With all the troubles at WR, why didnt the packers...

[woodbuck27]

"Why all the personal attacks Woodbuck? The only one that is indignant is you. I have not resorted to name calling as you have. I have only offered opinions that are contrary to yours. Is that OK with you, or am I compelled to agree with you???? I offered to not debate with you simply because you seem to find my reponses offensive for some reason, even though I have attacked only your argument and your reasoning on this particular subjuect, not you or your opinions generally, as you have with me. But whatever makes you feel in control, I guess." shamrockfan

I am not attacking you. Try to get over YOURSELF please.

I am doing my best to understand your views shamrockfan, but feel that you are a tad heavy on the anti-T.O. prejudice, as a foundation for those views. You are against T.O. it would appear, and that is your perogative.

In the poll, slightly less than 50% agree with you in the question of should he be in Green Bay or not. Many disagree with my position and that is fair. I in no way, expect to sway you or anyone else opposed to T.O. I respect your opposing stances.

You and I simply disagree on the original question of T.O. in, or not in Green Bay. Your a NO and I'm a yes. End of that.

I am not arguing with you shamrockfan. I have done my best to defend my positions although they went off the original topic, and have attempted to do so with solid facts, decent manners and some humor shamrockfan. I don't want to be right but I do want to feel disappointed that T.O. isn't a Packer. Inspite of your stance shamrockfan, that T.O. and Green Bay would have been a destructive and disruptive relationship.

Now , after reading the remainder of your last post, I'll atempt to respond. I need to spend some time to understand it first. Your a different man and it won't be easy, for me to get the proper insight into your thinking. I'm not at all hip to your debating style.

A choice of weapons is pistols or swords not my sword against your sword and pistol shamrockfan.

[jack's smirking revenge]

Concentrating on the original question.

I agree we "need" T.O. based on our personnel gaps. Essentially, the marriage of Favre and T.O., just based on the pure skill of each, would have been an amazing pairing. But the original question is truly more complex than that. You need to consider chemistry, value, interests, ego, etc. G.B., regardless of Favre's support, was probably the LAST place T.O. wanted to go. I don't think we were ever really in the race for T.O. There are NFL football entertainers and then there's T.O. He's a man with amazing talent and an amazing ego, an ego which eclipses most teams and sucks up the spotlight like a black hole. Heck, there are even questions as to whether or not Parcells and Jones will be able to control him in Dallas. Two other teams haven't been able to and I believe Parcells is a helluva coach, but a T.O. project has yet to fully succeed for a team. T.O. gets his numbers, at the expense of everyone else.

There is no team with T.O. The Favre-T.O. matchup intrigues me, but I don't think it would've worked to the perfection you described. Wishful thinking. Never hurts to dream though.

tyler

[woodbuck27]

Concentrating on the original question.

There is no team with T.O. The Favre-T.O. matchup intrigues me, but I don't think it would've worked to the perfection you described. Wishful thinking. Never hurts to dream though.

tyler

The original question:

Would you have liked T.O on the packers for a 2 year contract?

Date: Thurs. 6 July,2006.

YES 53% [ 32 ]
NO 46% [ 28 ]

tyler:

I wanted T.O. in Green Bay obviously, because I believe that the reality I see, warranted a 2 year committment between T.O and the Packers. Why? Because of the potential good (not bad ) that prospect may have delivered on.

I don't hold that T.O. is really a BAD guy. His talent and productivity is outstanding and a two year commitment on both sides did intrigue me.

For that to happen, T.O. would have wanted to be with us, but TT had to want him and demonstrate that was the bottom line in his pursuit of T.O. in a reasonable sense. He didn't cost Dallas the bank.

As it's turned out, I feel we paid too much for the services of Charles Woodson and where has he been? T.O. is given errr in Dallas and we have Woodson. Both have ego issues but at least T.O. is demonstrating a positive committment . . . and we have Charles Woodson.

In a fantasy world based on all I see. I would trade Charles Woodson straight up now for Terrell Owens in a heartbeat. The upside that T.O. could have given to us is as I see it, greater than what Charles Wooodson is and will give us.

T.O. would have been a better acquisition for us given OUR needs today.

[Patler]

I am not arguing with you shamrockfan. I have done my best to defend my positions although they went off the original topic, and have attempted to do so with solid facts, decent manners and some humor shamrockfan.

Well, dear Woodbuck, apparently your idea of manners are different than mine. I have not called you or your arguments by a single derogatory term (except when I quoted you in reference to me) yet you referred to me as a wanker and my arguments as a circle jerk.

Some manners!

[Patler]

Now , after reading the remainder of your last post, I'll atempt to respond.

Don't bother. This topic is dead as far as I'm concerned. There isn't anything more to say. You want Owens, and think he could have helped. I think the young Packer team and coaches are better off without him, in spite of his talent. Our positions are pretty clear.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Woody, what Shamrock is saying is that you are dead to him.

[Patler]

Woody, what Shamrock is saying is that you are dead to him.

Harlan, you must suspect I am part of the Irish Mafia!

Actually, I'm just T.O'd out!

[woodbuck27]

Now , after reading the remainder of your last post, I'll atempt to respond.

Don't bother. This topic is dead as far as I'm concerned. There isn't anything more to say. You want Owens, and think he could have helped. I think the young Packer team and coaches are better off without him, in spite of his talent. Our positions are pretty clear.

Exactly shamrockfan. We disagree on this issue and that isn't abnormal.

I respect your position on this issue.

[woodbuck27]

Woody, what Shamrock is saying is that you are dead to him.

Harlan, you must suspect I am part of the Irish Mafia!

Actually, I'm just T.O'd out!

Me too shamrockfan and the issue is actually moot in any case. Still an interesting debate.

I'm not a member of the Irish Mafia but I am Irish.

[woodbuck27]

I am not arguing with you shamrockfan. I have done my best to defend my positions although they went off the original topic, and have attempted to do so with solid facts, decent manners and some humor shamrockfan.

Well, dear Woodbuck, apparently your idea of manners are different than mine. I have not called you or your arguments by a single derogatory term (except when I quoted you in reference to me) yet you referred to me as a wanker and my arguments as a circle jerk.

Some manners!

Dear Gaud! Isn't LIFE hard.

shamrockfan. I certainly never referred to you as a wanker. What iis a wanker?

My guess.

An arrogant Englishman presiding as a member of a panel of judges in any talent contest . ????

I symbolized blowing a horn on you as in waaaaannnkkkk (in jest)! Not refer to you as 'a wanker'. I hope that is clear to you now.

After clearly establishing credability in respect to supporting my position that WR's have made a difference in Super Bowl's, you decided to contradict my position. No problem, but I said, I would not get involved in any circle jerk arguments. I have no problem if you are opposed, indifferent or otherwise negative to my position.

OK?

In reference to your manner of arguing. I said I would not engage in such (an argument), as I feel, my position was fair and supported. If you disagree again that is fine by me.

Maybe you may realize that I was being fair, and a gentleman in accordance to you.

Disagreement is often good shamrockfan.

[Bossman641]

Of course wide receivers can be difference-makers in any game, including the Super Bowl of course.

I agree with the earlier post that the better question would be, "When was the last time a free agent WR acquisition lifted his team to a SB victory 1 or 2 years after joining the team?"

Just for the record, I wouldn't want TO on the team. He is an amazing talent but he has caused problems everywhere he has went. What makes you think he would change his ways now? AND he did this under Mariucci and Reid, two well-respected and established coaches. I just think that TO would cause massive problems to such a young team like ours with a totally unproven coaching staff.

I remember reading somewhere that Walsh tried to get Owens to go to a shrink when he was with the 49ers but TO refused. He's a great player, but he definitely has some issues.

[woodbuck27]

"He's a great player, but he definitely has some issues." Bossman641

I certainly wouldn't waaauuunnnkkk that statement.

Isn't that the TRUTH.

[woodbuck27]

For what it's worth. Owens states his case in a book.

Birds paying no attention to latest from T.O.

Bob Grotz, Of the Times Staff07/07/2006
Email to a friendPost a CommentPrinter-friendly

The Eagles are treating Terrell Owens’ controversial new book as if it’s history -- ancient history, at that. While Eagles fans, players and club employees clamored to find copies of "T.O.," the 200-plus page $25 book in stores but not scheduled to hit the streets until July 11, author Jason Rosenhaus, brother of Owens’ agent Drew Rosenhaus, painted the notorious ex-Eagle as the ultimate victim.


According to excerpts from "T.O.," Owens was wronged by, among others, the Eagles’ front office, for not rewarding him with a new contract after his courageous comeback in Super Bowl XXXIX following a serious ankle injury; quarterback Donovan McNabb, whom he accused of jealousy; and Richard Bloch, the arbitrator who upheld the Eagles’ four-game suspension of Owens last season for conduct detrimental to the team.


Owens intimated Andy Reid was ready to reinstate him following his Nov. 4 suspension until McNabb remarked after the team’s first T.O.-less loss, to the Washington Redskins, "We might be better off without him."

Owens accused McNabb of telling him to "Shut the bleep up" after he complained to his quarterback that he was wide open in a victory two years ago over the New York Giants at the Meadowlands. Owens said he was the primary receiver and that McNabb purposely threw to another teammate.

"Donovan was never the same with me again," Owens said in an excerpt. "Things were only going to get worse."

McNabb has denied the Meadowlands episode took place.

Attempts to reach McNabb for comment Thursday were unsuccessful.

Reid, Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie and club president Joe Banner were on vacation and unavailable for comment.

Attempts to reach Eagles players, who report to training camp in two weeks, were unsuccessful.

Eagles football media relations director Derek Boyko said the organization is looking ahead -- not in the rearview mirror.

"We were aware the book was coming out and that it would be controversial," Boyko said Thursday. "But we’re not going to worry about last year. We’re going to focus on this year. The team is focused on only the 2006 season. Everything that happened in the past we will keep in the past."

Cut by the Eagles, Owens signed with the Dallas Cowboys a few months ago. The teams get together Oct. 8 at Lincoln Financial Field. The Eagles play at Dallas Christmas day.

By then McNabb will have addressed much of Owens’ criticisms, including the contention that an unnamed Eagles offensive coach cautioned the wide receiver that "Donovan can get nervous and tight in big games" prior to a super-hyped game at Pittsburgh two seasons ago.

Owens maintains the offensive coach "wanted me to be there for Donovan and help him get through it." Owens demonstratively paced the sideline yelling at McNabb during the disappointing blowout loss, the quarterback turning away from the receiver again and again.

Owens had flattering things to say about a handful of teammates that stuck by him. The list is headed by Pro Bowl middle linebacker Jeremiah Trotter, and includes wide receiver Todd Pinkston, practice squad player Justin Jenkins and running back Correll Buckhalter. All but Trotter sat out the 2005 season with injuries.

Owens also spoke of his training room altercation with Hugh Douglas, the former Eagle acting as the team’s "ambassador." Owens said Douglas accused him of faking an injury.

[Packers4Ever]

Besides that T.O. made it clear, as did Favre that they wanted one another.

So what if they wanted each other? Owens hand-picked Philadelphia as the team he wanted just two years ago, and he was a disruptive influence even in his first season there. Have you forgotten the sideline silliness that went on between Owens and McNabb?

So what if he and Favre wanted each other. What if Owens took the attitude toward the coaches that he did in Philadelphia? Have you forgotten his "Don't talk to me!" mandate to the Assistant coaches? Reid and his staff are pretty well respected, experienced and successful. I think it would have been a huge mistake to saddle a brand new staff in GB, with an inexperienced head coach, with the potential problems of Owens. I suspect Owens would have tried immediately to establish himself as the alpha male in the pack (or "on the Packers" ).

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I'm with you and all others 'voting' no, Sham. TO in Green and Gold? Barf !!! It would only be a matter of time before TO would be testing
out our new and inexperienced coaches and demanding the respect which he feels is due him. Let the 'Boys have him, they have a coach who will stand for none of TO's ego display.

[the_idle_threat]

This is a debate with some merit on both sides. However, I would think the weight of the evidence yields a clear "No" answer.

On one hand, we have a top-notch football talent who could elevate the Packer offense. Assuming all stay healthy, a Favre-TO-Driver combo could be near unstoppable.

On the other hand, we have a guy who is completely out of touch with reality, and nobody can tell him "no". His me-first attitude is polarizing in the locker room, and everything we know about Brett leads me to believe the two would end up on opposite sides when sides are taken. Even when one, the other, or both have departed, the rift would remain until the roster is turned over completely.

The potential short-term gain is simply overwhelmed by the inevitable long-term consequences. Let T.O. break up the Cowboys instead. Although I like and respect Bill Parcells' ability to lead, I see things ending badly there nonetheless. T.O. is just that far out there ...