PDA

View Full Version : Sal Paolantonio Rips on T.O.


Gay Ork Wang
04-09-2008, 09:03 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=paolantonio_sal&id=3328008

Discuss

Geo
04-09-2008, 09:16 AM
Sal Pal turning figurative shock jock by calling the biggest names he can overrated?

Also, what big name receiver does produce in the playoffs? Especially beyond the wild card? Reggie Wayne comes to mind, but pretty much everyone has a drop-off in production, opposing defenses know to shut them down.

Actually, look at TO's postseason stats (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/O/OwenTe00_playoffs.htm). I like you, but you seem stupid trying to get attention, Sal Pal.

Gay Ork Wang
04-09-2008, 09:18 AM
Still, i think the part about him only caring for himself is kind of true...

bsaza2358
04-09-2008, 09:19 AM
All of the stats that matter (0 Super Bowls, 4-7 playoff record) are called out. Actual production is in line with what you'd expect from a star WR. TO is a great player, but the information Sal Pal is giving is accurate.

bsaza2358
04-09-2008, 09:20 AM
Also, if you read the bottom of the page on ESPN, it's an exerpt from Sal Pal's new book about overrated and underrated players. He's using the TO entry to be controversial and to draw attention to his book.

Geo
04-09-2008, 09:22 AM
So it's TO's fault that the 49ers, Eagles, and now Cowboys haven't won the Super Bowl?

Heck, I'll give you the Cowboys last year maybe, but that's it. He delivered for the 04 Eagles, blame McNabb for the SB loss and for his jealousy of TO leading to a rift that fractured the entire team.

Turtlepower
04-09-2008, 09:26 AM
Also, if you read the bottom of the page on ESPN, it's an exerpt from Sal Pal's new book about overrated and underrated players. He's using the TO entry to be controversial and to draw attention to his book.

So he is just copying Jayson Stark who made an Over/Underated book of baseball players... The only difference is that I respect Stark.

bsaza2358
04-09-2008, 09:27 AM
I don't think that TO was purely the reason for these teams not winning the super bowl, but if you're calling yourself the best, you should be able to help your team make it to that eschelon. If TO was healthy in 2004-2005, it is very possible the Eagles would have won the Super Bowl. The Cowboys had all the pieces to win last year, but they didn't execute against the Giants down the stretch. When the chips came down, the defense crumbled, and TO didn't overcome double teams to make the catches that needed to be made.

I think that after all of his BS over the years, there is enough of a track record to say that TO's personality has an effect on his teams' ability to come through in the crunch. 4-7 career in the playoffs. He gets his, but his teams don't win. That speaks a lot.

Gay Ork Wang
04-09-2008, 09:28 AM
I think he is a great WR
but as good as Jerry Rice?

bsaza2358
04-09-2008, 09:30 AM
No one is saying he's as good as or better than Jerry Rice. Even TO has never said that.

Geo
04-09-2008, 09:31 AM
Don't get me wrong, I hate the psychotic primadonna, but let's be reasonable with the blame placed on him.

Tony Romo hasn't been Tony Romo in the playoffs so far in his career, granted if Patrick Clayton could have actually caught a ball in his hands (and was anywhere near as good as Cowboys fans think he is) then Romo could very well have advanced past the Giants to a home NFCCG. And we all know what happens when Favre plays at Dallas.

bsaza2358
04-09-2008, 09:33 AM
I don't hate TO. I think he's overrated now, but for his career, his numbers stack up well. As a teammate, he may or may not be as bad as he's portrayed. I think this entry was written specifically to sell books.

Ness
04-09-2008, 09:40 AM
In the first three paragraphs, Sal forgets that the game is a team sport. Yes, Terrell Owens is the blame that his teams didn't reach win a Super Bowl. The only real bad game Owens has had was against Green Bay in 1998 when he kept dropping balls. Other than that, it was really an entire team effort that was responsible in the losses.

Modano
04-09-2008, 09:42 AM
Don't get me wrong, I hate the psychotic primadonna, but let's be reasonable with the blame placed on him.

Tony Romo hasn't been Tony Romo in the playoffs so far in his career, granted if Patrick Clayton could have actually caught a ball in his hands (and was anywhere near as good as Cowboys fans think he is) then Romo could very well have advanced past the Giants to a home NFCCG. And we all know what happens when Favre plays at Dallas.

Exactly... I don't like the post-season argument... It wasn't Owens' fault that Crayton and Fasano dropped two crucial balls or that Jacques Reeves was awful, allowing Manning to drive down field and score with just a couple of seconds left in the first half...
Maybe if one of these players did his job now we could've been talking about TO as a crucial player in the Cowboys road to Super Bowl... No one can blame TO for the loss against the Giants, he was doing his job.

And it's pretty unfair, as usual, to talk about the drops without mentioning that he was playing with a serious injury in his hand, last year...

bsaza2358
04-09-2008, 09:43 AM
The whole serious hand injury thing might be valid, but TO played through it and was still productive. It wasn't like he had the best hands in the league beforehand. TO hasn't been one to make ridiculously tough catches in traffic. He is a sick mismatch because of his power, quickness, and agility. His hands are not his strength.

NY+Giants=NYG
04-09-2008, 09:51 AM
So espn pimps out TO every turn, and now they call him over rated?

bsaza2358
04-09-2008, 09:51 AM
ESPN isn't calling TO overrated. Sal Palentonio is doing it using an ESPN publication. SportsCenter pimps out his antics, not his great play on the field a lot of the time.

mqtirishfan
04-09-2008, 09:53 AM
That was a pathetic article. How exactly can you use his lack of team success as an indicator while ignoring the fact that he's playing better than almost every other player at his position. Wouldn't that production, I don't know, HELP his team win? I've figured out TO's biggest weakness: He does not play defense, QB, OL, RB or K for the Dallas Cowboys. What a ******* bum.

Geo
04-09-2008, 09:53 AM
The whole serious hand injury thing might be valid, but TO played through it and was still productive. It wasn't like he had the best hands in the league beforehand. TO hasn't been one to make ridiculously tough catches in traffic. He is a sick mismatch because of his power, quickness, and agility. His hands are not his strength.
All true.

And agreed on your earlier point, about TO as a teammate. Sal Pal saw more than enough of that firsthand with the Eagles, being a Philly guy himself who is closely associated with the team. I don't have a problem with him riping him there, TO has been a cancer to lockerrooms if not still is now, but I don't think TO's postseason resume is worse than some other big name receivers and thusly worth being called out on.

NY+Giants=NYG
04-09-2008, 09:56 AM
ESPN isn't calling TO overrated. Sal Palentonio is doing it using an ESPN publication. SportsCenter pimps out his antics, not his great play on the field a lot of the time.

Either way, it's annoying, but it makes sense if SP is using the espn publication, but still, it's all under the same banner of espn, unless I am mistaken. Espn pimps out everything from his antics off the field to his great play on the field.. Not to mention I don't think he is over rated to begin with. The guy is going to be a hall of famer.

bigbluedefense
04-09-2008, 09:57 AM
i'll give a more elaborate comment on this later.

but what i found hilarious was this quote:

"And, sometimes, all you have to do is cover Owens to render him ineffective."


GET OUTTA TOWN! SO COVERING WIDE RECEIVERS MAKES THEM INEFFECTIVE!

damn, i gotta remember to jot that down in case i forget.

bsaza2358
04-09-2008, 09:57 AM
He is going to be a HOF-er. His stats and production and consistency has been awesome. I have never said anything about it. I also believe he has been overexposed for the wrong reasons.

Geo
04-09-2008, 10:01 AM
Not to derail, but rather ignite further dicussion:

This is a contract year for TO, he'll be 35 years old this December, what does everyone expect? From him, from the Cowboys, or maybe another team who could seek his services in free agency?

Will he give it everything he has for one more Super Bowl run? Or will he unconsciously sabotage things somehow, if it's because the Cowboys haven't extended him yet during the season or he wants to stay healthy as a FA or something else? Who can tell with this guy.

bigbluedefense
04-09-2008, 10:04 AM
While I loathe TO with a passion, and while Sal makes a lot of great points, i can't knock TO's stint in dallas.

Dallas didn't lose 2 playoff games bc of TO, they lost them bc Romo has played poorly in the playoffs, if you want to blame it on one guy.

bsaza2358
04-09-2008, 10:06 AM
But even then, TO has never gotten to the Super Bowl on his own, and his other teams with him as the lead WR have gone a combined 4-5.

bigbluedefense
04-09-2008, 10:09 AM
But even then, TO has never gotten to the Super Bowl on his own, and his other teams with him as the lead WR have gone a combined 4-5.

but had he been healthy, im almost positive he wouldve went to the SB with the Eagles as well.

and in Dallas, like i said, you can't knock him for those 2 games. he didn't fumble the snap, he didn't throw inaccurate balls to open receivers (in both games Romo did this), he didn't create the off-field distractions (Romo did). if i were to blame Dallas's playoff woes on one guy, its Tony Romo.

Thunder&Lightning
04-09-2008, 10:10 AM
With T.O., it's not about winning, it's about T.O. And that's only occasionally conducive to winning. Whether he's questioning Jeff Garcia's sexuality, blasting Donovan McNabb's Super Bowl performance or doing sit-ups for TV cameras on his front lawn, Owens generally finds himself making headlines for all the wrong reasons.

That's why Owens is one of the most overrated wide receivers in NFL history.

I mean T.O. is probably a very controversial player but I dont see why Sal just needed to Rip on him so bad. Sal can not exspect some fight back especially from T.O.

Geo
04-09-2008, 10:36 AM
Well, David Givens is 13-1 or thereabouts in the postseason, for whatever that means.

Marvin Harrison is 7-8 in the playoffs, 4 wins of which came on the Super Bowl run of 06. He hasn't been near as dominant in the postseason as he has in the regular season. Does he do enough, or rather say open things up for the rest of the team? Reggie Wayne is a much better postseason performer, and he also produced 7-76-1 against the Chargers a few months ago, with a hobbled Harrison so you wonder if and how Harrison's presence changes things. Dallas Clark, similar story.

Does TO do enough to open things up for the rest of the team? Against the Giants, you could probably say so, as noted Crayton and Fasano had plays to make but didn't catch the ball. BBD on Romo's inaccuracy at times, etc.

Randy Moss was the world's most talented ghost this last postseason, up until a drive or two in the Super Bowl. He was practically non-existant for most of it, after one of the best statistical receiving seasons of all-time.

Moss is interesting, in that he and TO have followed a similar career path somewhat. Both starting up in the NFC and having some good postseason wildcard games and what not, but not really getting to the SB. Moss went to the aptly-named Black Hole whereas TO went to Philly though, certainly a difference as evidenced in the results. Moss seems to be sticking in an ideal situation in New England whereas TO sabotaged the perfect situation for him with the Eagles, being with Dallas hasn't been the worst however.

Mr. Stiller
04-09-2008, 10:46 AM
In the first three paragraphs, Sal forgets that the game is a team sport. Yes, Terrell Owens is the blame that his teams didn't reach win a Super Bowl. The only real bad game Owens has had was against Green Bay in 1998 when he kept dropping balls. Other than that, it was really an entire team effort that was responsible in the losses.

Which is why I can see an overrated/underrated baseball book but not a Football book.

Not any one person (ranging from Coaches/coordinators all the way to the Practice squadder) Can be a difference maker on his own..

As compared to baseball. The ultimate non-team-sport team sport.

Billingsley26
04-09-2008, 10:50 AM
Ive said all along, character wins games. Find me a SB winner that hasnt had character over the past several years. Hell make it the last 20.

CC.SD
04-09-2008, 11:09 AM
So espn pimps out TO every turn, and now they call him over rated?

I agree. It is surely the offseason.

bigbluedefense
04-09-2008, 11:09 AM
Ive said all along, character wins games. Find me a SB winner that hasnt had character over the past several years. Hell make it the last 20.

that is very very true. i didn't realize how important it was until this year.

id say the past 8 or so years, character teams tend to win over sour lockerrooms.

this isn't the 90s anymore, you can't get away with having wild childs. theres too much parity for that.

CC.SD
04-09-2008, 11:10 AM
Ive said all along, character wins games. Find me a SB winner that hasnt had character over the past several years. Hell make it the last 20.

Well, the Pats cheated to win theirs, so does bad character count?


:D

Billingsley26
04-09-2008, 11:18 AM
Well, the Pats cheated to win theirs, so does bad character count?


:D

Ive yet to see anything other than speculation...any proof to that?

bsaza2358
04-09-2008, 11:24 AM
The supposed cheating from the Pats came from their coaching staff. It is unknown whether the players were involved or knew anything about those activities. The Pats teams were all about character and togetherness. That's how they won 3 SB's and won 18 straight NFL games.

mqtirishfan
04-09-2008, 11:27 AM
I'm going to go ahead and break this **** article down...

Some recent "best of" lists have been putting Terrell Owens in the same sentence as Jerry Rice. What are these people thinking?
Maybe they were thinking that he ranks in the top 10 all time in both catches and yards. It's not like they're saying he's as good as Rice, but rather one of the best WRs of all time. If anyone can point me to a publication that says T.O. is every bit as good as Jerry Rice, please do.

Rice, a member of the NFL 75th Anniversary Team, has won three Super Bowl titles and been named a Super Bowl MVP.

The one time in Owens' 12-year career his team reached a Super Bowl, it got there without him. That tells you everything you need to know about T.O.
First of all, I'm sure his 1200 yards and 14 TDs had nothing to do with the Eagles making the playoffs, which is pretty important toward making the Super Bowl.

Even then, the point is stupid. How dare T.O. not carry his team to the Super Bowl when on average, even the best receiver in the NFL will get no more than 5 catches a playoff game. Think about that for a second. Sal is blaming a WR for a team not winning games in the playoffs.

Since entering the NFL in 1996 with San Francisco, Owens has piled up some remarkable numbers. His 129 career receiving touchdowns trail only Rice and Cris Carter. He's ninth all time in catches (882) and 10th in yards (13,070).

What an overrated piece of ****.

And, along the way, he has destroyed two football teams.

By 2003, the 49ers had enough of his act. After joining the Eagles in 2004, it took him only a year and a half to estrange himself from the team.

Not sure how this equates to his impact on the football field, but Sal acts as if people don't already know this. People HATE Owens for this, but teams still go after him because he is one of the best players in the history of the NFL.

With T.O., it's not about winning, it's about T.O. And that's only occasionally conducive to winning.

I think we all see his point. T.O. should not care how many catches he gets, because for every TD T.O. catches, the team is hurt.

In 2000 and 2001, he posted consecutive 1,400-yard seasons, something only Rice and Marvin Harrison have achieved. He looked every bit like a budding Hall of Famer.

Bum.

But he changed. And most of what he accomplished on the field began to be overshadowed by his increasingly erratic behavior off it.

He changed to the tune of 85 yards per game. 1400 yards in 16 games is 87.5 yards per game. Yes, he has been unpredictable off the field, but he has been just as dominant when on the field.

"He started out as 90 percent Terrell and 10 percent T.O.," a former coach said. "A few years later, he was 90 percent T.O. and 10 percent Terrell."

And 100% dominant NFL wide receiver.

Owens began criticizing his coaches, ripping his teammates and shredding team chemistry, which effectively neutralized his on-field pyrotechnics.

That's why Owens is one of the most overrated wide receivers in NFL history.

Good teammate = good football player. Arnaz Battle is a great teammate (I do not know this). He is better than T.O. at playing football because of this.

No matter how many passes he catches, no matter how many touchdowns he scores, no matter how many Pro Bowls he's selected to, he always ends up hurting his team more than he helps it.

Bull-effing-****. There's no way he hurt the Cowboys this year with 1300+ yards. No way at all.

And by the way, during his two years in Dallas, he has dropped 27 passes, according to Stats, LLC. That's more than anybody else in the league (Cleveland's Braylon Edwards is second with 20).

He also had 28 TDs in that time frame. I'll take a WR with more TDs than drops any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

And, sometimes, all you have to do is cover Owens to render him ineffective.

No ******* way did he really just say this.

Take Eagles cornerback Lito Sheppard. When the Cowboys played the Eagles last season without Sheppard on Nov. 4 in Philly, Owens caught 10 balls for 174 yards with one touchdown. On Dec. 16 in Dallas, Sheppard shut down Owens, who caught only two passes for 37 yards.

Hooray for small sample sizes. Also, I think the Eagles decided not to cover him that first day. That must be it.

Owens began his career playing alongside Rice, who didn't have to brag to convince people he was the greatest receiver of all time. The 49ers won playoff games with Rice and T.O. in 1996, 1997 and 1998, advancing to the NFC Championship Game in 1997.

They won playoff games with T.O. in that time-span. T.O. had something like 20 catches in a playoff game one of those years. Way to ruin your earlier point, jackass.

But without Rice, Owens has hardly won a thing. During the past seven seasons, Owens has been in uniform for just one postseason victory. His lifetime playoff record is 4-7 -- and of those four wins, three came in the wild-card round. And in four of his past six postseason games -- the biggest games of his career -- this alleged superstar had 49 or fewer receiving yards.


For the record, the 49ers won all of one game past the wildcard round with both Rice and T.O., not that it really matters, because it's about team success. As for the whole stats thing, small sample sizes and very tough defenses that work on taking away a team's offensive strengths (such as T.O.) tend to do this to stats. Moss sucked in the playoffs, too.

The 2004 Eagles were forced to play their first two postseason games without an injured Owens and won both easily. With Owens back, they lost 24-21 to the Patriots in Super Bowl XXXIX. Owens had a big game (9 catches for 122 yards), but instead of showing disappointment about the loss, he celebrated his performance in his postgame news conference.

"Nobody in the world gave me a chance," he crowed after the game. "God is good. God is great."

Why so happy after a loss? Because 9-for-122 matters far more to T.O. than a 24-21 loss in the Super Bowl.

This makes him bad at playing football. His 9 catches for 122 yards are totally ignored here, to make the point that he is overrated at playing football.

Maybe that's why during the past nine years, Owens' teams have won more postseason games without him than with him.

Yes, 9 catches for 122 yards on a bad leg is a god-awful thing to have on a team.

Since joining the Cowboys, Owens is 0-2 in the postseason, with just six catches for 75 yards in two playoff games. In his past four playoff games, he has only one touchdown catch, which came last season in a loss at home to the Giants. Owens, who will be 35 in December and is going into the last year of his contract with the Cowboys, makes for a big show in Big D -- until the big games come around.

Sal appears to be under the impression that a game with 49 yards and a TD is disappearing.

"When it comes to this game, I'm the best in the field," Owens sang in a 2006 rap single.

If being the best means ignoring your coaches, insulting your teammates, failing to produce in the playoffs and dropping more passes than anybody else in the league, he's absolutely right.

If being the best means ranking among the top 5 in every statisical category almost every single year, and being in the top 10 all time in many categories with football left to play, he's absoslutely right.

mqtirishfan
04-09-2008, 11:29 AM
Ive said all along, character wins games. Find me a SB winner that hasnt had character over the past several years. Hell make it the last 20.

Name me a SB winner ever that wasn't one at least one of the best football teams that year.

Also, name me a SB winner ever that didn't have at least one jerk on the team.

Talent wins football games.

Billingsley26
04-09-2008, 11:30 AM
These are biased answer, I just dont have the time to write that much back right now. But I will.

mqtirishfan
04-09-2008, 11:34 AM
These are biased answer, I just dont have the time to write that much back right now. But I will.

Your only response is going to have something to do with the fact that his amazing production somehow does not equate to him being a top receiver of all time, so I'll enjoy your response.

UKfan
04-09-2008, 11:37 AM
Name me a SB winner ever that wasn't one at least one of the best football teams that year.

Also, name me a SB winner ever that didn't have at least one jerk on the team.

Talent wins football games.

Define jerk.

The Colts team from recently didn't have a "jerk" on it as far as I remember.

CC.SD
04-09-2008, 11:38 AM
Ive yet to see anything other than speculation...any proof to that?

The quiver of fear in your heart is all the proof I need.

haha, I should have known that would have lit up the Billingsley signal. No this isn't the time or place to get into it, and as of yet there's no proof. But OJ was pronounced innocent too.

mqtirishfan
04-09-2008, 11:41 AM
Define jerk.

The Colts team from recently didn't have a "jerk" on it as far as I remember.

By jerk, I mean any single player with a questionable character. If there are any, I bet it's purely a coincidence. The Colts won because they had great players. The Giants won this year because they had great players, etc. Teams don't win because the guys on the team are nice.

Gay Ork Wang
04-09-2008, 11:55 AM
teams win if they have great players with great chemistry. Thoes "jerks" destroy that. So there is really no great team without a great chemistry

mqtirishfan
04-09-2008, 11:59 AM
teams win if they have great players with great chemistry. Thoes "jerks" destroy that. So there is really no great team without a great chemistry

Rodney ******* Harrison has a ring.

UKfan
04-09-2008, 12:01 PM
Rodney maybe be a complete asshole on the field, but he's not a T.O in the sense that he attacks teammates and jeapordises team chemistry.

Gay Ork Wang
04-09-2008, 12:03 PM
Rodney ******* Harrison has a ring.
Rodney is hated by other players, not his team.

mqtirishfan
04-09-2008, 12:04 PM
Rodney maybe be a complete asshole on the field, but he's not a T.O in the sense that he attacks teammates and jeapordises team chemistry.

Yet, the Eagles did the best they have in years with him on the team, and the Cowboys overcame his horrible influence to the tune of 13 wins this year.

Gay Ork Wang
04-09-2008, 12:08 PM
and still havent won a SB which we were talking about....

bsaza2358
04-09-2008, 12:09 PM
TO has changed his tune in recent years, probably because he realizes that his window to win a ring has shrunk, and that he needs to be part of a team in order for that to happen. The loss this year to the Giants had little to do with TO. It was poor coaching and execution.

mqtirishfan
04-09-2008, 12:09 PM
and still havent won a SB which we were talking about....

So let me get one thing straight, here. Bad chemistry can win you 13 games in a season, but it can't win you a Super Bowl.

Gay Ork Wang
04-09-2008, 12:10 PM
well obviously... Talent can win u alot

CC.SD
04-09-2008, 12:13 PM
So let me get one thing straight, here. Bad chemistry can win you 13 games in a season, but it can't win you a Super Bowl.

This doesn't sound all that insane to me. The playoffs are a different animal, man.

mqtirishfan
04-09-2008, 12:14 PM
well obviously... Talent can win u alot

Such as football games like the Super Bowl? And I hope we can all agree that T.O. is a huge talent, right?

UKfan
04-09-2008, 12:15 PM
This doesn't sound all that insane to me. The playoffs are a different animal, man.

Exactly, the pressure gets seriously ramped up in the playoffs, and whilst a difference with a teammate can be pushed to the sides during the regular season, in a "one and done" situation any difference you have are more likely to come out.

bsaza2358
04-09-2008, 12:15 PM
No one has said anything about TO's talent. His numbers make him a HOFer.

Gay Ork Wang
04-09-2008, 12:16 PM
Cause the Superbowl is just another game?

mqtirishfan
04-09-2008, 12:16 PM
This doesn't sound all that insane to me. The playoffs are a different animal, man.

But the purpose of the playoffs is to win a football game, and a guy as good as T.O. at playing football doesn't hurt this, right?

mqtirishfan
04-09-2008, 12:17 PM
No one has said anything about TO's talent. His numbers make him a HOFer.

Which makes him one of the best at playing WR in the history of the NFL which is what that idiot Sal P. was trying to dispute.

Gay Ork Wang
04-09-2008, 12:18 PM
But the purpose of the playoffs is to win a football game, and a guy as good as T.O. at playing football doesn't hurt this, right?
Again a Playoff game is not the same like a regular season game

UKfan
04-09-2008, 12:18 PM
Which makes him one of the best at playing WR in the history of the NFL which is what that idiot Sal P. was trying to dispute.

Sal was criticizing certain numbers I agree, but more than anything he was attacking T.O's character and the role he has had in ruining good teams such as the 49ers and Eagles.

mqtirishfan
04-09-2008, 12:18 PM
Cause the Superbowl is just another game?

Let's see, here. 60 minute game of football that you try to win. Except for the fact that's it's really, really difficult because you're playing an outstanding team that has spent 2 weeks scouting every single on-field weakness your team has, I don't see much of a difference.

mqtirishfan
04-09-2008, 12:20 PM
Again a Playoff game is not the same like a regular season game

But it is the same, except for the level of difficulty. A receiver catching a TD in the playoffs is just as helpful as it is for a regular season game.

Gay Ork Wang
04-09-2008, 12:20 PM
hmm if u think it is just like any other game, then im sry i dont see any reason to argue with u

UKfan
04-09-2008, 12:20 PM
Let's see, here. 60 minute game of football that you try to win. Except for the fact that's it's really, really difficult because you're playing an outstanding team that has spent 2 weeks scouting every single on-field weakness your team has, I don't see much of a difference.

That right there is a pretty big difference my friend.

Also how about the media coverage, the global interest in that one game, you don't think that creates pressure on a player?

mqtirishfan
04-09-2008, 12:21 PM
Sal was criticizing certain numbers I agree, but more than anything he was attacking T.O's character and the role he has had in ruining good teams such as the 49ers and Eagles.

Wait. There are actually people that believe T.O. destroyed the 49ers? Not ****** cap management, and a poor team? This still does not harm T.O.'s place as one of the best football players at his position. It just makes him a dick. A dick who is good at football.

mqtirishfan
04-09-2008, 12:23 PM
That right there is a pretty big difference my friend.

Also how about the media coverage, the global interest in that one game, you don't think that creates pressure on a player?

Is that a difference that changes the fact that T.O. is better at playing football than just about anybody else at his position? I certainly don't think so.

Gay Ork Wang
04-09-2008, 12:23 PM
yea and Sal P. was arguing that he actually created more troubles than he was solving. He didnt say T.O. is horrible

Hines
04-09-2008, 12:23 PM
Name me a SB winner ever that wasn't one at least one of the best football teams that year.

Also, name me a SB winner ever that didn't have at least one jerk on the team.

Talent wins football games.

2005 Pittsburgh Steelers. Not the best team, but they had a mission and drive to win it for the Bus. The Colts were the best team that season but the Steelers with chemistry and belief won it all because of it. Yes they had talent and all that, but they werent the best team in the NFL. The Giants werent the best team in the NFL this past season, but they believed and took all the critizism to heart and played with a chip on their shoulders and won.


The Steelers had Porter so they had a jerk, but I dont think the Giants ever had a "jerk" on their team.

mqtirishfan
04-09-2008, 12:25 PM
hmm if u think it is just like any other game, then im sry i dont see any reason to argue with u

It's only different in that it's more difficult. The goal is the same: play football better than the other team.

Gay Ork Wang
04-09-2008, 12:25 PM
If ur team has problems on the inside, imagine halftime. ur behind, and maybe ur QB made a stupid INT and u were wide open. Would a guy help that says: hey, come on u can do that better, i know it, i believe in u. or : are u freakin blind? i was wide open!!! omg i have to do everything on my own

mqtirishfan
04-09-2008, 12:27 PM
2005 Pittsburgh Steelers. Not the best team, but they had a mission and drive to win it for the Bus. The Colts were the best team that season but the Steelers with chemistry and belief won it all because of it. Yes they had talent and all that, but they werent the best team in the NFL. The Giants werent the best team in the NFL this past season, but they believed and took all the critizism to heart and played with a chip on their shoulders and won.



They were certainly top 5, which is good enough to win any football game they played. They won because they played football better, not because they were all friends. Having a great coach never hurt, either.

Gay Ork Wang
04-09-2008, 12:27 PM
The pressure, ur dream in front of ur eyes, the media, the whole country/world is watching u play. Do u crumble under the pressure or do u overcome it? Thats what makes a good player a great one. U talk like it as it is nothing. Some people never get to the SB. Its maybe a once in a lifetime chance. Thats not just another game

UKfan
04-09-2008, 12:28 PM
If ur team has problems on the inside, imagine halftime. ur behind, and maybe ur QB made a stupid INT and u were wide open. Would a guy help that says: hey, come on u can do that better, i know it, i believe in u. or : are u freakin blind? i was wide open!!! omg i have to do everything on my own

Exactly, in a pressure situation you want a team to pull together and to play for one another, not to have a dick in your team criticising your every move and damaging team morale.

Hines
04-09-2008, 12:29 PM
They were certainly top 5, which is good enough to win any football game they played. They won because they played football better, not because they were all friends. Having a great coach never hurt, either.

They were friends and all rallied around Porter and Bettis. They had a mission in mind and they attacked it. Yeah they had a great coach, but a coach who was known as a choker in the big game. The Steelers barely made the playoffs, so they had to prove that they belonged.

mqtirishfan
04-09-2008, 12:29 PM
If ur team has problems on the inside, imagine halftime. ur behind, and maybe ur QB made a stupid INT and u were wide open. Would a guy help that says: hey, come on u can do that better, i know it, i believe in u. or : are u freakin blind? i was wide open!!! omg i have to do everything on my own

Then get some players with some ******* backbones. Why exactly should the reaction of a player do anything to another player?

Gay Ork Wang
04-09-2008, 12:30 PM
yea cause its great to play with some guys u dont like and someone who thinks he is god. Ur talking like those guys are machines without emotions o.O

UKfan
04-09-2008, 12:30 PM
They were friends and all rallied around Porter and Bettis. They had a mission in mind and they attacked it. Yeah they had a great coach, but a coach who was known as a choker in the big game. The Steelers barely made the playoffs, so they had to prove that they belonged.

The whole thing about getting The Bus his ring was enormous in that Steelers SB, now imagine if Jerome had been a dick, the team wouldn't have rallied around him, the fans probably wouldn't have been quite as supportive, it just wouldn't have been the same, and I'm not sure the Steelers would have won the SB without that emotion.

mqtirishfan
04-09-2008, 12:31 PM
The pressure, ur dream in front of ur eyes, the media, the whole country/world is watching u play. Do u crumble under the pressure or do u overcome it? Thats what makes a good player a great one. U talk like it as it is nothing. Some people never get to the SB. Its maybe a once in a lifetime chance. Thats not just another game

Overcome it to the tune of 9 catches for 112 yards in the only Super Bowl T.O. was ever in? That's still just playing great football, which is what a team needs to do to win, and great players do that.

Hines
04-09-2008, 12:32 PM
Then get some players with some ******* backbones. Why exactly should the reaction of a player do anything to another player?

Because players feed off eachother believe it or not. It also builds trust. If a player doesnt get the ball enough or what not, they could half ass it and make the team do bad and bring the whole team down and lose. Just like how the fans get loud to pump up a defense, they feed off it. Just how players feed off of their teamates.

mqtirishfan
04-09-2008, 12:33 PM
yea cause its great to play with some guys u dont like and someone who thinks he is god. Ur talking like those guys are machines without emotions o.O

Not machines, but people who have a definite goal: play well, and win a football game.

Gay Ork Wang
04-09-2008, 12:33 PM
never said T.O. is not a great player. He is a distraction. Just look what he did afterwards. I could swear he was sort of like that in the locker room

Hines
04-09-2008, 12:33 PM
The whole thing about getting The Bus his ring was enormous in that Steelers SB, now imagine if Jerome had been a dick, the team wouldn't have rallied around him, the fans probably wouldn't have been quite as supportive, it just wouldn't have been the same, and I'm not sure the Steelers would have won the SB without that emotion.

Exactly, if Ben didnt make that promise to Jerome or if Jerome would've been a dick, they wouldnt of won all those games on the road or would have made the playoffs. They werent the best team in the league at that point, but they believed and they had motivation.

bsaza2358
04-09-2008, 12:34 PM
I think Palentonio is a genius for setting up the TO segment. Everyone is talking about it. Free publicity.

mqtirishfan
04-09-2008, 12:36 PM
Exactly, if Ben didnt make that promise to Jerome or if Jerome would've been a dick, they wouldnt of won all those games on the road or would have made the playoffs. They werent the best team in the league at that point, but they believed and they had motivation.

The fact that they were a very good football team that was able to win those games had nothing to do with it. Were the Colts just a bunch of lazy slobs that year? Did the Seahawks simply not care about the Super Bowl that year?

mqtirishfan
04-09-2008, 12:37 PM
never said T.O. is not a great player. He is a distraction. Just look what he did afterwards. I could swear he was sort of like that in the locker room

But that's what the argument is about: T.O.'s place as a great player.

Hines
04-09-2008, 12:39 PM
The fact that they were a very good football team that was able to win those games had nothing to do with it. Were the Colts just a bunch of lazy slobs that year? Did the Seahawks simply not care about the Super Bowl that year?

You obviously dont get it. The Steelers won those games because they had a goal in mind, and that was to get Bettis that ring. Were they a good team? Yes. Were they a great team? No.

Gay Ork Wang
04-09-2008, 12:39 PM
no, we are taking about a team cant win a SB without team chemistry

UKfan
04-09-2008, 12:39 PM
The fact that they were a very good football team that was able to win those games had nothing to do with it. Were the Colts just a bunch of lazy slobs that year? Did the Seahawks simply not care about the Super Bowl that year?

Of course talent has something to do with it, I agree with that, but you have got to agree with the evidence we have showed that character and attitude have an effect as well, no?

mqtirishfan
04-09-2008, 12:41 PM
You obviously dont get it. The Steelers won those games because they had a goal in mind, and that was to get Bettis that ring. Were they a good team? Yes. Were they a great team? No.

But you seem to ignore any possibility that the other teams were just as motivated by the goal of accomplishing the same thing. My point is that every team is super-motivated to win any football game, and that having the better team helps out a hell of a lot in winning these games.

Gay Ork Wang
04-09-2008, 12:43 PM
Cause the better team always wins in sport and surprises never happen.

What makes a team better? Statistic?

mqtirishfan
04-09-2008, 12:44 PM
Of course talent has something to do with it, I agree with that, but you have got to agree with the evidence we have showed that character and attitude have an effect as well, no?

Talent, ability, etc. -90%
Heart, character, etc. -10%

It's not like the Miami Dolphins wanted to lose all their games, they just sucked. You could take the most apathetic great players of all-time, and take a bunch of average, but really, really motivated players, and the great players would win.

terribletowel39
04-09-2008, 12:44 PM
The fact that they were a very good football team that was able to win those games had nothing to do with it. Were the Colts just a bunch of lazy slobs that year? Did the Seahawks simply not care about the Super Bowl that year?
Just because someone proved you wrong doesn't mean you have to be ridiculous. You asked for an example and HWJ gave you one. Steelers weren't better than the Colts that year. They got there ass handed to them in the regular season. They won the games because they had more heart and they came together. That is possible. Yes they were a good team but them playing for a good person on that team helped them tremendously.

Hines
04-09-2008, 12:44 PM
But you seem to ignore any possibility that the other teams were just as motivated by the goal of accomplishing the same thing. My point is that every team is super-motivated to win any football game, and that having the better team helps out a hell of a lot in winning these games.

Do you honestly think that if the Steelers werent playing for Bettis would have beat the Colts that year after they beat the **** out of them in the regular season?

mqtirishfan
04-09-2008, 12:45 PM
Cause the better team always wins in sport and surprises never happen.

What makes a team better? Statistic?


No, but the team that plays better wins. Something that helps teams play better: being good at playing.

mqtirishfan
04-09-2008, 12:46 PM
Do you honestly think that if the Steelers werent playing for Bettis would have beat the Colts that year after they beat the **** out of them in the regular season?

Yes. Because most people really, really, really want to win football games.

Gay Ork Wang
04-09-2008, 12:47 PM
Seriously i dont feel like argueing with u any more. We posted valid points, proved u wrong, and if u dont get it, well idc

mqtirishfan
04-09-2008, 12:47 PM
Just because someone proved you wrong doesn't mean you have to be ridiculous. You asked for an example and HWJ gave you one. Steelers weren't better than the Colts that year. They got there ass handed to them in the regular season. They won the games because they had more heart and they came together. That is possible. Yes they were a good team but them playing for a good person on that team helped them tremendously.

I just don't see it that way. Are you saying that the Colts, who won the Super Bowl the next year, had no heart? Did they just sort of mail it in or something?

Hines
04-09-2008, 12:47 PM
No, but the team that plays better wins. Something that helps teams play better: being good at playing.

Well no **** shirlock. Obviously if you play better their your opponent, you have a good shot at winning.

mqtirishfan
04-09-2008, 12:50 PM
Seriously i dont feel like argueing with u any more. We posted valid points, proved u wrong, and if u dont get it, well idc

I don't see any truly valid points. I don't see how a team magically wins because they really want to. Are you saying that the Colts didn't want to win the game as bad as the Steelers did?

mqtirishfan
04-09-2008, 12:50 PM
Well no **** shirlock. Obviously if you play better their your opponent, you have a good shot at winning.

You just need to want to win to do this, right?

Gay Ork Wang
04-09-2008, 12:51 PM
okay pls, tell me what defines a better team

terribletowel39
04-09-2008, 12:53 PM
I just don't see it that way. Are you saying that the Colts, who won the Super Bowl the next year, had no heart? Did they just sort of mail it in or something?
You are taking everything to the extreme and its getting silly. No one said that the Colts had no heart. And everyone does want to win really really really really bad, but let me put it this way, you could want to get a job to pay for things and your lifestyle and what not, but say you have a kid, that you have to support and must provide things for, you are gonna get a second job if need be and try harder to bring in enough money to support that kid. The kid being the extra motivation, will have you working harder and all that. Well the Colts wanted to win the game. The Steelers had a little extra motivation. Bettis = kid I don't understand why that is hard for you to comprehend.

Maybe that didn't make sense but yea.

mqtirishfan
04-09-2008, 12:55 PM
okay pls, tell me what defines a better team

A team with superior talent, a more complete roster, better coaching, etc. Now, obviously some teams can overcome these by simply playing a better game. Execution is very important in the game of football. Heart is important, but not important enough to overcome siginificant weaknesses a team has. Execution and a great game-plan is what can overcome talent differences.

Hines
04-09-2008, 12:56 PM
You are taking everything to the extreme and its getting silly. No one said that the Colts had no heart. And everyone does want to win really really really really bad, but let me put it this way, you could want to get a job to pay for things and your lifestyle and what not, but say you have a kid, that you have to support and must provide things for, you are gonna get a second job if need be and try harder to bring in enough money to support that kid. The kid being the extra motivation, will have you working harder and all that. Well the Colts wanted to win the game. The Steelers had a little extra motivation. Bettis = kid I don't understand why that is hard for you to comprehend.

Maybe that didn't make sense but yea.

Dont even bother, he wont understand it because he is supposively right and we are all wrong.

Gay Ork Wang
04-09-2008, 12:57 PM
When did we ever say the teams are horrible? we just say teams that are better dont always win. thats why teams say they would only win 1 out 10 f.e.

mqtirishfan
04-09-2008, 12:57 PM
You are taking everything to the extreme and its getting silly. No one said that the Colts had no heart. And everyone does want to win really really really really bad, but let me put it this way, you could want to get a job to pay for things and your lifestyle and what not, but say you have a kid, that you have to support and must provide things for, you are gonna get a second job if need be and try harder to bring in enough money to support that kid. The kid being the extra motivation, will have you working harder and all that. Well the Colts wanted to win the game. The Steelers had a little extra motivation. Bettis = kid I don't understand why that is hard for you to comprehend.

Maybe that didn't make sense but yea.

I see your point, but I don't think it's right. Motivation didn't make that Colts defender run into Big Ben. Poor execution by the Colts and great execution by the the Steelers made the difference.

mqtirishfan
04-09-2008, 01:00 PM
People seem to think they've proved me wrong by presenting their side of the argument as if it's inherently right because it's different than mine. I think execution is the difference maker in upsets, you think it's heart. I'm going to argue my side to the end, just as you're arguing your side. I see your points, but I think that it's flat-out wrong.

bsaza2358
04-09-2008, 01:04 PM
There is no real argument. The only thing that people can say about TO that is negative is his personality that can destroy weak teams. When he's getting the ball and the team is winning, TO is a model teammate. When he's not or the team is losing, he tends to try to keep the focus on him rather than working with his teammates. Just how he is.

LonghornsLegend
04-09-2008, 01:06 PM
Havent read the entire thread but just a few things...

Isnt Sal from Philly? I believe he is, and the article sounded biased which pisses me off because thats not your job as a journalist...There is a way to do an article about how overrated TO is and not sound like you personally hate the man...Comments like these:

The one time in Owens' 12-year career his team reached a Super Bowl, it got there without him. That tells you everything you need to know about T.O.

Umm ok, nice how you just leave out that he broke his leg, and came back in less then 7 weeks to play like a beast in the super bowl on basically one good leg...Lets forget to mention it was against medical advice that he even played the game anyway and could of ended up ruining his career that everyone claims is so important to him, but obviously that day the Super Bowl trumped any career after, he just wanted to win and played with 10x the heart and passion that Mcnabb did.


Now Sal was right in alot of things, TO has been an a**hole to two different organizations for whatever reasons, threw some qb's under the bus, the whole nine yards...So I have no problem with people calling him the worst of the worst because he brought it all on himself deservedly so, but its false to say things like "he doesnt care about winning" and "he only cares about his stats" because he's proven otherwise, he keeps his body in top shape for someone his age, recovers incredibly fast from injuries and has no problem putting his body on the line for his team...Not once has he been accused of not playing when he could or not giving it everything he had to win for his teams.


Thats my problem with calling him overrated, the rest of the claims are justifiable, but Sal clearly sounds like he has an agenda in the article so its hard to take someone like that very serious, it would carry alot more credibility to it personally for me if it stated facts, not opinions, and didnt let his emotion write the article for him.

bsaza2358
04-09-2008, 01:15 PM
I love how the Cowboy fans are the ones majorly defending TO. When this forum first began in 2004/2005, TO was a target for many posters, including those from Dallas. Just want to point that out.

mqtirishfan
04-09-2008, 01:16 PM
I love how the Cowboy fans are the ones majorly defending TO. When this forum first began in 2004/2005, TO was a target for many posters, including those from Dallas. Just want to point that out.

Let it be known that I hate T.O. almost as much as I hate the Cowboys, but I recognize that he's an elite talent.

LonghornsLegend
04-09-2008, 01:24 PM
Well he hasnt given us any real reason to hate him, I dont like him as much as somebody as Plaxico Burress in the clutch to be honest, but he hasnt been any trouble what so ever since he's been here...I still recognize what he did before hand, and like I said all the backlash he receives is justified, but there is no reason for any Cowboys fans to "hate" TO like majority of other fans and thats normal.

CC.SD
04-09-2008, 01:51 PM
Well no **** shirlock.


Irony?


Listen, any argument that you don't need chemistry to win it all is stupid. No sport that I know of is more chemistry based than football.

bsaza2358
04-09-2008, 01:59 PM
Well he hasnt given us any real reason to hate him, I dont like him as much as somebody as Plaxico Burress in the clutch to be honest, but he hasnt been any trouble what so ever since he's been here...I still recognize what he did before hand, and like I said all the backlash he receives is justified, but there is no reason for any Cowboys fans to "hate" TO like majority of other fans and thats normal.

But plenty of other Cowboys fans were ripping him in 2004 and 2005 and even earlier for this past BS. However, because he hasn't created a problem in Dallas yet, he is obviously okay. I'm just pointing out the double standard.

Hines
04-09-2008, 01:59 PM
Irony?


Listen, any argument that you don't need chemistry to win it all is stupid. No sport that I know of is more chemistry based than football.

I am saying chemistry is big for football. Irish is saying it isnt.

mqtirishfan
04-09-2008, 02:00 PM
Irony?


Listen, any argument that you don't need chemistry to win it all is stupid. No sport that I know of is more chemistry based than football.

That's really not what I'm trying to say. What I'm saying is that collective talent is way more important.

Gay Ork Wang
04-09-2008, 02:04 PM
cause only one team in the Playoffs has collective Talent?

bsaza2358
04-09-2008, 02:05 PM
If that is true, then the Bengals should be further along than they are. And the Colts or Chargers should have rings.

mqtirishfan
04-09-2008, 02:05 PM
cause only one team in the Playoffs has collective Talent?

Only one team in the playoffs has the most collective talent. Strangely enough, they're generally considered the favorites to win it all.

Gay Ork Wang
04-09-2008, 02:06 PM
yea so why did the Patriots didnt win o.O
Cause the Favorite always wins?

bsaza2358
04-09-2008, 02:07 PM
You mean like the Chargers in 2006 and the Colts 3 of the last 4 years and the Bucs from the early 00's?

mqtirishfan
04-09-2008, 02:07 PM
If that is true, then the Bengals should be further along than they are. And the Colts or Chargers should have rings.

The Colts, check. The Bengals have no defensive talent. The Chargers have never been better than both the Pats and Colts.

terribletowel39
04-09-2008, 02:08 PM
The Colts, check. The Bengals have no defensive talent. The Chargers have never been better than both the Pats and Colts.
Talent wise, yes. They have.

bsaza2358
04-09-2008, 02:08 PM
The 2006 Chargers went 14-2 and beat the Colts on their home field. They lost to the Pats (who had slightly less talent, but better coaching and team chemistry).

mqtirishfan
04-09-2008, 02:09 PM
You mean like the Chargers in 2006 and the Colts 3 of the last 4 years and the Bucs from the early 00's?

Ugh, back to this. As I have said numerous times, execution and preparation play major roles in the playoffs, where the talent levels are fairly similar. Still, they were the favorites.

bsaza2358
04-09-2008, 02:10 PM
They were the favorites and lost (except the Colts). The Bucs were the favorites and lost for years before breaking through.

Nitschke-Hawk
04-09-2008, 02:11 PM
Sal is now an ego maniac. Get back to reporting we don't wanna hear your opinions.

Gay Ork Wang
04-09-2008, 02:17 PM
And when do u prepare the best? If u have a bigger goal then every one else.

mqtirishfan
04-09-2008, 02:21 PM
And when do u prepare the best? If u have a bigger goal then every one else.

Huh? Every team has the same goal.

Gay Ork Wang
04-09-2008, 02:22 PM
Everyone wanted to get The Bus a ring? Oh know i see why the Steelers won, the others didnt really try

mqtirishfan
04-09-2008, 02:24 PM
Everyone wanted to get The Bus a ring? Oh know i see why the Steelers won, the others didnt really try

What the **** is going on here?

Gay Ork Wang
04-09-2008, 02:25 PM
Huh? Every team has the same goal.
There is more than one goal. Did u ever her of the term: "They just wanted it more."

mqtirishfan
04-09-2008, 02:27 PM
There is more than one goal. Did u ever her of the term: "They just wanted it more."

Yes. I think it's the single stupidest phrase in the history of sports.

Gay Ork Wang
04-09-2008, 02:29 PM
Sweet, as i said, its just a waste of time to argue with u

mqtirishfan
04-09-2008, 02:30 PM
Sweet, as i said, its just a waste of time to argue with u

Because I honestly believe that both teams want to win?

yourfavestoner
04-09-2008, 02:32 PM
Ugh.....I'm sick of the saying that TO single handedly destroys teams.

Firstly, he didn't destroy San Francisco. San Francisco became one of the worst teams in the league, because they had to gut their roster after years of salary cap mismanagement. Anybody remember that TO's agent forgot to file his free agency paperwork at the end of his stint in SF were overjoyed to have the league's best receiver back at a palatable price? Then he started making a stink about it and they traded him to the Ravens. He filed a grievance with the union and made his way to Eagles.

He destroyed the Eagles as well, huh? From what I recall, the Eagles AND Donovan McNabb had their best year with TO. He was the best player on the field during the Superbowl, after spending a month working his ass off to get back on the field from a fractured leg. He got in a lover's spat with management and McNabb. Big deal. If TO ruined the team, then why haven't they recovered fully now that he's gone? Because the defense and McNabb have been getting older, and because *gasp* there's actually talent in the NFC East now. The NFC East was arguably the worst division in football during Philly's run of consecutive division titles.

Gay Ork Wang
04-09-2008, 02:34 PM
Cause ur saying the most talented team always wins....

Lets see, Bears swept the packers, Packers swept the Vikes, Vikes swept the Bears.... who is more talented now?

mqtirishfan
04-09-2008, 02:36 PM
Cause ur saying the most talented team always wins....

Lets see, Bears swept the packers, Packers swept the Vikes, Vikes swept the Bears.... who is more talented now?

No, I said the more talented team often wins, and upsets occur because of execution and gameplanning, rather than wanting to win it more.

bsaza2358
04-09-2008, 02:38 PM
Ugh.....I'm sick of the saying that TO single handedly destroys teams.

Firstly, he didn't destroy San Francisco. San Francisco became one of the worst teams in the league, because they had to gut their roster after years of salary cap mismanagement. Anybody remember that TO's agent forgot to file his free agency paperwork at the end of his stint in SF were overjoyed to have the league's best receiver back at a palatable price? Then he started making a stink about it and they traded him to the Ravens. He filed a grievance with the union and made his way to Eagles.

He destroyed the Eagles as well, huh? From what I recall, the Eagles AND Donovan McNabb had their best year with TO. He was the best player on the field during the Superbowl, after spending a month working his ass off to get back on the field from a fractured leg. He got in a lover's spat with management and McNabb. Big deal. If TO ruined the team, then why haven't they recovered fully now that he's gone? Because the defense and McNabb have been getting older, and because *gasp* there's actually talent in the NFC East now. The NFC East was arguably the worst division in football during Philly's run of consecutive division titles.

All true, but having seen the NFC East a lot over the last 5 years, I can say that that any of the 2002-2004 Eagles teams probably would have won the division in 2005, 2006, and 2007. Those teams were legitimately good and went 12-4, 12-4, and 13-3. They beat pretty much everybody those years.

mqtirishfan
04-09-2008, 02:40 PM
All true, but having seen the NFC East a lot over the last 5 years, I can say that that any of the 2002-2004 Eagles teams probably would have won the division in 2005, 2006, and 2007. Those teams were legitimately good and went 12-4, 12-4, and 13-3. They beat pretty much everybody those years.

Yes, but did T.O. really cause that? The only way he really destroyed the Eagles for the future was by not being there. The lack of his superior football playing, along with McNabb's injuries had a lot to do with their dropoff.

yourfavestoner
04-09-2008, 02:41 PM
All true, but having seen the NFC East a lot over the last 5 years, I can say that that any of the 2002-2004 Eagles teams probably would have won the division in 2005, 2006, and 2007. Those teams were legitimately good and went 12-4, 12-4, and 13-3. They beat pretty much everybody those years.

I agree that those were great teams that would very good in the landscape of the NFC today. My point was that they aren't the Eagles of 2002-2004 anymore, largely due to key injuries and aging. Neither of which are TO's fault.

Gay Ork Wang
04-09-2008, 02:42 PM
and why didnt he play there? cause of his character

bigbluedefense
04-09-2008, 02:42 PM
You know TO is gonna respond to this...im curious to hear his reaction.

bsaza2358
04-09-2008, 02:47 PM
I agree that those were great teams that would very good in the landscape of the NFC today. My point was that they aren't the Eagles of 2002-2004 anymore, largely due to key injuries and aging. Neither of which are TO's fault.

We are in agreement. However, you are glossing over TO's behavior as a distraction to a team that could have contended (before losing 11 starters to IR) for another Super Bowl that year.

bigbluedefense
04-09-2008, 02:53 PM
i'll give a more elaborate comment on this later.

but what i found hilarious was this quote:

"And, sometimes, all you have to do is cover Owens to render him ineffective."


GET OUTTA TOWN! SO COVERING WIDE RECEIVERS MAKES THEM INEFFECTIVE!

damn, i gotta remember to jot that down in case i forget.

i guess im the only one who found that funny :(

*goes back to serious BBD* :( haha

mqtirishfan
04-09-2008, 02:57 PM
i guess im the only one who found that funny :(

*goes back to serious BBD* :( haha

I found the entire article to be hilarious.

Gay Ork Wang
04-09-2008, 03:01 PM
I actually laughed so dont kill urself ;)

bsaza2358
04-09-2008, 03:02 PM
BBD needs praise to define himself as a person. So needy...

The Great Jonathan Vilma
04-09-2008, 03:04 PM
This thread filled fast, but rather than read 6 pages of garbage on the player i hate the most in the league, i'll let those numbers speak for themselves. I don't care if he is trying to gain pub for his book, the numbers speak for themself. He is a great talent, but you can't deny the cancer he is to a team, and it is simple to say he is all for himself. You can point to how things are right now, but it doesn't mean anything. He's always a well behaved student when he joins a new team. Things won't change. Neither will his drops, something that people usually overlook.

If i'm a GM i don't take TO, plain and simple

bigbluedefense
04-09-2008, 03:04 PM
haha, seriously though, for a serious guy, i was quite proud of that joke if i say so myself.

*pats own shoulder*

bsaza2358
04-09-2008, 03:05 PM
haha, seriously though, for a serious guy, i was quite proud of that joke if i say so myself.

*pats own shoulder*

Try not to hurt yourself patting yourself in various places...

Gay Ork Wang
04-09-2008, 03:05 PM
This thread filled fast, but rather than read 6 pages of garbage on the player i hate the most in the league, i'll let those numbers speak for themselves. I don't care if he is trying to gain pub for his book, the numbers speak for themself. He is a great talent, but you can't deny the cancer he is to a team, and it is simple to say he is all for himself. You can point to how things are right now, but it doesn't mean anything. He's always a well behaved student when he joins a new team. Things won't change. Neither will his drops, something that people usually overlook.

If i'm a GM i don't take TO, plain and simple
Those 6 pages are mostly filled with an argument about Team Chemistry :D

bigbluedefense
04-09-2008, 03:07 PM
Try not to hurt yourself patting yourself in various places...

theres more than one "place"? haha

bsaza2358
04-09-2008, 03:08 PM
You specified shoulder. I could say back. If you have an itch, go for it...

CC.SD
04-09-2008, 03:08 PM
IIRC, covering TO doesn't just make him ineffective, it makes him stomp up and down the sidelines screaming "Why am I here?"

Gay Ork Wang
04-09-2008, 03:13 PM
Why dont u throw to me?

bigbluedefense
04-09-2008, 03:15 PM
imagine if TO became a guido?

i think my hate for him would reach such intense levels that my head would explode.

bsaza2358
04-09-2008, 03:16 PM
Ooh, someone give TO a guido haircut!

bigbluedefense
04-09-2008, 03:25 PM
is that even possible?

and what would an orange tan look like on TO?

bsaza2358
04-09-2008, 03:34 PM
I just want one of the graphics guys to put it together. That would be awesome.

Addict
04-09-2008, 03:45 PM
I just want one of the graphics guys to put it together. That would be awesome.

it would be what my hatred would look like visualized.

bsaza2358
04-09-2008, 03:50 PM
Let's do it. Come on!

Addict
04-09-2008, 03:51 PM
Let's do it. Come on!

I would but I suck at photoshop.

bsaza2358
04-09-2008, 03:53 PM
I put in a request on the Sig board. Maybe I'll make it my new sig. The Pops Mensah Bonsu thing is getting old...

Addict
04-09-2008, 03:53 PM
I put in a request on the Sig board. Maybe I'll make it my new sig. The Pops Mensah Bonsu thing is getting old...

I seconded that request. yeah I've been asking for a new one for a while too. I want a new BR one... or maybe a Demetri Martin one.

... I don't know really.

bsaza2358
04-09-2008, 03:54 PM
Demetri Martin is pretty dang funny. Keep asking, and they'll get it done for you.

bigbluedefense
04-09-2008, 03:58 PM
id love to see that photoshop haha.

bsaza2358
04-09-2008, 03:58 PM
Add to the rep parade in the Sig Request thread. Figure that kind of rep would be enough of an enticement...

Addict
04-09-2008, 04:04 PM
Add to the rep parade in the Sig Request thread. Figure that kind of rep would be enough of an enticement...

yeah the three of us should punch in for quite a few points.

bsaza2358
04-09-2008, 04:05 PM
I would agree, but I'm also going to rock the sig.

LonghornsLegend
04-09-2008, 04:11 PM
But plenty of other Cowboys fans were ripping him in 2004 and 2005 and even earlier for this past BS. However, because he hasn't created a problem in Dallas yet, he is obviously okay. I'm just pointing out the double standard.

Well your probably right on that, I cant speak for every Cowboy fan that has flip flopped im just speaking for myself.

The Great Jonathan Vilma
04-09-2008, 04:11 PM
these threads are turning into regular chat room discussions. stay on topic

Addict
04-09-2008, 04:12 PM
these threads are turning into regular chat room discussions. stay on topic

killjoy... lighten up. Seriously, I dislike T.O. because I feel he's an arrogant idiot. Productive? Yes. But that doesn't mean I have to like him.

bsaza2358
04-09-2008, 04:13 PM
Well your probably right on that, I cant speak for every Cowboy fan that has flip flopped im just speaking for myself.

I'm not saying you specifically. I can't go back to the archives to pluck out instances, but TO was hated because of his Eagles affiliation.

BamaFalcon59
04-09-2008, 04:56 PM
When I first started watching ESPN, I thought Sal Palantonio was a place. Like South Palantonio. Or a Mexican place. Then I found out it was a person.

bsaza2358
04-09-2008, 05:03 PM
That was a moderately funny post.

Billingsley26
04-09-2008, 06:15 PM
Name me a SB winner ever that wasn't one at least one of the best football teams that year.

Also, name me a SB winner ever that didn't have at least one jerk on the team.

Talent wins football games.

I never disregarded the fact that talent wins. But I believe that SMART WINS. More than talent. Look, you need talent, period, to play at this level. Everyone has talent.

Did the Giants have more talent than NE?
Did NE have more talent than STL?
I could go on and on about this.

And when NYG won this year, who was the jerk that was on the SB roster? How about on NE's roster when they won their 3? Anything on IND? And I dont want to hear about Corey Dillon, because, yes he was a jerk in CIN, but was he a jerk in NE? NOPE.

mqtirishfan
04-09-2008, 06:18 PM
I never disregarded the fact that talent wins. But I believe that SMART WINS. More than talent. Look, you need talent, period, to play at this level. Everyone has talent.

Did the Giants have more talent than NE?
Did NE have more talent than STL?
I could go on and on about this.



I've already covered that Talent + execution wins. My problem is this mysterious need for more heart than the other team.

Billingsley26
04-09-2008, 06:23 PM
So let me get one thing straight, here. Bad chemistry can win you 13 games in a season, but it can't win you a Super Bowl.

That is correct. In the regular season, Dallas will play the likes of WAS, PHI and NYG twice. They may play the NFC North as well, in which 3 of those 4 are easily winnable games. How about the AFC East like this year?

Come playoff time, its a different story. With what you I am quoting, you must have a hell of time thinking about how the Giants beat the Cowboys in the playoffs.

mqtirishfan
04-09-2008, 06:24 PM
And when NYG won this year, who was the jerk that was on the SB roster? How about on NE's roster when they won their 3? Anything on IND? And I dont want to hear about Corey Dillon, because, yes he was a jerk in CIN, but was he a jerk in NE? NOPE.

New England: Vince Wilfork, Rodney Harrison
New York: Plaxico Burress (not a great teammate, kind of a dick)
Indy: Pretty hard task, but I suppose Dominic Rhodes is a dumbass.

terribletowel39
04-09-2008, 06:27 PM
New England: Vince Wilfork, Rodney Harrison
New York: Plaxico Burress (not a great teammate, kind of a dick)
Indy: Pretty hard task, but I suppose Dominic Rhodes is a dumbass.
I only agree with New England ones. Plax may not be a great teammate but he doesn't cause distractions. And you can't say someone is a jerk because they are ignorant. Channing Crowder would on the news everyday for being an asshole then.

Billingsley26
04-09-2008, 06:27 PM
New England: Vince Wilfork, Rodney Harrison
New York: Plaxico Burress (not a great teammate, kind of a dick)
Indy: Pretty hard task, but I suppose Dominic Rhodes is a dumbass.

First off, I said when the teams won the SB.

1. NE- Vicne Wilfork wasnt doing these 'dirty' hits in the 3 years they won. As for Rodney, call him a jerk if you will...could be debated.
2. NYG- Never heard a pep from Plax this season. Played hard through injury, and was there every game. Stepped up when he needed. Played with heart.
3. IND- Dominic Rhodes wasnt busted until after the SB. Never heard any problems with him during the season.

mqtirishfan
04-09-2008, 06:27 PM
That is correct. In the regular season, Dallas will play the likes of WAS, PHI and NYG twice. They may play the NFC North as well, in which 3 of those 4 are easily winnable games. How about the AFC East like this year?

Come playoff time, its a different story. With what you I am quoting, you must have a hell of time thinking about how the Giants beat the Cowboys in the playoffs.

Nope, because I think the Giants are pretty similar in talent to the Cowboys. Their defensive line was fantastic, Burress is a great receiver, their o-line is great, and Eli Manning has some serious talent (Even if he neglects to show this most of the time). The difference between the regular season and the playoffs was that they executed better than any other team. Like I've said, execution is the great equalizer. Others want to pin this on heart and wanting it more.

mqtirishfan
04-09-2008, 06:30 PM
I only agree with New England ones. Plax may not be a great teammate but he doesn't cause distractions. And you can't say someone is a jerk because they are ignorant. Channing Crowder would on the news everyday for being an asshole then.

This year was different, but in the past he's had his problems. Missing practice, spats with coaches, etc.

mqtirishfan
04-09-2008, 06:31 PM
First off, I said when the teams won the SB.

1. NE- Vicne Wilfork wasnt doing these 'dirty' hits in the 3 years they won. As for Rodney, call him a jerk if you will...could be debated.
2. NYG- Never heard a pep from Plax this season. Played hard through injury, and was there every game. Stepped up when he needed. Played with heart.
3. IND- Dominic Rhodes wasnt busted until after the SB. Never heard any problems with him during the season.

I take it you believe in light-switch personalities?

Geo
04-09-2008, 06:32 PM
The 2006 Chargers went 14-2 and beat the Colts on their home field. They lost to the Pats (who had slightly less talent, but better coaching and team chemistry).
The Chargers and the Colts didn't play each other in 06, actually. They did in 04, 05, and 07 ... plus they will in 08 (at San Diego). The 06 Chargers lost at Baltimore and at Kansas City.

Also, the 06 Colts had worse than a jerk ... they had Cato June.

Billingsley26
04-09-2008, 06:35 PM
Nope, because I think the Giants are pretty similar in talent to the Cowboys. Their defensive line was fantastic, Burress is a great receiver, their o-line is great, and Eli Manning has some serious talent (Even if he neglects to show this most of the time). The difference between the regular season and the playoffs was that they executed better than any other team. Like I've said, execution is the great equalizer. Others want to pin this on heart and wanting it more.

But let me throw something by you. Come that weekend when the Giants played the Cowboys what was Tony Romo talking about? Then whatever Romo talked about, sparked T.O to talk. It was about this stupid trip and if he should take it or not.

What did you hear from the Giants that week? I dont think the Giants had the talent offensively that the Cowboys had. Looking back, at that point, i can guarantee that 75% of people on this board would take Romo over Eli. Talent wise, DAL had better WR and TE going into that game. RB are debatable. As for defense, other than the DL, again 75% of this board would take the rest of DAL defense.

There is no doubt that the Giants won with heart. There is question that the Packers had a better overall defense than the Giants. Probably secondary and linebackers. Did they have reason to win either game? How about the Pats game? No, if you ask me they didnt.

They won with heart. If you ask me aagina what heart is i'll tell you. Heart is the will to work harder to win. Overacheiving. Winning with less talent, but with more work and will. Tough play, physical play. The Giants had all of that. They won with heart. The Patriots in their early years were like this aswell.

Billingsley26
04-09-2008, 06:36 PM
This year was different, but in the past he's had his problems. Missing practice, spats with coaches, etc.

But did you notice how the first thing I said was "during the year in which they won the SB"?

mqtirishfan
04-09-2008, 06:43 PM
There is no doubt that the Giants won with heart. There is question that the Packers had a better overall defense than the Giants. Probably secondary and linebackers. Did they have reason to win either game? How about the Pats game? No, if you ask me they didnt.

They won with heart. If you ask me aagina what heart is i'll tell you. Heart is the will to work harder to win. Overacheiving. Winning with less talent, but with more work and will. Tough play, physical play. The Giants had all of that. They won with heart. The Patriots in their early years were like this aswell.

So what you're saying is that the Cowboys, Patriots and Packers did not try their hardest?

For the record, I whole-heartedly believe that football is won in the trenches, and the Giants were the best team in the playoffs in the trenches.

mqtirishfan
04-09-2008, 06:44 PM
But did you notice how the first thing I said was "during the year in which they won the SB"?

Did you notice that I already expressed my doubts that people just become jerks?

terribletowel39
04-09-2008, 06:45 PM
So what you're saying is that the Cowboys, Patriots and Packers did not try their hardest?
Why is it so hard for you to understand, that it is possible for my hardest attempt to be at a higher level than your hardest attempt??

Billingsley26
04-09-2008, 06:45 PM
So what you're saying is that the Cowboys, Patriots and Packers did not try their hardest?

Not necessarily. Only that they were outworked by the Giants.

Did you notice that I already expressed my doubts that people just become jerks?

I didnt, no.

mqtirishfan
04-09-2008, 06:46 PM
Why is it so hard for you to understand, that it is possible for my hardest attempt to be at a higher level than your hardest attempt??

Because if you're giving 100%, that's it. You're both trying as hard as you possibly can. Then it comes down to who has better conditioning and more talent.

Billingsley26
04-09-2008, 06:50 PM
Because if you're giving 100%, that's it. You're both trying as hard as you possibly can. Then it comes down to who has better conditioning and more talent.

LOL. No it doesnt.

This is the playoffs man. You need to do what you need to do, AND MORE to win the game. It has been evienced several times over the last 10 years or so. It definately isnt talent the puts you over the edge to win the games. As evidenced by the NYG and the Patriots. It isnt hard to understand. There have been several years where a team has been the most talented or best conditioned while working 100% and not won the SB.

bantx
04-09-2008, 06:51 PM
my 100% is better than ur 100%

mqtirishfan
04-09-2008, 06:55 PM
LOL. No it doesnt.

This is the playoffs man. You need to do what you need to do, AND MORE to win the game. It has been evienced several times over the last 10 years or so. It definately isnt talent the puts you over the edge to win the games. As evidenced by the NYG and the Patriots. It isnt hard to understand. There have been several years where a team has been the most talented or best conditioned while working 100% and not won the SB.

Like I've said over and over, it's execution that causes this, not wanting it more than the other team, because both teams are filled with players who spend their whole lives dreaming of these moments, and will do whatever they can to win. Execution and talent win football games. Nearly everyone in the NFL has heart. What every team doesn't have is a perfect game plan and players who can go out and set that plan to action to perfection.

Burns336
04-09-2008, 07:01 PM
We're getting away from the point of the article.

SP is trying to say T.O. is overrated. This is not true.

SP may have wanted to title the article "T.O. is an ass" and he may have had been better off.

Dan Marino never won a superbowl, he must be overrated?

The Bills lost 4 straight SB's, why is that? Whatever, Thurman Thomas, Bruce Smith, and Jim Kelly are all overrated.

SP is an idiot.

I wonder why he didn't include "The Quote" -- "That's my teammate, That's my quarterback..."

and for everyone saying "we're not judging him on talent, but attitude," well I guess Randy Moss is overrated as ****. He didn't take Oakland to the SB. In fact, he quit playing and didn't even go 100% -- something Owens has never done -- SP is just sour that the Eagles suck now and McNabb is washed up.

Burns336
04-09-2008, 07:06 PM
The article is about hurting your team from the inside, and not showing up in playoffs..

Randy didn't go 100% in Oakland, he was a cry baby, and an idiot. He's reformed and is a team player now in New England and we all choose to forget about the past.

T.O. has always given 100%, is a major dick, and has been a good teammate since he's been in Dallas. I honestly don't see the difference.

I also don't see any rings on Randy's hands so he must be overrated.

BaLLiN
04-09-2008, 07:14 PM
New England: Vince Wilfork, Rodney Harrison
New York: Plaxico Burress (not a great teammate, kind of a dick)
Indy: Pretty hard task, but I suppose Dominic Rhodes is a dumbass.

Plax gave us hope, he put it out there that we could win this game, and he said that our defense could limit NE, and he was right.

He really helped Eli progress this season, so he IS a good teammate, also he didnt get those 15 yard unneccesary roughness calls he used to and has really matured. He spoke of Eli and said something alone the lines of "You and I, lets not be just good, lets be great". Now you could say, of course lets be great, but how he said it and how he put that confidence in Eli really shows me that he is a good teammate. So dont go saying false things

Billingsley26
04-09-2008, 07:15 PM
Like I've said over and over, it's execution that causes this, not wanting it more than the other team, because both teams are filled with players who spend their whole lives dreaming of these moments, and will do whatever they can to win. Execution and talent win football games. Nearly everyone in the NFL has heart. What every team doesn't have is a perfect game plan and players who can go out and set that plan to action to perfection.

Yeah, and that team who executes better is the team that works harder then the next. They go over and above what they need. Because we all know that come sunday, each team is going to go 100%. Its, who is going to go 110% and execute a little bit better.

Turtlepower
04-09-2008, 07:16 PM
Plax gave us hope, he put it out there that we could win this game, and he said that our defense could limit NE, and he was right.

He really helped Eli progress this season, so he IS a good teammate, also he didnt get those 15 yard unneccesary roughness calls he used to and has really matured. He spoke of Eli and said something alone the lines of "You and I, lets not be just good, lets be great". Now you could say, of course lets be great, but how he said it and how he put that confidence in Eli really shows me that he is a good teammate. So dont go saying false things

You can't forget that he played through pretty bad pain almost every week of the season because he knew we were thin at WR.

mqtirishfan
04-09-2008, 07:27 PM
Yeah, and that team who executes better is the team that works harder then the next. They go over and above what they need. Because we all know that come sunday, each team is going to go 100%. Its, who is going to go 110% and execute a little bit better.

Eh? Execution isn't all about heart. Execution is about being able to do what is required of you on a play. You can play your heart out and still suck if you drop passes, miss tackles, blow an assignment, etc.

bantx
04-09-2008, 07:31 PM
i this was about TO

BamaFalcon59
04-09-2008, 07:32 PM
When I first started watching ESPN, I thought Sal Palantonio was a place. Like South Palantonio. Or a Mexican place. Then I found out it was a person.

I can't be the only one who thought this. Sal Palantonio? Seriously?

Gay Ork Wang
04-10-2008, 10:29 AM
Eh? Execution isn't all about heart. Execution is about being able to do what is required of you on a play. You can play your heart out and still suck if you drop passes, miss tackles, blow an assignment, etc.
So u wanna tell me tyree caught that ball with pure execution? And Manning escaped that pass with pure execution? Their will to win was stronger than the will of NE. He wanted to caught the ball badly, its not about how u executed ur play that was called or about messed up coverage on the play. U see, if u say 100% = 100% thats not true. The Giants Will couldve been 900 and the pats 800 at that point. So if they both give 100%, its not the same.

TitleTown088
04-10-2008, 11:11 AM
He did the same thing to Favre, he's just trying to be different so everyone will think he's sooo smart.

mqtirishfan
04-10-2008, 01:54 PM
So u wanna tell me tyree caught that ball with pure execution? And Manning escaped that pass with pure execution? Their will to win was stronger than the will of NE. He wanted to caught the ball badly, its not about how u executed ur play that was called or about messed up coverage on the play. U see, if u say 100% = 100% thats not true. The Giants Will couldve been 900 and the pats 800 at that point. So if they both give 100%, its not the same.

No, that I call luck by Tyree and poor defense by the Patriots. I bet the Pats defenders really, really wanted to tackle Eli just as much as Eli wanted not to be tackled. And yes, I think I can mathematically prove that 100% = 100% if those are my only variables, just as I can prove that 100% > 90% if I believe that the desire to win is something that both teams have an equal capability of having. My opinion is that there isn't some unmeasurable desire to win that only winning teams can get. For every Jerome Bettis story, I can find some great player that has never won a Super Bowl, and his teammates probably loved him to death. They just weren't good enough to win.

Gay Ork Wang
04-10-2008, 02:08 PM
We never said talent doesnt count. If u have an incredible crappy team with one HoFer, it still wont work.

And ur talking of desire like it is sth that is limited. It is not. And when it is not limited u cant talk of 100%

bsaza2358
04-10-2008, 03:33 PM
Are we still talking about this crap?

Gay Ork Wang
04-10-2008, 03:35 PM
yes we indeed are. Until GuidTo is out

trkaline
04-10-2008, 03:37 PM
Sal Paolantonio is at the same mental level as Woody Paige you cant take him seriously...