla! Wrong actions bringing wrong results.

Please, don't confuse this with me saying TO was right either. TO is immature and egocentric. But Reid, as coach, had to know that fining him that much was going to bring trouble when he did it. So IMO he started documenting the reaction for leverage later.

Again, this is just my opinion.

ETA its late and I may be a little groggy. I'll revisit this some other time and reread my posts when I'm awake to find mistakes.

The arbitrator's ruling contains a treatment of the evidence from both sides. The evidence seems to have only come from Reid because neither Owens nor Rosenhaus nor the NFLPA could come up with much in the way of persuasive arguments. Examples abound:

NFLPA Position

The Association claims the four-week suspension is well beyond any type of discipline called for by the Player’s actions. It denies the existence of any concentrated campaign to force the Club to release Owens; indeed, says the Association, following August 18th, when the Player returned from a pre-season suspension, his behavior improved. None of the events cited by the Club should have resulted in discipline of any kind.

The Club’s actions in removing him from play or practice for the rest of the season, says the Association, were disciplinary in nature. Because the Collective Bargaining Agreement establishes a four-week maximum penalty for “Conduct Detrimental?, the removal actions must be set aside and the Player reinstated to the position he was in prior to the discipline. It requests that the grievance be granted.

This was early in the ruling. Note that the NFLPA is not contesting the validity of the accusations, merely the severity of the punishment and a technical defense based upon whether the punishment falls under the "conduct detrimental" clause in the contract or under the area of discipline governed by the CBA. There's no mention of denial of the facts presented by the team.

Analysis

As a general matter, most critical facts are not disputed, although the parties differ substantially as to their respective characterizations of the events.

Interesting, huh?

The Association says these actions should not be viewed as formal discipline.[16] It notes, among other things, that the term “suspension? is nowhere mentioned in the letter and it imposed no salary penalty. But without regard to whether these actions by the Club should be categorized, from a purely technical standpoint, as a suspension, the more important question is whether the incident, including the Player’s being sent home and the accompanying correspondence, should reasonably have put Owens on notice of serious Club concerns.

Again, this outlines (in response to the August 10 letter) a technical defense rather than a factual denial to the information in that letter.

During his time away, the Player appeared on a televised interview with his agent. That appearance provides no evidence of intent to turn things around.[19] Asked whether Andy Reid and he could work things out upon his return, Owens responded “My attitude is not going to change.? Donovan McNabb, Owens said, was a “hypocrite;? “I have no desire to talk to Donovan,? said the Player. Rosenhaus, for his part, reminded all that Owens’ attitude “shouldn’t be a surprise… we said from day one that he’s not going to be happy if he’s treated unfairly.? “Owens? said his agent, “will honor his contract. He’s going to follow the rules, but he’s not going to be happy. And who knows if that will work, but they have options. And we hope that they’ll consider all of their options.? Owens concluded the interview by noting that his contract did not require him to talk to anyone. His relationship with Andy Reid, he said, was “same as it was when I was in camp. I don’t have to say anything. I know how to play football. I don’t have to say anything to Donovan. I know how to play football.? When asked if he and McNabb could succeed in this climate, he responded: “I don’t think so and I’m just being honest.?[20]

These are outright admissions as to not only engaging in some of the conduct he's accused of, but also explaining his (selfish) motive for doing so.

GB: Your friend Michael Irvin recently said that if Brett Favre was the starting quarterback for the Philadelphia Eagles, they’d be undefeated right now. What do you think of that comment?

TO: I mean, that’s a good assessment, I would agree with that.

GB: How so?

TO: I just feel like just what he brings to the table…I mean he’s the guy. Obviously, a number of commentators will say he’s a warrior. He has played with injuries. I just feel like (with) him being knowledgeable about the quarterback position, I just feel like we’d be in a better situation.[25]

According to Coach Reid, Owens’ comments inflamed the team.[26] The Player says his words were taken out of context. There were, he notes, positive comments during the interview as well.[27] The Association also directs the arbitrator’s attention to Owens’ denial, in that interview, that his earlier comment (“I wasn’t the one that was tired [in the Super Bowl]?) referred to Donovan McNabb:

I think with that comment, I said it probably in regards to my own conditions because I hadn’t practiced with the team since my injury. I never referred to Donovan in that comment. A lot of people speculated, and they just assumed that I was talking about Donovan. That’s not what I mean, and that’s not what I meant. A lot of people, take a lot of things that I say out of context. If I didn’t say his name in particular, then I wasn’t talking about him.[28]

Several observations are in order. First, Owens’ denial, repeated in his testimony at the arbitration hearing, is unpersuasive.[29] It is difficult, at the least, to accept the Player’s contention that his statement “I wasn’t the one that got tired? should be construed to mean “I was the one who got tired.? But the more significant point in all of this is the one discussed earlier—the perception, one of which the Player was fully aware, was that he had, once more, taken aim at his quarterback. In this highly charged atmosphere, the perceptions are of substantial importance, and they weigh heavily in evaluating the conduct of the Player immediately thereafter, to be discussed below.

This was from the November 3 ESPN interview. Here we finally see our first factual denial from Owens' camp, but it may as well be denying the earth is round. He's denying, after months of bashing McNabb, that his "I wasn't the one who got tired in the Super Bowl" comment was directed at McNabb. Do you even believe that? This certainly shows that Owens was capable of denying facts presented. He just doesn't have much credibility. I of course haven't included the multitude of facts presented by the Eagles and set forth in that ruling that were uncontested. But even with the stuff presented above you can see that there wasn't much to deny. The facts weren't really in dispute.

 

[Hairy Snowman]

ETA its late and I may be a little groggy. I'll revisit this some other time and reread my posts when I'm awake to find mistakes.

Ugh.

 

[Kleck]

Youre an idiot.

And you have no respect for anyone other than yourself. Check that. In order to treat strangers that way I doubt you look in the mirror and have much respect for that guy either.You've been warned too many times. You ##### and whine about the members here and the moderating, yet you keep coming back here like a bee to honey. I'll do you the favor of just run you for good.

 

[SSOG]

And I'm just saying that your claim from one season, his first on a new team, that changed QBs midstream, while he was injured, and put up better numbers than the guys you called comparable, while looking at sample sizes of 6 or 7 TDs on the season, is wrong on so many levels that reiterating it really isn't worth discussing.

Yes, Terrell Owens put up better numbers than the players I mentioned (I never called them comparable as players, only as red-zone targets). However, as I've said over, and over, and over again... TERRELL OWENS HAD MORE TARGETS THAN THOSE PLAYERS, TOO.Production = Talent + Opportunity, so citing Terrell Owens's increased production doesn't necessarily mean he's more talented, it might just mean HE GOT MORE OPPORTUNITIES.Chris Chambers had more catches for more yards than Matt Jones did last year. Does that prove that Chris Chambers was a better WR than Matt Jones? No, Chris Chambers was a worthless turd who probably had the worst WR season of the past decade last year, he just got targeted 154 times to Matt Jones's 76 (and despite that, finished with roughly equal catches for roughly equal yards and exactly equal TDs).Now, I recognize that Owens was injured, and it's entirely possible that I am drastically underrating the impact that had on his performance, but what I saw last year was, in my mind, not a stud WR struggling to deal with injuries so much as it was an overrated WR struggling to live up to the hype. Once again, if he has a great season I'll be more than happy to admit how wrong I was about him, but I personally believe he's overrated and past his prime.Out of curiousity... you keep mentioning his injury. Are you referring to the hamstring, or the broken finger? Because really, I don't think the broken finger was much of a factor. Owens wound up putting up a catch% that was still well over his career average. Now, maybe the hamstring injury was nagging him all season, but I didn't see or hear anything that led me to believe that. I've always operated under the assumption that the "hamstring injury" was just something he made up as a power ploy to get out of having to do Parcells's training camps. Am I mistaken, or were you in fact referring to the broken finger after all?

I'm not saying that Owens is a bad receiver. I'm just saying that he's not one of the top-5 WRs in the NFL, as is commonly claimed, and he's only the second best WR on his own team.

You aren't serious.......are you? 2nd best on the Cowboys? Seriously?Please tell me you are fishing with that.TO had alot of drops last year also. That may have led to more targets too. After all, he still runs like a deer. Wouldn't you keep trying to get it into his (broken) hands?

I never fish.No, I wouldn't keep trying to get it into Owens's hands when Glenn was obviously doing so much more with it. Glenn caught a higher percentage of the passes thrown his way for a higher yards per catch. More positive things happened when Dallas threw to Glenn than when they threw to Owens, so if I were running Dallas, I would spend more time throwing to Glenn and less time throwing to Owens (excluding the red zone, where Owens is a better target than Glenn).I know a lot of people here don't like numbers (it seems they far prefer "hard evidence" like hype and spin), but I do have some numbers to back up my claims. Glenn caught 64% of the balls thrown his way, compared to 56% for Owens, despite the fact that he was usually running lower-percentage routes (as evidenced by his 15.0 ypc compared to Owens's 13.9). If you combine the two numbers, you get my favorite WR stat, yards per target (the WR equivalent of the QB's YPA). Glenn averaged a whopping 9.52 yards per target, second best in the entire NFL last season behind only Reggie Wayne (minimum 100 targets). Other players over 9 YPT were Chad Johnson, Lee Evans, Marvin Harrison, and Marques Colston- sort of an elite company for Glenn to keep, don't you think? Owens averaged 7.76 yards per target- a very respectable amount, for sure, but only 20th best in the NFL among WRs with 100 targets.Also, I know you well enough to know that you're not the type of person to pull out the "Do you even watch the games?!" card, Snowman, but just because I know someone is going to read this and play that card... yes, I do watch the games. I promise you, I do. And the last people who played the "do you even watch the games" card on me played it after I called Chris Chambers an overrated turd who couldn't catch. They went on and on about how I was an idiot who didn't watch the games, and then Chris Chambers posted a Catch% last year of 39%. So yes, I do watch the games. I pay attention to statistics, but I do not let them replace my eyes and my own good judgement.It may not be a popular position (that Glenn was better than Owens last season), but it's not a fishing trip, either. Any time a WR goes over 9 yards per target, he just had an absolutely phenominal season.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Yes, Terrell Owens put up better numbers than the players I mentioned (I never called them comparable as players, only as red-zone targets). However, as I've said over, and over, and over again... TERRELL OWENS HAD MORE TARGETS THAN THOSE PLAYERS, TOO.

TO had more targets perhaps in part because he's a loudmouth who exerted influence on the QB, and perhaps in part because he's a highly paid superstar who had plays designed to get him the ball -- but also because he runs good patterns and gets open. (Catching the ball reliably is another matter.)I think it's hard to argue that TO is not an elite receiver in terms of his on-field production. He drops way too many balls (always has), but he also has big-play ability shared by very few others in the league. He does get open, even against double coverage, and he is a great runner after the catch.

Terry Glenn is extremely underrated. I don't want to get into a discussion of whether Glenn is a better receiver overall than Owens because an argument can be made for either one. But even if Glenn is better, that doesn't mean TO doesn't have elite skills.

If he would shut his mouth and concentrate just on playing football instead of always disrupting everything around him, I think every team in the league would intensely covet him.

As things stand, however, I would hate to hear that he was just traded to the team I root for. (Of course, I trust that the Chargers would not make the David Boston mistake twice in such a short period of time.)

 

[Hairy Snowman]

And I'm just saying that your claim from one season, his first on a new team, that changed QBs midstream, while he was injured, and put up better numbers than the guys you called comparable, while looking at sample sizes of 6 or 7 TDs on the season, is wrong on so many levels that reiterating it really isn't worth discussing.

Yes, Terrell Owens put up better numbers than the players I mentioned (I never called them comparable as players, only as red-zone targets). However, as I've said over, and over, and over again... TERRELL OWENS HAD MORE TARGETS THAN THOSE PLAYERS, TOO.Production = Talent + Opportunity, so citing Terrell Owens's increased production doesn't necessarily mean he's more talented, it might just mean HE GOT MORE OPPORTUNITIES.Chris Chambers had more catches for more yards than Matt Jones did last year. Does that prove that Chris Chambers was a better WR than Matt Jones? No, Chris Chambers was a worthless turd who probably had the worst WR season of the past decade last year, he just got targeted 154 times to Matt Jones's 76 (and despite that, finished with roughly equal catches for roughly equal yards and exactly equal TDs).Now, I recognize that Owens was injured, and it's entirely possible that I am drastically underrating the impact that had on his performance, but what I saw last year was, in my mind, not a stud WR struggling to deal with injuries so much as it was an overrated WR struggling to live up to the hype. Once again, if he has a great season I'll be more than happy to admit how wrong I was about him, but I personally believe he's overrated and past his prime.Out of curiousity... you keep mentioning his injury. Are you referring to the hamstring, or the broken finger? Because really, I don't think the broken finger was much of a factor. Owens wound up putting up a catch% that was still well over his career average. Now, maybe the hamstring injury was nagging him all season, but I didn't see or hear anything that led me to believe that. I've always operated under the assumption that the "hamstring injury" was just something he made up as a power ploy to get out of having to do Parcells's training camps. Am I mistaken, or were you in fact referring to the broken finger after all?

I'm not saying that Owens is a bad receiver. I'm just saying that he's not one of the top-5 WRs in the NFL, as is commonly claimed, and he's only the second best WR on his own team.

You aren't serious.......are you? 2nd best on the Cowboys? Seriously?Please tell me you are fishing with that.TO had alot of drops last year also. That may have led to more targets too. After all, he still runs like a deer. Wouldn't you keep trying to get it into his (broken) hands?

I never fish.No, I wouldn't keep trying to get it into Owens's hands when Glenn was obviously doing so much more with it. Glenn caught a higher percentage of the passes thrown his way for a higher yards per catch. More positive things happened when Dallas threw to Glenn than when they threw to Owens, so if I were running Dallas, I would spend more time throwing to Glenn and less time throwing to Owens (excluding the red zone, where Owens is a better target than Glenn).I know a lot of people here don't like numbers (it seems they far prefer "hard evidence" like hype and spin), but I do have some numbers to back up my claims. Glenn caught 64% of the balls thrown his way, compared to 56% for Owens, despite the fact that he was usually running lower-percentage routes (as evidenced by his 15.0 ypc compared to Owens's 13.9). If you combine the two numbers, you get my favorite WR stat, yards per target (the WR equivalent of the QB's YPA). Glenn averaged a whopping 9.52 yards per target, second best in the entire NFL last season behind only Reggie Wayne (minimum 100 targets). Other players over 9 YPT were Chad Johnson, Lee Evans, Marvin Harrison, and Marques Colston- sort of an elite company for Glenn to keep, don't you think? Owens averaged 7.76 yards per target- a very respectable amount, for sure, but only 20th best in the NFL among WRs with 100 targets.Also, I know you well enough to know that you're not the type of person to pull out the "Do you even watch the games?!" card, Snowman, but just because I know someone is going to read this and play that card... yes, I do watch the games. I promise you, I do. And the last people who played the "do you even watch the games" card on me played it after I called Chris Chambers an overrated turd who couldn't catch. They went on and on about how I was an idiot who didn't watch the games, and then Chris Chambers posted a Catch% last year of 39%. So yes, I do watch the games. I pay attention to statistics, but I do not let them replace my eyes and my own good judgement.It may not be a popular position (that Glenn was better than Owens last season), but it's not a fishing trip, either. Any time a WR goes over 9 yards per target, he just had an absolutely phenominal season.

I like the logic, but there is one flaw.What was TO's YPA when Bledsoe was playing vs. when Romo was playing? I'm guessing it went up significantly with Romo. There were times I couldn't tell who Bledsoe was throwing to when he was throwing to TO. In addition, after he had a broken finger (or torn tendons, whatever), it seemed like 1 out of 5 balls he was thrown he dropped. But he still was putting up good #'s. But that would definetely lower that particuliar stat.I'm a big fan of Terry Glenn. But I find it hard to see him as a better WR overall than TO (when healthy). It seemed to me TO had a chance at 125 yards & 1 TD a game every game later in the year.

 

[Hairy Snowman]

Yes, Terrell Owens put up better numbers than the players I mentioned (I never called them comparable as players, only as red-zone targets). However, as I've said over, and over, and over again... TERRELL OWENS HAD MORE TARGETS THAN THOSE PLAYERS, TOO.

TO had more targets perhaps in part because he's a loudmouth who exerted influence on the QB, and perhaps in part because he's a highly paid superstar who had plays designed to get him the ball -- but also because he runs good patterns and gets open. (Catching the ball reliably is another matter.)I think it's hard to argue that TO is not an elite receiver in terms of his on-field production. He drops way too many balls (always has), but he also has big-play ability shared by very few others in the league. He does get open, even against double coverage, and he is a great runner after the catch.

Terry Glenn is extremely underrated. I don't want to get into a discussion of whether Glenn is a better receiver overall than Owens because an argument can be made for either one. But even if Glenn is better, that doesn't mean TO doesn't have elite skills.

If he would shut his mouth and concentrate just on playing football instead of always disrupting everything around him, I think every team in the league would intensely covet him.

As things stand, however, I would hate to hear that he was just traded to the team I root for. (Of course, I trust that the Chargers would not make the David Boston mistake twice in such a short period of time.)

What he said.

 

[Chunky Soup]

What do you guys think are ballpark numbers for production this year?

 

[BigRed]

WTF is this doing buried so far down the list? Blasphemy!!

Owens threads always belong on page 1. :(

 

[Bankerguy]

WTF is this doing buried so far down the list? Blasphemy!!Owens threads always belong on page 1.

Your schtick is old and annoying.