BillsWatch Posted April 7, 2009 Posted April 7, 2009 http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4050759 Troy Aikman thinks the Cowboys made the right move by getting rid of Terrell Owens. As for Dallas' decision to drop Owens, Aikman was all for it. "I know others have said they don't believe you can get better by subtraction, but I do," he said. "It's hard to win in this league. It's hard to get the ball to everybody every week. When there's pressure on an organization to make a player happy, that is not how you win football games. ... When you start trying to make decisions to feed one player or two players, that becomes a problem." Just the opinion of a ex-player and broadcaster but it goes two ways - he also is a big Cowboy/Jerry Jones supporter, has advertising endorsements dependent upon good image of Cowboys and knows a number a Cowboy players questioned getting rid of him so it is a bit slanted.
Lurker Posted April 7, 2009 Posted April 7, 2009 "Aikman pointed out that Michael Irvin always wanted the ball, just like Owens, but Irvin never let his role in the offense become a week-in, week-out subject for reporters." Huh? So in other words, if Irvin had played during the 24/7 real time Internet-driven media cycle we now have...
BillsNYC Posted April 7, 2009 Posted April 7, 2009 Aiken prefers a receiver that was into whores and coke, not a week in/out subject for reporters.
Buffalo_Stampede Posted April 7, 2009 Posted April 7, 2009 All Aikman had to do was give Irvin cocaine and he was happy.
thewildrabbit Posted April 7, 2009 Posted April 7, 2009 Aikman went on to say if Roy Williams doesn't pan out this will go down as one of the worst moves ever!!! My take is Romo was making excuses for his poor play at the end of the season when it really counted and TO took the fall for the Cowboys failure,time will tell on this one. This move leaves the Cowboys with one great receiving target and that's Jason Witten.Williams hasn't shown me anything yet.
John from Riverside Posted April 7, 2009 Posted April 7, 2009 I dont trust anything he says in this situation..... At this point he is going to agree with anything the cowboys do......
cantankerous Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 Aikman went on to say if Roy Williams doesn't pan out this will go down as one of the worst moves ever!!! My take is Romo was making excuses for his poor play at the end of the season when it really counted and TO took the fall for the Cowboys failure,time will tell on this one. This move leaves the Cowboys with one great receiving target and that's Jason Witten. Williams hasn't shown me anything yet. Yeah all those years with the Lions he did nothing.
extrahammer Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 Didn't Irvin cut a teammate with a pair of scissors?
Buftex Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 Didn't Irvin cut a teammate with a pair of scissors? OBjection your honor!
Buftex Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 Personally, I could care less if this is a bad move for the Cowboys. I happen to agree with Aikman. I just think it is a bad deal for the Bills...unless they make the playoffs, it is a waste of a year, as a football team. I know everybody is thrilled with how much attention the Bills are getting now that they are a TO franchise, ever notice, only a month later, and most of the "attention" has been about Owens and the acrimony (real or unreal) that existed in Dallas and Philly, and almost none of it involves that team he signed with... Bulls...or whatever it was...err... this will be the situation most of the coming season. Early season will be all about how the Cowboys are doing without TO. Was it a mistake to let him go? Reporters will ask Owens about the Cowboys, and because he can't ever keep his mouth closed, he will feel obliged to answer... Late season, if the Bills are on their way to another 6-10, 7-9 season, the story will be, "where will TO wind up next season?" All this attention is going to be awesome!!!
The Dean Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 Personally, I could care less if this is a bad move for the Cowboys. I happen to agree with Aikman. I just think it is a bad deal for the Bills...unless they make the playoffs, it is a waste of a year, as a football team. Why? Do you think they make the playoffs without TO, and with someone like Coles, or Galloway instead? Because that is what they were looking at. Criticizing the move, without putting it into context makes little sense, IMO. If they don't make the playoffs it is business as usual. If they do, it is a coup. I still can't figure out why anyone thinks signing TO is a BAD thing. Remember, this is the Bills...what do you think the TO signing cost the Bills, other than the cash?
Rubes Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 "It's hard to win in this league." Good grief, Aikman has gone to the Dick Jauron school of football. What, is he angling for a coaching job here?
Buftex Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 Why? Do you think they make the playoffs without TO, and with someone like Coles, or Galloway instead? Because that is what they were looking at. Criticizing the move, without putting it into context makes little sense, IMO. If they don't make the playoffs it is business as usual. If they do, it is a coup. I still can't figure out why anyone thinks signing TO is a BAD thing. Remember, this is the Bills...what do you think the TO signing cost the Bills, other than the cash? Sorry...I guess I think this Owens signing is more than just a signing. It was a very uncharacteristic move for the franchise, both the owner and coach. If you are going to do something out of character, why not really do something productive, like going after a guy who could really contribute for a few years, like Anquan Boldin? He is a better player at this point, could probably be had if you tried hard enough... why settle for a band-aid like Owens? You keep saying that the Bills only other options were Coles or Galloway...why? Because you are accepting the fact that the Bills will never be more creative, or agressinv in acquiring talent? I reserve the right to hate this signing. I like to like the team I am rooting for, players included. Living in the middle of Texas, with a rabid Cowboys fan, I would guess that I have seen nearly every game that Owens has played in Dallas. His act gets really old, whether he is happy TO, mad TO, or innocent TO, the bull sh-- that accompanies him is a big turnoff to me. I find the Terrell Owens saga depressing, and I am just not happy that my team has desperately signed up to be a footnote for him. He is the antithesis of what I foolishly baught into, as the notion of "Buffalo Bills football". Sorry, maybe a little over dramatic. I know that argument, which is somewhat valid, that TO hasn't hurt anyone, is the current mantra amongst Bills fans. I know it will be pointed out that most of his teammates have loved him. But, you just have to wonder, why have three franchises, been relieved to see him leave, despite his obvious talent? Anyways, unless the Bills do something more in the draft, and acquire more talent, the Owens signing will be nothing but a sidenote on another so-so season. He, alone, is not going to tip the scales for the Bills. And then, there is the conspiracy theorist in me... my avatar explains that... Terrell Owens is TO after all!
San Jose Bills Fan Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 Sorry...I guess I think this Owens signing is more than just a signing. It was a very uncharacteristic move for the franchise, both the owner and coach. If you are going to do something out of character, why not really do something productive, like going after a guy who could really contribute for a few years, like Anquan Boldin? By all means stick to your guns. I disagree but so what really? Yet another reason the Owens signing makes sense is that the belief is that Anquan Boldin would cost any team one 1st round pick and one 3rd round pick at least. This belief is based on the package the Cowboys gave up for Roy Williams last year. According to Ed Werder/ESPN: "The Cowboys will give up a first-round pick in 2009, plus a third- and sixth-rounder that year for Williams and a seventh-round pick in '10." In addition Williams signed a 5 year $45 million contract with the Cowboys. Lee Evans is making $9 million per over 4 years. Larry Fitzgerald's contract is for 4 years and $40 million. Boldin has conceded that he won't make that kind of money to stay in Arizona but he would certainly cost upwards of $8 million if traded to another team. In summary Boldin would cost multiple draft picks...Owens cost no draft picks. Boldin would cost big time bucks. Owens signed for one year and $6.5 million...much less than Laveranues Coles got from the Bengals. Owens over Boldin is a no-brainer in the real world context. A first and a third for Boldin? No way.
thewildrabbit Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 Aikman went on to say if Roy Williams doesn't pan out this will go down as one of the worst moves ever!!! My take is Romo was making excuses for his poor play at the end of the season when it really counted and TO took the fall for the Cowboys failure,time will tell on this one. This move leaves the Cowboys with one great receiving target and that's Jason Witten.Williams hasn't shown me anything yet. Yeah all those years with the Lions he did nothing. Who mentioned anything about when he was with the lions? He hasn't shown me anything yet as a Cowboy, 10 games in 08, 19 rec 198 yds one TD http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...g.b10c89e4.html
Lurker Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 ever notice, only a month later, and most of the "attention" has been about Owens and the acrimony (real or unreal) that existed in Dallas and Philly, and almost none of it involves that team he signed with... This just in: it's April
Gordio Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 Sorry...I guess I think this Owens signing is more than just a signing. It was a very uncharacteristic move for the franchise, both the owner and coach. If you are going to do something out of character, why not really do something productive, like going after a guy who could really contribute for a few years, like Anquan Boldin? He is a better player at this point, could probably be had if you tried hard enough... why settle for a band-aid like Owens? You keep saying that the Bills only other options were Coles or Galloway...why? Because you are accepting the fact that the Bills will never be more creative, or agressinv in acquiring talent? I reserve the right to hate this signing. I like to like the team I am rooting for, players included. Living in the middle of Texas, with a rabid Cowboys fan, I would guess that I have seen nearly every game that Owens has played in Dallas. His act gets really old, whether he is happy TO, mad TO, or innocent TO, the bull sh-- that accompanies him is a big turnoff to me. I find the Terrell Owens saga depressing, and I am just not happy that my team has desperately signed up to be a footnote for him. He is the antithesis of what I foolishly baught into, as the notion of "Buffalo Bills football". Sorry, maybe a little over dramatic. I know that argument, which is somewhat valid, that TO hasn't hurt anyone, is the current mantra amongst Bills fans. I know it will be pointed out that most of his teammates have loved him. But, you just have to wonder, why have three franchises, been relieved to see him leave, despite his obvious talent? Anyways, unless the Bills do something more in the draft, and acquire more talent, the Owens signing will be nothing but a sidenote on another so-so season. He, alone, is not going to tip the scales for the Bills. And then, there is the conspiracy theorist in me... my avatar explains that... Terrell Owens is TO after all! Give me a break buddy. I got a novel idea. We have had one of the worst offenses the last 4 years & this team has no true playmakers. Owens is one of the top 10 playmakers in the league & still could bring it. I love the fact that TO stands for everything your against & foolishly bought into the notion of "Buffalo Bills football". Buffalo Bills football has stood for just about the most boring nonplayoff brand of football the last 9 years. How can you not like this move when our slotted # 2 receiver this year before the owens trade was going to be Josh Reed, who has caught a combined 3 td passes in the last 3 years. TO has caught 38 in that same time span. Get over yourself, it is just a game & TO brings in an excitement that has not been around here for quite sometime.
The Dean Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 Sorry...I guess I think this Owens signing is more than just a signing. It was a very uncharacteristic move for the franchise, both the owner and coach. If you are going to do something out of character, why not really do something productive, like going after a guy who could really contribute for a few years, like Anquan Boldin? He is a better player at this point, could probably be had if you tried hard enough... why settle for a band-aid like Owens? You keep saying that the Bills only other options were Coles or Galloway...why? Because you are accepting the fact that the Bills will never be more creative, or agressinv in acquiring talent? No, I'm accepting the fact that the Bills were looking at Coles and Galloway and showed ZERO interest in Boldin (who, by the way, is still with the Cards). I am evaluating the situation as it is. The choices were, apparently, guys like Coles and Galloway. Boldin wasn't in the mix, and wasn't about to be in the mix. Bolding would have also cost draft picks, this team needs to fill other holes, this year. So, you had a choice between an old Buick and an old Chevy and, at the last minute, someone lets you lease an older, well maintained, Mercedes for a year. You seem to be complaining that you didn't get a new Porsche. Well, fine. Does that make leasing the Mercedes a bad choice? I don't think so. And, I still don't see the downside.
Buftex Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 No, I'm accepting the fact that the Bills were looking at Coles and Galloway and showed ZERO interest in Boldin (who, by the way, is still with the Cards). I am evaluating the situation as it is. The choices were, apparently, guys like Coles and Galloway. Boldin wasn't in the mix, and wasn't about to be in the mix. Bolding would have also cost draft picks, this team needs to fill other holes, this year. So, you had a choice between an old Buick and an old Chevy and, at the last minute, someone lets you lease an older, well maintained, Mercedes for a year. You seem to be complaining that you didn't get a new Porsche. Well, fine. Does that make leasing the Mercedes a bad choice? I don't think so. And, I still don't see the downside. That is my point The Dean... the Bills limit their options, and way too many people just accept it. Sure, Owens is a better option, for one year, than Galloway or Coles...but at the end of one year, then what?
Buftex Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 Give me a break buddy. I got a novel idea. We have had one of the worst offenses the last 4 years & this team has no true playmakers. Owens is one of the top 10 playmakers in the league & still could bring it. I love the fact that TO stands for everything your against & foolishly bought into the notion of "Buffalo Bills football". Buffalo Bills football has stood for just about the most boring nonplayoff brand of football the last 9 years. How can you not like this move when our slotted # 2 receiver this year before the owens trade was going to be Josh Reed, who has caught a combined 3 td passes in the last 3 years. TO has caught 38 in that same time span. Get over yourself, it is just a game & TO brings in an excitement that has not been around here for quite sometime. I agree with that!
Recommended Posts