NewEra Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 http://www.oleantimesherald.com/articles/2...b1306801054.txt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 I can tell you, because he's a very good friend of mine, but I don't think I will. Got a take on the actual column? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 I notice that Chuck failed to mention that NONE of TO's previous "melt downs" came in year #1 with his new team. Do you think he forgot to mention that, or doesn't realize it? Five years ago when T.O. landed in Philadelphia after dividing the lockerroom in San Francisco, trashing 49ers’ quarterback Jeff Garcia and making life miserable for coaches Steve Mariucci and Dennis Erickson, I promised an Eagles’ fan friend of mine that Owens would do the same to his team. Did it happen in the first year, Chuck? They went to the Super Bowl, the first year, Chuck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 The Eagles' situation was precipitated by McNabb's inexplicably idiotic decision to avoid throwing the ball to TO in the SB, and instead into the waiting arms of Patriots defenders. And then after the season, the team starts talking about how they can cut TO with little cap impact, should he not return from his broken ankle. Talk about stupid and bringing it on yourself. In Dallas, as I found out yesterday, there were 2 other receivers who were critical of Romo's penchant to look for his TE. Romo's in for a world of hurt this year. I can't say what happened in SF because I didn't follow the situation closely enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catholic Guilt Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 http://www.oleantimesherald.com/articles/2...b1306801054.txt He's not a very handsome man. His article annoyed me too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsNYC Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 I read that before this thread and thought "man this guy is just bitter because he probably acted pompous when asked that question about TO and said it wouldn't happen, only to be proven wrong" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewEra Posted March 10, 2009 Author Share Posted March 10, 2009 I can tell you, because he's a very good friend of mine, but I don't think I will. Got a take on the actual column? I thought it was obvious what my take on the column was. I made a similar thread regarding an similar article yesterday. I can't fathom how these people can put this in a newspaper. Have any of these columnists been following the bills for the past 10 years? Sure doesn't seem like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 I thought it was obvious what my take on the column was. I made a similar thread regarding an similar article yesterday. I can't fathom how these people can put this in a newspaper. Have any of these columnists been following the bills for the past 10 years? Sure doesn't seem like it. He's missed exactly one home game since he began covering the team in 1973, and that was because of an auto accident. And because I know his disdain for the me-first primadonnas in the NFL so well, this column is EXACTLY what I expected from him. Why do you care what he looks like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 I notice that Chuck failed to mention that NONE of TO's previous "melt downs" came in year #1 with his new team. Do you think he forgot to mention that, or doesn't realize it? Did it happen in the first year, Chuck? They went to the Super Bowl, the first year, Chuck. The guy can't backpedal on something he dismissed so flippantly on the radio just a couple of days ago. You're right about the first year thing and that should have been mentioned in his article but the stuff he says in the article is probably the five things he rattled off in the interview. He has to write something about this because this a HUGE signing for the Bills but he's caught between a rock and a hard place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 The guy can't backpedal on something he dismissed so flippantly on the radio just a couple of days ago. You're right about the first year thing and that should have been mentioned in his article but the stuff he says in the article is probably the five things he rattled off in the interview. He has to write something about this because this a HUGE signing for the Bills but he's caught between a rock and a hard place. No, he really isn't. Whether they agree or disagree with the move, most of the local media is in, "eh -- at least it'll give us something to write about" mode. Chuck isn't like that. Never has been. He hates me-me-me guys like Owens, hates this idea, and he's not going to mince any words telling you why. Feel free to disagree with him, but know that he WILL tell you exactly what he thinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewEra Posted March 10, 2009 Author Share Posted March 10, 2009 He's missed exactly one home game since he began covering the team in 1973, and that was because of an auto accident. And because I know his disdain for the me-first primadonnas in the NFL so well, this column is EXACTLY what I expected from him. Why do you care what he looks like? Even worse IMHO. He's hasn't missed a game in the last 10 seasons and still thinks it's a bad move. I don't like primadonas and I have never like T.O.. But he's a much needed piece to this offense. We've been the most boring team in the nfl for 9 years....minus the year we made a splash and added bledsoe. We had TWO wr's that teams had to account for. I don't know how anyone could say that signing Owens is any worse then resigning Kelsey to that contract. The part regarding how he looked was was directed at the previous thread. It really doesnt have to do with him at all. I understand that he is your friend and you respect him, and don't like people talking bad about him. His article is his opinion and he's entitled too it. But I find it hard to believe he could feel that way after watching this team for the last 10 years. And I'm entitled to critique his article and opinion in the same way he critiques the bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Critique the article and opinion to your heart's content. That comes with the job. But yeah, if I see anything that could be construed as a personal shot at him, I'm going to react strongly. (As a poster, telling you how I feel about it, not as a mod. Please don't misunderstand that.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 No, he really isn't. Whether they agree or disagree with the move, most of the local media is in, "eh -- at least it'll give us something to write about" mode. Chuck isn't like that. Never has been. He hates me-me-me guys like Owens, hates this idea, and he's not going to mince any words telling you why. Feel free to disagree with him, but know that he WILL tell you exactly what he thinks. My problem with the article, isn't his opinion, which of course he is entitled to...rather it is the way he ignores key information in his rant. It comes across as ill-informed and/or biased beyond belief. Either way, it really doesn't seem to communicate with an informed, and thoughtful, reader. Everyone knows TO has been a head case, wherever he has gone. I think a thoughtful piece should address the facts that TO has never been an issue in year #1, and this is one year contract. It should also address the notion that this may be TO's last chance, if he can't behave. Now, I happen to agree with the line of thought in this article: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/stor...&id=3963859 But, I can see some of the other side, too. Perhaps Chuck should write a piece explaining why he thinks the Bills won't get the one-year honeymoon, and why TO would just throw this chance at redemption away. While he's at it, I'd like to hear a real analysis of why, if this doesn't work, it is so catastrophic. If the experiment fails, can't the Bills simply cut TO, with no repercussions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 No, he really isn't. Whether they agree or disagree with the move, most of the local media is in, "eh -- at least it'll give us something to write about" mode. Chuck isn't like that. Never has been. He hates me-me-me guys like Owens, hates this idea, and he's not going to mince any words telling you why. Feel free to disagree with him, but know that he WILL tell you exactly what he thinks. Ok, I understand his disdain for selfish players because I largely hold the same opinion of those guys. But it seems like he allows this disdain to cloud his opinion of the signing in terms of brass tacks football. He lists the positive arguments for the TO signing and then dismisses them with "baloney, baloney, baloney, and baloney" instead of presenting logical counterpoints to those arguments. To me, it's impossible to ignore the fact that TO behaves well in his first year with a team, so when Pollock responds to the "only one year" claim with "baloney" and no other explanation, his bias begins to seep through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Fair enough. Remember, though, this was written as a column, not an analysis. Dean, although I can well imagine what his inbox looks like right now, I suspect he'd respond to those questions if you asked him. And I know you well enough to know you'd lay them out in a thoughtful manner, instead of the "your an idiot!" stuff I'm expecting (and for which I've already apologized to him in advance after reading the piece.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewEra Posted March 10, 2009 Author Share Posted March 10, 2009 Critique the article and opinion to your heart's content. That comes with the job. But yeah, if I see anything that could be construed as a personal shot at him, I'm going to react strongly. (As a poster, telling you how I feel about it, not as a mod. Please don't misunderstand that.) /high five you're as badass and your work is much appreciated. no offense taken on my part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts