TO gets support from his team

[Orton's Arm]

Do you really think it is just McNabb, I don't think the eagles would have went through all this just to make McNabb happy.

513083[/snapback]

A lot of it was just to make McNabb happy. If McNabb had been man enough to say, "I want a great receiver more than I want my feelings protected," TO would still be with the Eagles today.

[Dawgg]

Detrimental to the team... did his actions get in the way of the Eagles winning football games? Not one bit. In fact, TO was a major factor in all their games and in many cases was a dominant figure, propelling the team wins. How is that detrimental to the team? Isn't that the ultimate objective of the team? Win football games, keep the fans happy, and put an entertaining product out on the field. The Eagles were doing all 3 until they were not man enough to put TO in his place and deal with his antics.

 

Well letting players get away with actions which they considered detrimental to the team isn't exactly good for the long run.

513088[/snapback]

[Webster Guy]

Holcomb's Arm (Mr. Arm?),

 

It seems we're crawling away from the point, post by post... at least MY point, which is this:

 

T.O. has no one to blame but himself. He is 100% responsible for his situation.

 

Have you read this? It's long, but read the whole thing:

T.O. report

 

I guess you honestly believe McNabb shares a big part of the blame for this. I just don't see it, I really don't. I can't see how he could have handled it better. But, I guess we agree to disagree. Majorly disagree.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Do you really think it is just McNabb, I don't think the eagles would have went through all this just to make McNabb happy.

513083[/snapback]

 

Why is that so hard to believe in sports?

 

Not to sidetrack things... Just throwing this out there:

 

Look what the Sabres went through to make Hasek happy? Basically blackballed Ted Nolan right out of the league... To his (Ted Nolan) credit, he had ideals and moved on to more important things.

 

TO, now where would he be without playing in the NFL? Too bad he can't tell the league to eat a bowl of eff and move on with his life doing more important things in society. For some reason, I just don't see TO as that kind of guy.

 

[Mikie2times]

A lot of it was just to make McNabb happy. If McNabb had been man enough to say, "I want a great receiver more than I want my feelings protected," TO would still be with the Eagles today.

513093[/snapback]

 

Dude read the link Webster Guy provided, the evidence against TO is astounding, and the majority of it is toward Andy Reid, and the Eagles organization, not McNabb. Are you going to now claim that if Andy Reid truly wanted to win he was put his feelings aside and let TO play? You have to draw the line eventually.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Dude read the link Webster Guy provided, the evidence against TO is astounding, and the majority of it is toward Andy Reid, and the Eagles organization, not McNabb.  Are you going to now claim that if Andy Reid truly wanted to win he was put his feelings aside and let TO play? You have to draw the line eventually.

513105[/snapback]

 

 

Why don't they just keep the star player and get rid of Andy Reid?

 

Now that has never happened before.

 

Just playing devil's advocate.

[BB2004]

"Most of us like him, but we're not supposed to like him, so you've got to watch how you answer the questions." - defensive end N.D. Kalu.

 

Interesting that Philadelphia would give up on its best offensive player as a sop to McNabb's ego. Jim Kelly and Andre Reed didn't always see eye to eye, but at the end of the day, winning football games was more important for Kelly than getting even with Reed for whatever may have gone wrong between them. Too bad for the Eagles that McNabb is no Jim Kelly.

511684[/snapback]

 

The thing I don't understand is why the arbitrator wouldn't give TO his release from the Eagles so that he could play for someone else this season.

[meazza]

The thing I don't understand is why the arbitrator wouldn't give TO his release from the Eagles so that he could play for someone else this season.

513114[/snapback]

 

because that is what TO wants

TO knew he would never play a game for philly ever again but he still wanted to play for another team and prove how talented he is but i guess it is too late for that, we'll just have to wait till next season when he's catching balls from JP losman

[Webster Guy]

The thing I don't understand is why the arbitrator wouldn't give TO his release from the Eagles so that he could play for someone else this season.

513114[/snapback]

 

 

The arbitrator couldn't have done that if he wanted to.

 

His purview was to simply assess the grievance brought by the Players Association. The grievance was that 4 games was too much to suspend T.O. (the arbitrator disagreed) and that the Eagles shouldn't keep him inactive after that (again, the arbitrator said Philly was well within their rights in this case). Philly is still paying T.O. for the final games (after the suspension) they don't let him dress- kind of like Keyshawn and Tampa Bay/Gruden two years ago.

[Mikie2times]

No NFL team will allow one player to hijack them, and certainly not one that has a coach the caliber of Reid. Besides even if the NFL was like the NBA what evidence do we have that he will ever be satisfied with his coach, QB, and team?

 

At first he was thrilled with McNabb, Reid, and the Eagles, just like he was with Garcia, Marucci, and the 49ers. It took a little while for his antics to show up in SF, but not so long with Baltimore, and Philadelphia. He simply has no track record of being happy for any length of time, and lately the length of time has dwindled down to days. Is a team supposed to fire the coach every two years at the expense of one player? Why have a GM if TO's around to make the decisions for you, what an arrogant POS.

[finknottle]

because that is what TO wants

TO knew he would never play a game for philly ever again but he still wanted to play for another team and prove how talented he is but i guess it is too late for that, we'll just have to wait till next season when he's catching balls from JP losman

513119[/snapback]

 

Ahh geez, are you telling me they'll both be out of football by the off season and playing catch in TO's driveway? I think you're selling JP a little short... even his most fervant detractors wouldn't give up on him that quickly.

[gmac17]

among the highlights...

 

Owens reported to camp but, among other things, refused to speak with team personnel.  On or around the opening of training camp in August, at Mr. Rosenhaus’ suggestion, Coach Reid, Owens and Rosenhaus set up a meeting to attempt to clear the air.  Mr. Owens, however, declined to shake the Coach’s hand and rejected continuing efforts during that meeting to set matters straight. Thereafter, Coach Reid testifies, the Player declined to speak to him and Reid resorted to communicating with Owens through the Player’s position coach.[9]  Owens also declined to talk to various Eagles personnel, including the Offensive Coordinator, Brad Childress.  Childress testifies that, as contrasted with the first

 

year of their relationship, Owens was incommunicative.  From the first time they met in training camp that second year, he says, he was met “with nothing, no response, just kind of a straight-ahead stare.”[10]  Childress continued to greet the Player for some seven or eight nights until Owens, at one point, said: “Why do you talk to me?  I don’t talk to you.  You don’t talk to me.  There’s no reason for you to talk to me.”

 

and

 

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

 

there's plenty more...

[ExiledInIllinois]

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

 

Sounds like TO has a budding career as a government contractor. If it isn't in the contract, you don't have to do it!

 

[Orton's Arm]

The article was a more detailed version of things that have been discussed in this thread. TO, apparently acting on the advice of Rosenhaus, decided to disrupt the team in order to force a trade or a release. After a while, TO cooled down his act, and things seemed back to normal. Then there came the Hugh Douglas fight--which the arbitrator did not mention as misconduct on TO's part, implying some uncertainty as to who exactly started that fight. There was also the ESPN interview.

 

Ultimately, the import of this, and similar remarks, has not so much to do with its actual content as it does with the potential and reasonably predictable impact on others, including McNabb and, significantly, with Owens’ outright refusal to attempt to deal with professionally vital, but seriously damaged, relationships.

In other words, McNabb was part of the problem, and made the ESPN interview into a bigger issue than it really needed to be.

 

Tellingly, the arbitration document says nothing about any effort McNabb made to reach out to TO. Given the painstaking detail of the document, you'd think any olive branches McNabb extended would at least have been mentioned. None were. Nor did the document address whatever role McNabb may have had in creating the bad blood that existed between himself and TO. Such was outside the scope of the document, but not outside the scope of this thread. The situation is messed-up enough that there's plenty of blame for everyone: Rosenhaus, TO, and McNabb. Andy Reid was more reasonable than any of those three, but ultimately the situation TO and McNabb mutually created forced him to choose.

[Dawgg]

And thus, coming full circle, McNabb was willing to sacrifice his team's chances of winning in order to remove a player he did not get along with. Not only is that unfair to the veterans on the team whose years are numbered, it is unfair to the fans who pay to watch the team day in and day out.

 

It's easy for you people to say that from this vantage point as someone who doesn't really care about the Eagles (or TO for that matter). But if the Bills were Super Bowl contenders and they suddenly threw their best player off the team mid-season, would I be pissed off as an avid fan who pays for tickets?

 

You bet.

 

The article was a more detailed version of things that have been discussed in this thread. TO, apparently acting on the advice of Rosenhaus, decided to disrupt the team in order to force a trade or a release. After a while, TO cooled down his act, and things seemed back to normal. Then there came the Hugh Douglas fight--which the arbitrator did not mention as misconduct on TO's part, implying some uncertainty as to who exactly started that fight. There was also the ESPN interview.

In other words, McNabb was part of the problem, and made the ESPN interview into a bigger issue than it really needed to be.

 

Tellingly, the arbitration document says nothing about any effort McNabb made to reach out to TO. Given the painstaking detail of the document, you'd think any olive branches McNabb extended would at least have been mentioned. None were. Nor did the document address whatever role McNabb may have had in creating the bad blood that existed between himself and TO. Such was outside the scope of the document, but not outside the scope of this thread. The situation is messed-up enough that there's plenty of blame for everyone: Rosenhaus, TO, and McNabb. Andy Reid was more reasonable than any of those three, but ultimately the situation TO and McNabb mutually created forced him to choose.

513226[/snapback]

[Buftex]

And thus, coming full circle, McNabb was willing to sacrifice his team's chances of winning in order to remove a player he did not get along with.  Not only is that unfair to the veterans on the team whose years are numbered, it is unfair to the fans who pay to watch the team day in and day out.

 

It's easy for you people to say that from this vantage point as someone who doesn't really care about the Eagles (or TO for that matter).  But if the Bills were Super Bowl contenders and they suddenly threw their best player off the team mid-season, would I be pissed off as an avid fan who pays for tickets?

 

You bet.

513228[/snapback]

 

 

I can honestly say, if this were the Bills in this predicament, I would feel the same way. Our favorite team has had its' share of jerks over the years, but nothing (that we know of) to the extendt of Owens. Terrell Owens must go......

 

I have a normal tendancy, in situations like this, to side with the players, like you. However, in his case, his act grew tired long ago...no matter how great a player he might be (and I am not denying that) keeping guys like him around can ruin a franchise. If it was just this year, or just one or two instances, it would be different. The Eagles gave him every opportunity to correct the situation, and he wouldn't make the effort. I won't used the overused "cancer", but it sets a very poor example for every player on that roster. You kind of expect things like this to happen on perenial losing teams. This is a team that was in the Super Bowl, and 4 conference championships before that! They know what they are doing. Nobody is bigger than the team.

 

This is similar to the kind of crap that Charles Haley pulled in San Francisco. I have heard some say that Haley started an orgaizational trend, picked up by Owens later, that contributed to some of the malaise the franchise has fallen into. You can make McNabb into the villan if you must, but it won't change the fact that it was Terrell Owens who created this problem for himself and the Eagles. They are wise, and right, to wash their hands of him...

 

As far as being angry if I was a fan, no I wouldn't be. Everyone here seems to think Marvin Lewis is a geniuos for "turning around " the Bengals. TD was an idiot for not hiring him way back, I have read here numerous times over the last month. What was one of the first things Marvin Lewis did? Do you think the crummy 2002 Bengals were a better team for getting rid of Takeo Spikes, or Corey Dillon the next year? Probably not, they were arguably their two best players at the time. Lewis was smart enough to let them go, because they didn't want to be there. No matter how good they are, he felt, the negatives that they braught to the team outweighed the positives, in the long run. They, and TO got what they wanted. Now they have to live with it...

[Dawgg]

First of all, let me say this is the best argument I have heard up until this point... but...

 

Charles Haley ended up helping the Cowboys win 2 consecutive Super Bowls and was one of their most valuable pass rushers. Who did they beat in the championship both times? The 49ers. I am not familiar with the 49ers situation with Haley, nor am I claiming that Haley was the difference, but my real point here is that getting rid of a jerk doensn't translate to wins on the field, even in the long run. Fortunately for the 49ers, they were able to sign Deion for one year and propel themselves to a Super Bowl win.

 

With regards to the Bengals, the Bengals were losers with Spikes and Dillon and they figured to be losers without. They were a young, inexperienced, horrible team that had no hope at a playoff run in the near future. So Marvin Lewis did some cleansing.

 

10 years ago, when Andy Reid took over, he did a similar round of cleansing. But that was not needed now. The Eagles are an experienced, veteran team thinking Super Bowl. Just like the Bulls did with Rodman, they could have grudgingly put up with it while enjoying the result: wins.

 

Then, after the season, like the Vikings did a year ago, entertain trade offers for him. At least that way, they get something in return to make their team better. To say banishing TO in exchange for nothing is addition by subtraction is a stretch in my opinion.

 

 

This is similar to the kind of crap that Charles Haley pulled in San Francisco.  I have heard some say that Haley started an orgaizational trend, picked up by Owens later, that contributed to some of the malaise the franchise has fallen into. You can make McNabb into the villan if you must, but it won't change the fact that it was Terrell Owens who created this problem for himself and the Eagles.  They are wise, and right, to wash their hands of him...

 

As far as being angry if I was a fan, no I wouldn't be.  Everyone here seems to think Marvin Lewis is a geniuos for "turning around " the Bengals.  TD was an idiot for not hiring him way back, I have read here numerous times over the last month.  What was one of the first things Marvin Lewis did?  Do you think the crummy 2002 Bengals were a better team for getting rid of Takeo Spikes, or Corey Dillon the next year?  Probably not, they were arguably their two best players at the time.  Lewis was smart enough to let them go, because they didn't want to be there.  No matter how good they are, he felt, the negatives that they braught to the team outweighed the positives, in the long run.  They, and TO got what they wanted.  Now they have to live with it...

513231[/snapback]

[Orton's Arm]

no matter how great a player he might be (and I am not denying that) keeping guys like him around can ruin a franchise.

513231[/snapback]

Bear in mind that T.O.'s worst behavior took place when he was trying to force Philly to redo his contract. Normally a player who wants a new contract holds out. But holding out allows the organization to not pay the player, and T.O. didn't want to give Philly that choice.

 

After it became clear T.O. wasn't going to get his new contract, his bad behavior died down. The biggest infraction came when he said the organization lacked class for failing to recognize his breaking of some record. However, T.O. publicly apologized for the remark. T.O.'s comments about McNabb weren't insults; they were simply observations similar to those people like Michael Irvin were making.

 

Clearly there was bad blood between Owens and McNabb. Had this not been the case, Philly would have been in a strong position to reap the rewards of its refusal to either renegotiate T.O.'s contract, or to escalate the situation T.O. was trying to provoke. As it was, "team chemistry"--that is, McNabb's ego--required T.O. to be let go.

 

Notice that T.O. was suspended without pay for one week following his failure to apologize to McNabb, with further punishment to be decided later. The punishment was later escalated to the maximum possible. What happened after Reid decided to suspend Owens for one week, but before he decided to wash his hands of the receiver completely? One of the things that probably happened was a talk between Reid and McNabb.

 

I never want to hear another McNabb supporter cry about how the man has no receivers. He's just finished driving the best WR in the league away. He's made his bed, now he has to lie in it.