Is Terrell Owens An Option If Malcolm Kelly Struggles?
by Kevin Ewoldt on Jul 9, 2010 8:45 AM EDT
in Redskins News
227 comments
It's no secret Terrell Owens is having trouble landing a team, which is obvious when you're only option the previous year was Buffalo. Owens was on a TN radio show yesterday and responded to a question about the Redskins:
"Well you know what? That's definitely something that was on the radar, and if that's a possibility and they want to bring me in and make that happen then I'm open arms to it. And I think Donovan has come out and said that things that have happened in the past were sometimes overblown in the media. It's surprising how it takes some years to go by for things like that to come out, but Donovan and I, we're friends now...I think going to Washington and playing with him obviously would be a good thing because I feel that their team is really on the cusp of getting to the playoffs and making things happen." (H/T: RedskinsPost)
Terrell went on to mention the Titans as a possible suitor. I've always been in Camp No F'n Way to Owens, but let me ask you this: What if none of our WRs step up in training camp or pre-season? God forbid Santana gets hurt -the Redskins are in some serious trouble. They don't even have a dependable #3 they can count on, much less a proven number two. Shanahan is a ball buster and with Owens' lack of options, they could pretty much write the contract at will including behavioral stipulations. Owens and McNabb of course have played together and know their tendencies. IF, and it's a big if, Owens were to come to Washington, why not make him one of the 11 WRs that competes for a spot? What's the worse that happens? We cut him week 3 and bring back Mike Furrey who is competing for a spot anyway? It's a debate worth discussing because Shanahan is obviously not pleased with his WRs, and the quality depth is lacking.
Note: TO was tied for 4th in the NFL last year in dropped balls with 9, but also on that list tied with him or higher is Dallas Clark (9), Santonio Holmes (10), Dwayne Bowe (11), and Brent Celek (9). Calvin Johnson had 8.
As for egomaniacs, Shanahan has dealt with some of the best before. Here's a list of the ones I found and their suspensions/outcomes...
Shanahan conduct issues:
Oct 2008 - DL Josh Shaw was reportedly involved in a fight with a teammate. Shaw was getting worked out in practice by coaches for messing up and was being mocked by teammates. Shawn had enough and informed them if anyone mocked him once more he'd had it. DL Kenny Peterson mocked him again and Shaw popped him. Head coach Mike Shanahan heard about the altercation, walked into the room and suspended Shaw. Sources claim Shanahan wanted to suspend Shaw for four games.
Aug 2008 - Brandon Marshall suspended 3 games by NFL for bad conduct (DUI and 2 domestic disputes). In this instance, Shanahan defended his star WR: "I just see him growing day by day, and he understands what it means to be a leader as an athlete, to be a leader in the community, help kids. He wants to do those type of things. He's a guy that's got a big upside not only on the field but off the field." Josh McDaniels of course suspended Marshall last season for bad conduct after demanding a new contract or trade.
Dec 2007 - Travis Henry fails a drug test for weed. He pleads his innocence to the NFL and Shanahan. Henry sues the NFL to stall his suspension. Henry convinces Shanny to conduct a lie-detector test, which Henry passes with flying colors. Henry is allowed to play.
Dec 2007 - Todd Sauerbrun cut after being belligerent with cops in a taxi dispute. Shanahan first said all the same things he did with Moss, "Let's let due process take care of itself and if he's guilty, he'll have to pay the price." When police confirmed it, he was gone. "The way he handled himself that way in the situation was uncalled for. That's why he's not with us."
Aug 2006 - Denver Broncos coach Mike Shanahan sent a message that nobody is above his rules. Cornerback Champ Bailey and linebacker Al Wilson were suspended for Denver's second preseason game against Tennessee after missing team curfew the night before. Shanahan would not discuss the specifics of what happened the night before the game, only that the players were suspended.
Nov 2003 - Daryl Gardener suspended for 1 game for poor conduct. Supposedly the team was shown an edited tape of Gardener not hustling on multiple plays. Gardener lashed out at Shanahan saying he didn't want him there and he was setup. Daryl didn't play another game in the NFL after that.
0 recs |
227 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Agreed
How long before he starts popping off his mouth when things get rough? That’s his M.O. Of course he is going to be cordial now, because he wants to get picked up and make a pile of money! I’ve seen enough of the guy to know it’s never his fault (at least that’s what HE thinks).
I like the vibe I’m getting from camp. I like the fact that teammates are coming together and believing in more than just themselves. And I don’t think a person like T.O. can buy into that. He is too much of a “me first” player. Even in games where Dallas did well, he would complain about his number of touches.
No thanks. Pass. Big f$%##n pass.
He didn't last season
And it was all rough in Buffalo
I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.
by maxwellsdemon on Jul 10, 2010 4:28 AM EDT up reply actions
+1000
Let’s keep the TO talk out of any and all things Redskins related.
Only if he can come up with 21 million in bonus money to us for dealing with what will be "all his shit."
by TheOverLordMarshl on Jul 9, 2010 9:04 AM EDT reply actions
Yes, we need him...
He would automatically become the best WR on the team. If McNabb want him then yeah lets get him. You know Shanny would welcome him if McNabb give him the green light. I mean he signed all these old WRs and signed Javon Walker in Denver.
No
He wouldn’t be the best WR on the team. An old guy who never had great hands and is losing his speed in seperation? Moss at least still has hands. Not to mention IF Devin or Malcolm really breaks out. I’d still take Devin over TO this year (I’m not even talking long term).
...your wrong
According to profootballfocus.com Moss has ranked in the top 10 in dropped passes the last 3 seasons (and possibly more, but this site only go up 2007). Plus signing TO doesn’t mean Devin Thomas can’t be on the team. I would like TO to be #1 and Devin to be #2 or #3.
If T.O. ended up being
Our #1 receiver, we’d be in BIG trouble. Either we would end up having a lot of injuries, and/or we’d have to add WR near the top of our draft list for next year.
+1 He *would* become the best WR on the team
TO as the 1 is far more preferable to having Moss, the smallest of WRs, out there against big corners.
Moss as #2 would open up many more opportunities for him, which he would undoubtedly exploit with his spryness & speed.
Thomas & Kelly have shown up to preseason, gotten unqualified applause from posters here who seem to unconditionally rave review without cause anyone so long as they’re under 28, gotten easily injured with hampering, nagging injuries as a result of their laziness, and cumulatively produced 3 received touchdowns over 2 seasons, two against the 26th-ranked pass defense, one against the 17th-ranked pass defense. All by Thomas.
Kelly and Thomas need to compete with each other. Just handing them positions isn’t going to get them going. No babycoddling here, I say we sign TO to give us a real chance at wide receiver, and finally force these young guys Thomas & Kelly to work their a$$es off for their position, because only then can they take advantage of starting
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Jul 9, 2010 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Completely Disagree...
Thomas and Kelly were both out of shape year 1, last year we heard alot about Kelly’s dedication, staying after ota’s to work with Campbell which earned him the flanker spot.
Unforunatly with a terrible offensive line, a learn on the go head coach with and unproven system, and two reads infront of him (Moss/Cooley). he really never had a chance…
So we switched him out for Thomas, which got about the same results. however a five games or so after the line fell apart our newly formed line began to gel a bit, giving jason time to make most/all of his reads and when given the ball we started to see some production out of both these guys.
They don’t need to ride the pine behind TO, They both need game experience, they started showing flashes, don’t write them off and put them behind guys whose ceilings are crashing down on them due to old age. Let these guys prove themselves with an improved line, qb and system…
hilariously
a number of the same people here who now rightfully face the music & declare Zorn was nothing more than a bad (or generously put, ‘learn on the go’) head coach, were also the ones who wanted to keep him on a blind devotion to ‘continuity’, much the same also seem like they’re blindly devoted to Kelly & Thomas despite their laziness in year one, and lack of production in years one or two.
Aside from what i feel is that hypocrisy, & not sniping anyone personally (not you skinsfan28 or ATLredskins or anyone else in this thread), we had a terrible offensive line, but it’s not like we had JaMarcus Russell under center. No Campbell wasn’t Donovan McNabb, but he sure wasn’t some below average slouch who couldn’t get a ball to an available option. Sure the offense sputtered pathetically, but its worst displays were after the 20s. Between the 20s it was bad, but not so bad we had Hunter Smith throwing passes.
This is to say, it’s just unacceptable to say “the line sucked, the coach (now in hindsight) sucked” & conspicuously leave out the fact that when Campbell was clear between the 20s, it was a realistic possibility that at some point a tall wide receiver who could make good on all of this ballyhooed prospect baloney like Thomas or Kelly could have produced when they were on the field. They didn’t year one, because they were lazy slugs. They didn’t year two, because the line sucked, the coach sucked. Between the 20s with a decent QB, if they had any work ethic at all, they would be prepared to take advantage of PT & would have gotten more production than a mere 3 TDs & a paltry # of yards over two years, at least i think.
It’s mind-boggling that we’d like to deter competition for two WRs who in their first year were as lax as first-years come. I agree with the majority, invite Terrell Owens to either come & become our best option, allow Santana to play #2 where he can maximize his speed against weaker corners, & have the 2 lazy sacks compete to climb & learn from the vets, OR alternatively invite Owens to come, not accomplish anything, and put some drive in Kelly & Thomas to do something, instead of rely on the mercy & generosity of a vocal minority on message boards for unqualified, unconditional opportunities to start
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Jul 9, 2010 8:55 PM EDT up reply actions
responding to the first half of your post before I read the rest...
forgive me if there is a revelation at the end concerning my point. Are you seriously comparing the status of a head coach to that of wide receivers? I wanted Zorn out by week 11 of his first year. He started off 6-2 playing Redskins football, Portis was the leading rusher in the league….the Zorn decided to implement his plan..reducing carries and throwing on first down, alot…a whole lot. His offense was predictable and not NFL ready, and he never got the players to buy into his system. I can see MK and DT looking to Moss by preseason last year and Moss just shrugging his shoulders and saying “I dunno man, he’s the boss..do what he says” These receivers have been in the league 2 years and have never been exposed to teachers who actually knows what it takes to win in the NFL. Give them a chance. We have been occasionally, surprisingly, competitive very rarely for a decade now, we are moving in a good direction…..not everybody is going to have a big red S on their chest after one offseason….I am Ok with how we seem to look less than a year after our 4-12 season……would someone pass me the kool aid
nonono, sorry if it came off that way
i wasn’t calling out you or any specific person, like i said in the post, & i wasn’t making a direct comparison, just noting that there seems to be a lot of “X for X’s sake”, and it’s been conspicuously absent from a lot of persons I feel are making a different argument, based on personnel instead of the HC, but employing a similar simplistic logic that i don’t think makes much sense. Essentially, first it was “develop the head coach for consistency … consistency for consistency’s sake…”, and now it’s basically “hand Thomas & Kelly their jobs for youth’s sake … youth for youth’s sake…” I say ‘hand’ them their jobs because Anthony Montgomery, Roydell Williams, these guys aren’t here to present a good-faith challenge for starting positions, I think most know these guys like these compete for emergency roster slots at the wideout position/I think nobody thinks Shanahan’s brought them in as a comprehensive ‘challenge package’ to the rookies, because these retreads are all bad, they are not starters & rarely have started in their entire careers.
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Jul 10, 2010 12:27 AM EDT up reply actions
i am saying they should get a chance
but i mean come on, if we don’t take advantage of the opportunity to bring in the most modest T.O. possible, is it really worth it just “hoping” these two can justify essentially handing them starting jobs unconditionally? That just doesn’t sit well with me. Especially since they were both lazy coming in, stayed lazy with Zorn at the helm, frequently got nagging injuries because they didn’t train, & what’s more, Thomas is training with Chad Ochocinco. The criticism of Owens’s latent personality defects rings pretty hollow for me after that point. I just think this should be a bona fide contest, not what would basically amount to a giveaway
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Jul 10, 2010 12:29 AM EDT up reply actions
So you defend TO's personality and character
and then impugn Thomas for training with Ochocinco in the same post. Rich.
by BayAreaBullet on Jul 10, 2010 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Ochocinco
seems to be a real character – Dancing with the Stars, now some new show. I wonder if he still wants to play football? He certainly has energy. Do you think he’s a bad guy, or just a little wacky?
bayareabullet - Seriously, cry much?
like i posted to smutsboy, despite your wah-wahh’ing, i’ll repeat here
i don’t find it convincing that repeating Owens’s career-long history, prior to his unique position of being in an inferior bargaining position is necessarily predictive of what he can do in the present.
He’s probably very self-aware that due to age his game has inevitably peaked, therefore, that his talent alone isn’t good enough to sustain what he could previously get away with. This means if we invite him to compete for a starting position, instead of handing one or both out to Thomas & Kelly, we would have him under our thumb, not the other way around.
It’s a little hypocritical to simply re-state Wiki style T.O.‘s history when he could coerce & buckle teams into caving to his whims without adapting that criticism to his present position in terms of inferior bargaining power, essentially declaring with mindlessly broad brushstrokes “No matter what, or how old, or whether Owens is in a position of superior or inferior bargaining power, he is going to poison the team” … & conspicuously leaving out that one of our purportedly “cleaner/less poisonous” alternatives (Thomas) who of his own volition was lazy his first year, lazy his 2nd due to that + Zorn’s woeful oversight, & prior to his 3rd is training with Chad Ochocinco, essentially a rearticulation of TO in his prime when he could functionally act as the tail whom could wag the dog, is factually disingenuous.
An overly broad claim that, unconditionally, TO will poison the team (eg no matter what), without taking into consideration anything like his inability to control teams henceforth, & conveniently leaving out material facts like Thomas’s own history, culminating with training with none other than the #1 diva wideout in the game today, well, i’ll do the math for you. That = textbook hypocrisy.
So you want TO out & one of the youngins in. Cool. 35% of the people who read HH agree with you. Just make sense when you bitc* on this point. You already come off as a rageaholic, do everyone a favor in this debate & at least be civil if you hate my theory on this. Your e-tantrum with me is elusive yet deafening, but still funny. Stop being so insecure and just argue, drowning your beliefs in sarcasm and randomly-placed insults don’t make you any more persuasive to me or the remainder of the 64% in favor of sending an invite to Owens.
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Jul 11, 2010 3:34 AM EDT up reply actions
Naw
Just like no fish-armed QB’s make the NFL, neither do WR’s who can’t catch the ball. The thing is can they catch it in heavy traffic when they know they are gonna get hit. If the (hopefully) improved OL can give DMac enough time to find a open receiver (and one got open), at least a couple of WR’s currently on the roster will do.
Yes...
assuming the price is right, and the contract isn’t full of guarantees.
We have no cap issues if we sign him for one year, so we might as well do anything we can to imporve. Additionally, assuming AH is still on the team, T.O. won’t be near the biggest distraction.
by TerroristFistJab on Jul 9, 2010 9:19 AM EDT reply actions
Or....
their powers will combine to create a giant super distraction…
He wasn't a distraction in Buffalo
I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.
by maxwellsdemon on Jul 10, 2010 4:29 AM EDT up reply actions
so he was a decent teammate for 1 year
whoopdedoo
"By far the worst performers on the team are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins
i just don't find it convincing
that repeating his career-long history, prior to his unique position of being in an inferior bargaining position is necessarily predictive of what he can do in the present.
He’s probably very self-aware that due to age his game has inevitably peaked, therefore, that his talent alone isn’t good enough to sustain what he could previously get away with. This means if we invite him to compete for a starting position, instead of handing one or both out to Thomas & Kelly, we would have him under our thumb, not the other way around.
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Jul 11, 2010 3:13 AM EDT up reply actions
You're giving Terrell Owens the benefit of the doubt.
Terrell.
Owens.
"By far the worst performers on the team are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins
come on, develop some reasoning other than something like that. Saying his name impliedly citing factual circumstances that are maladaptive to the present in terms of his inferior bargaining power, & turning and acting like it’s prima facie evidence that 66% of us are wrong isn’t convincing. Give me/us something more to think on than just saying his name & pretending that’s enough
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Jul 12, 2010 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions
His history speaks for istelf. But if you need me to recap:
He’s thrown 2 ex-QBs under the bus, one while he was still on the team and was months away from appearing in the super bowl.
He berates his own coaches on the sidelines mid-game and in practice.
Buffalo is the first place he’s been where didn’t burn bridges or get ushered out of town early.
12 months of good behavior does not erase the previous 5-7 years. He does not get the benefit of the doubt.
"By far the worst performers on the team are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins
I'm just saying
the importance of Owens’s past history is subsumed by the context of bargaining power. Bargaining power is everything (in my opinion, how is an overview of his history more important than his present state/lack of bargaining power re the team?). If he has more, he is the tail that wags the dog. If he has less, we have him under our thumb. How does his past history take priority over the issue of inferior bargaining power? Other than to doubly-make sure that we have a HC whom will drop him ASAP if he shows any ’tude, it just seems irrelevant when applied to the present & the issue of whether or not to invite him to contest a starting spot.
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Jul 12, 2010 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions
there are huge downsides to bringing him in
so we might as well do anything we can to imporve.
"By far the worst performers on the team are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins
I don't know...
he seems to have gotten humbled up a bit. Besides, if he’s balls, we cut him. Just like Bobby Wade, Joey Galloway, etc.
by TerroristFistJab on Jul 9, 2010 10:25 AM EDT up reply actions
the risk is nowhere near worth it.
He’s getting worse by the minute.
"By far the worst performers on the team are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins
I'm not trying to be willfully dense here...
but what risk?
Assuming he doesn’t command a ton of money (and even if he does, there’s no cap and the contract isn’t guaranteed), there really isn’t a risk. He’s just like any number of veterans that sign on for training camp and get cut if they don’t have it.
The “chemistry” thing? I don’t buy that for a second. Teams win with controversial/obnoxious talent all of the time.
by TerroristFistJab on Jul 9, 2010 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions
you don't buy that?
his track record of burnt bridges speaks for itself. he went to the Super Bowl with Philly and wrecked that locker room within months, with our current QB no less.
Even if it’s unlikely, it’s still entirely possible, and given his diminishing skills, there’s not a strong case to even risk it, however small.
There are plenty of other veterans or riskier young guys who can likely produce the same mediocrity.
Attitudes matter. Egos matter. Rebuilding matters. There is no compelling reason to put TO anywhere near this team.
"By far the worst performers on the team are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins
he's humbled
he sucked with the Bills, everyone down to his mom has said his skills no longer match up with his diva smack talk, i think it’s a very real probability that he’s as modest & has as much humility as he’ll ever have while retaining serviceable receiving skills
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Jul 9, 2010 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Like said, it's possible but not worth the risk.
"By far the worst performers on the team are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins
the risk of young lazy receivers
doing a terrible job, forcing Moss into a #1 role he’s too small for, & pressing our scheme to predictably (for defenses) over-rely on Cooley or Davis and ultimately use Moss as some kind of decoy, all because we didn’t force the wide receivers to contest for their starting positions, i think spells a far worse doom than the most humbled serviceable Terrell Owens the NFL will ever see
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Jul 9, 2010 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Come on now
all because we didn’t force the wide receivers to contest for their starting positions
We have 12 receivers in camp right now, did Shanahan bring them in for shits and giggles? I recognize you have a hard on for TO, and arguably he could bring some positives (arguably again with several negatives) but I’m not sure I can buy into your argument of a lack of competition at WR with a dozen candidates about to head into camp..
Other WRs
I also wonder if there is any real chance that guys like Anthony Armstrong, Shay Hodges, Roydell Williams, Terrence Austin, et al, could earn the #2, 3, 4, or 5 receiver positions? Do they have the potential? Are DT and MK already presumptive #s 2 & 3?
There's no loyalty from shanny towards kelly and thomas
I’m confident that the best players will play, however shanahan might measure best with the future in mind so guys like galloway might not have a shot.
but Anthony Armstrong has been turning heads at camp already and i’m sure that if he is indeed better than thomas or kelly he will play over them
Come onn
We have 12 receivers in camp right now, did Shanahan bring them in for shits and giggles?
like (paraphrasing) Donnio says:
I wonder if there is any real chance that guys like Anthony Armstrong, Shay Hodges, Roydell Williams, Terrence Austin, et al, could earn the #2, 3 receiver positions
I think it’s safe to say the aforementioned ‘12’ are getting an opportunity to make the team for pure depth purposes, not as a collective, bona fide contest for the starting #2, & #3 WR positions.
Just looking at that list, none of those guys could start. Not even in a Madden game against the shi*ty Euro NFL teams.
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Jul 9, 2010 8:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Just wondering
what puts DT (and MK?) automatically ahead of Armstrong, Hodges, Austin (and Williams, who has done more than anybody but Santana)? What are the coaches seeing? Is DT (e.g.) bigger, stronger, faster, or does he just blow away everybody at the camp? I guess that in some cases it is obvious – a CB is often beaten, or a WR can clearly get loose anytime he wants, clear differences in ability, etc. Anyone been to a number of training camps, and can give some examples of how the coaches selected players?
roydell’s a worn retread (to me at least, it feels like isolating his best stats. aren’t predictive of what he’ll bring to the redskins, esp because he had a stellar offensive line that could protect statuesque, bad kerry collins & alternatively the scrambly (yeah, poor word choice sorry it’s late) VY like, well, it seemed like there was an O-line fortress around them in TN.
armstrong is short & nobody seems to be raving about him. even if it was cerrato that drafted DT/MK, at least several here & prior to the draft were high on them, armstrong i don’t think has a repetoire anyone is particularly high on, & hasn’t demonstrated anything that has generated murmurs of what he can do.
austin is a 7th round draft pick, that doesn’t make me feel particularly hopeful he presents a bona fide challenge to a pair of 2nd round draft picks. like armstrong, has done nothing to generate murmurs on any grapevine of being a surprise find.
By hodges you mean shay hodge right? loosely ditto austin & armstrong. sorry if it’s a crappy response i am super tired and who knows they could be a watered down marques colston for all i know, but in my opinion there’s nothing to indicate they present a good-faith challenge for a starting WR job, which i think an invite to Terrell Owens would legitimately accomplish
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Jul 11, 2010 3:05 AM EDT up reply actions
Other receivers
Interesting. By the way, I misread the stats on Roydell – those were multi-year, not one year. I agree with you on TO – I can’t see why we wouldn’t let him compete, with some caveats: he’s got to come cheap, humble and understanding that he’s not the TO of old, and Donovan has to want him. If he comes in, he’ll likely be the main competition to DT and MK.
Word Up
I totally agree with you. hope we end up in consensus again, this was a fun question & it was nice to agree with you!
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Jul 12, 2010 2:08 AM EDT up reply actions
armstrong is short & nobody seems to be raving about him.
Washington Redskins WR Anthony Armstrong has performed well in the team’s OTAs, reports Paul Tenorio, of The Washington Post. Head coach Mike Shanahan said, "Anthony has done a good job. He does have some speed, he’s made some very big plays for us thus far and he’s right in the mix."
It may not be a rave but making big plays is what he should be doing to earn a spot is it not?
Armstrong
Sounds good, although “he does have some speed” isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement. I’m all for him, though.
data-mining
Do head coaches ever openly trash players they’ve chosen to invite to camp for competition? It would amount to a constructive admission that they can’t even pick the right players to compete for depth positions & depress their credibility as personnel managers in an embarrassing way to the local press. Are there any sources that have on record said anything like that or greater other than the Post’s training camp beat reporter?
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Jul 12, 2010 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions
are there any reports to say that kelly and thomas are lazy besides the posts beat reporter during their first year?
you admit to not fully reading articles (skimming) and then you challenge others sources and reasoning? You use big words for no other reason then to hear yourself sound smart when the message they are conveying is quite simplistic. You defend your reasoning by stating that the majority agrees with you, but guess what I know 2 that don’t and that’s Shanahan and Allen, if they did TO would be here already.
You also don’t have to openly trash a player, when asked about them you can just omit the comment, which Shanahan does often, The fact that he mentioned anything even remotely positive is a good thing. He didn’t openly trash Marko Mitchell… he cut him. He really hasn’t openly commented on anything, he lets his actions speak and right now his actions are telling me we got enough competition at WR and don’t need TO.
dude
You use big words for no other reason then to hear yourself sound smart when the message they are conveying is quite simplistic. You defend your reasoning by stating that the majority agrees with you, but guess what I know 2 that don’t and that’s Shanahan and Allen, if they did TO would be here already
i don’t even know what “but guess what I know 2 that don’t and that’s Shanahan and Allen, if they did TO would be here already” means. Is that supposed to be a joke or are you serious? In any case i think you’ve got me confused with someone else, ‘constructive’, ‘data mining’, and ‘credibility’ are fairly basic words, if you’re confused and angry i’m genuinely sorry for you.
As for articles it depends which articles you’re referring to. Like every person here, I fully read the text of some articles, skim others, and when i don’t have enough time like others, i take the word of others here re cited articles on HH. I can see you’ve got a beef and are saying I’ve admitted I never read articles. Simply wrong & I’ll leave it at that.
As for Mitchell, I think you’re drawing a lot of hard-&-fast inferences from… I have no idea. We don’t know why he cut Mitchell. It could have been because he was unimpressed. It could have been because, as coaches often do, he wasn’t one of “his” guys, & it certainly wouldn’t cost Shanahan anything to axe someone that wasn’t “his” choice who was simply a low guy on the totem-pole, vying with others for a position on the lower-end of the WR depth chart.
He really hasn’t openly commented on anything, he lets his actions speak and right now his actions are telling me we got enough competition at WR and don’t need TO.
I don’t understand, you’ve dropped a painfully overused cliche (he doesn’t comment/talk, he lets his actions speak for himself) and inferred from his lack of comments that he’s not considering an invitation to Terrell Owens, or that more competition isn’t necessary, or that Shanahan’s lack of comments to the press other than pro forma “It’s all good right now” sttms. means that he’s impressed with what he’s seeing, and that in his opinion the competition for the starting wide spots is genuinely satisfactory & being contested in good-faith by capable receivers (like Roydell Williams? & Anthony Armstrong? Realistically starting?). Now who’s making stuff up out of ether?
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Jul 12, 2010 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions
no
hahaha, i’m actually embarrassed to say, i’m an undergrad student who’s interning in a science field. and unlike the d-bag ravens fan that hilariously pops into these discussions every now & then, because i’m a lowly intern doesn’t mean that i’m all that & cracker jacks. know who i’m talking about? i wish he would drop by more often, he was so easy to make fun of
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Jul 12, 2010 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions
you use alot of legal jargon
my brother is a lawyer and i constantly have to tell him to quit phillabustering and get to the damn point
hahaha
nooo, but alot of my friends are in pre-law programs, and i guess whatever filibustering bad habits they have sometimes rub off on me by osmosis.
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Jul 12, 2010 4:10 PM EDT up reply actions
yeah you argue well
but you have too much time on your hands to be an actual lawyer. So I thought either philosophy major or law student 1L or 2L, 3L’s are too busy for this crap
thanks!
i appreciate the compliment, and do realize sometimes i’m too verbose, but i’ve never been accused/told that my vocab is anything to write home abt. Today’s my day off and i’m spending it at HH. I’m a devoted Redskins fan but i need to find more things to do. It’s the life of a science nerd
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Jul 12, 2010 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions
I know I know
Let Jason Pass, i’m sure he’ll be around again, and i’m sure you’ll have some very interesting “discussions”, i use this term lightly, with him.
No I'm def not someone else
i was wondering who that was/what that meant. No I’m not someone else, I post here as much as i can, basically when i have available time, which is usually in spurts. What do you mean by interesting, is he an a-hole or crazy? i hope i wasn’t easily mistaken for a poster nobody likes
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Jul 13, 2010 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions
I'll take the former
I’ll take young lazy receivers (who might not be lazy with new regime) over an egomaniac any day.
What risk?
I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.
by maxwellsdemon on Jul 10, 2010 4:29 AM EDT up reply actions
No
He wasn’t much of a distraction in Buffalo but that’s because the media is pretty timid up there. The media focus that he would get here would inflate his ego again and cause problems. He would be just like he was in Dallas again.
Just say no to T.O.
No Thank You
There are two kinds of players I don’t want on the Redskins. Donovan McNabb was an example of one: a guy from a rival squad that made a living making me miserable. I have come to grips with that reality—at least Donovan McNabb has for the most part always conducted himself in a classy way while establishing himself as one of the best at his position. But T.O. falls in the other category: a dude who has shown time and time again that it is all about him. He might be older and he might be wiser, but he will always be T.O. I don’t trust him and I don’t want him.
One element to this question always is: Would you care if that player showed up on your schedule once or twice a year? My answer is: I’ll take my chances. He has lit us up a couple times. But we have also dominated him at times. I just don’t want to root for this guy.
Period.
Definitely not at this time....
If ALL of our WRs fail miserably throughout training camp AND preseason then it becomes a discussion (and I would still be hard pressed to give it the green light, but if it is OK with Dono and Shanny, I suppose I could live with it…maybe….ugh). I really don’t think we will be in that situation…….Hey Kevin, you showed the “dropped ball” list, is there any way we could get a ratio or percentage on dropped balls vs “thrown to”? Seems that would paint a more accurate picture.
True...
I think it was pretty much an idle threat anyway…..would be somehow emotionally disturbing all the same.
wonder whether plax would be any good
vick kind of stinked in his first year back
My doublestuffed oreos fell on the floor of my mom's basement. Save me swagman!
by SomebodyBuyAustinaSteak on Jul 9, 2010 12:06 PM EDT up reply actions
Plax is still going to be 6'5"
I think he’ll have a few productive years. He was never into practicing that much to begin with.
"By far the worst performers on the team are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins
tough call
He’s never been in a WCO, can’t imagine his first year would be a smooth one here.
Hogs Haven. On Twitter. And Facebook.
by Kevin Ewoldt on Jul 9, 2010 12:08 PM EDT up reply actions
In their prime maybe. but not now
well, really I want neither now.
"By far the worst performers on the team are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins
just found another Shanny move
added it above…he suspended Champ.
Hogs Haven. On Twitter. And Facebook.
Hmmmm...
suspending a player, who is definitely going to make the team, for a preseason game, after missing curfew?….might have been doing Champ a favor.
just added another one...Todd Sauerbrun
Hogs Haven. On Twitter. And Facebook.
by Kevin Ewoldt on Jul 9, 2010 10:47 AM EDT up reply actions
No, No, and No
he’s washed up. Fuck T.O., and McNabb is a pushover if he wants T.O. Have you no nuts McNabb? the guy already dicked you over once, and you want him back when he’s old and washed up? Fuck T.O. no.
a life: it's the shit that happens while you're waiting for moments that never come -Lester Freamon
60% for Yes?
Are you kidding me? I want to know what the poll would look like if the article was negative about TO instead of saying hey guys let’s give him a chance….
We don’t need to bring him in to see if he’s better than other receivers, we already know what he can do. The reason we don’t want him in DC is because of his history of being a cancer, and the fact that he’s old, whine’s, and drops mad balls.
I’d rather see our young receivers given a chance and fail than TO come in here and get 60 catches 800 yards.
WRs - weakest link
As discussed in other threads recently, WR is probably our weakest unit (except maybe the D-line without AH). Only Santana is a proven receiver, and he’s on the downhill side of his career. DT and MK might be OK, but that’s 50-50 at best. If Santana was hurt, we’d be left with the weakest group in the league – no “above average” receivers (aside from the tight ends). So, assuming he is not washed up (and I don’t think he is), I’d go after TO, but only on our terms – cheap, no guarantees, not as number one. I wouldn’t worry about his temperament under those conditions – he wouldn’t be the “star”. It wouldn’t matter if he mouthed off (e.g., who cares if Moore or Blades or Barnes complains?). So to me it is a no-brainer – grab him if we can. One caveat – I’d only do it if Donovan was fully on board – actually wanted it. If they don’t get TO, they ought to be looking for other top receivers that might be available (probably by trade). Because they are very vulnerable now.
I wouldn’t worry about his temperament under those conditions – he wouldn’t be the "star". It wouldn’t matter if he mouthed off (e.g., who cares if Moore or Blades or Barnes complains?).
That’s the problem though, he brings the parade with him no matter where he goes, he will always be the “star” no matter where you put him on the depth chart.
i think that presumption presents a significantly lesser danger
than the certain doom of the risk of young lazy receivers doing a terrible job, forcing Moss into a #1 role he’s too small for, & pressing our scheme to predictably (for defenses) over-rely on Cooley or Davis and ultimately use Moss as some kind of decoy, all because we didn’t force the wide receivers to contest for their starting positions, i think spells a far worse hypothetical situation than the most humbled serviceable Terrell Owens the NFL will ever see
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Jul 9, 2010 1:12 PM EDT up reply actions
i’m trying to explore the different reasons different persons have for voting “No”
eg, i’m genuinely interested in the diversity of responses there are to what i think to see if i change my mind and others have more persuasive reasoning than what i have to say. Fin.
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Jul 9, 2010 9:28 PM EDT up reply actions
are you intentionally or unintentionally leaving out the fact the other '12' WRs
wouldn’t be good enough to serve as the #4 or #5 on the Lions? Anthony Montgomery = competition. Bwah
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Jul 9, 2010 9:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Lions receivers > Redskins receivers
I’d take any of the top 3 Lions receivers to be on the Redskins. Megatron & Burleson are better than anything we have, and Bryant Johnson is pretty good, too. The Lions aren’t hurting for passing talent.
Who is this Anthony Montgomery that you keep referring to?
I suppose this is Anthony Armstrong. Roydell Williams had a decent record with the Titans before he was injured, but that was several years ago when he averaged about 14 yards per reception. Career NFL statistics as of 2009
Receptions 84, Receiving yards 1,139, Receiving TDs 6 – Stats at NFL.com
by Jefferson1935 on Jul 10, 2010 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions
Roydell Williams
Those are better stats than I had remembered. Yet, he doesn’t (seem to) get any respect.
bleh
maybe i’m being unfair to roydell, & err, anthony armstrong, that was my fault for scrolling too imprecisely between tabs, but however unquantifiable it sounds the thought of roydell williams starting for the redskins stinks. like, hunter smith passing for TD bad. roydell williams, it just feels gross to have mcnabb & be using him or handing one of the two slacka$$ cerrato rookies jobs gratis rather than inviting TO to compete for a job
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Jul 11, 2010 2:57 AM EDT up reply actions
bleh
Maybe you are being a little unfair by judging them as “unworthy” already, based on little or no information. As I mentioned, Roydell’s stats are multi-year, so not as impressive as I first thought. But he’s a professional WR, and Armstrong, Hodge, etc are rookies who could surprise. I’m as doubtful on DT and MK as you are, but it’s clear that DT will be given one more year as a starter, and he could improve dramatically – he has the tools. But I don’t want to go into the season with only Santana and DT and the others. So, I’d like to give TO a chance (with caveats), and am encouraged by the Fox Sports report that Vincent Jackson is almost a Redskin (VJ would negate the need for TO)..
I don't want him for all the obvious reasons and for one other
I don’t want TO taking reps, time on the field, gym equipment or a second of time with coaches away from DT and MK. They already understand they are competing and there is nothing TO can do that Gallaway already is by providing guidance to the younger guys.
TO is not much of a backup option at this stage of his career (or we really, really suck at WR), and we also have the leagues best TE corps to spread the air game around. This makes DT’s and MK’s job even easier. I would be totally surprised if both of them didn’t have breakout years just because we can put so much pressure on a D via the TE and FB positions along with Santana. In short, TO is superfluous at best for this team at this time.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Hell No TO
Completely agree with your reasoning.
My give a damn broke.
by davesomethin on Jul 9, 2010 12:08 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
agree with you
I don’t think either MK or DT will work out, but bringing in TO won’t benefit us and will further reduce the chance that they will work out.
My doublestuffed oreos fell on the floor of my mom's basement. Save me swagman!
by SomebodyBuyAustinaSteak on Jul 9, 2010 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions
once again
Fuck T.O.
does nobody have any loyalty anymore? does nobody have any consistent stances on anything anymore? geez, where are people standing up for their principles these days?
between people actually voting yes to T.O, and this Lebron bullshit, and people not wanting to get rid of Arenas, my head is gonna explode. Rep yo’ city, and don’t allow in any riff-raff. Hometown for life, whatever it is that your hometown may be.
a life: it's the shit that happens while you're waiting for moments that never come -Lester Freamon
DO NOT WANT
for a team that is building on the fly while alos trying to change the culture and get rid of prima-donnas, signing TO goes against all of that. Sure he would be the best WR on the roster but since we’re not banging on the SB door, I would prefer to develop and see what we have already
"If you want money, go to the bank. If you want bread, go to the bakery. If you want goals, go to the net." - Brooks Laich
"...I got the most gentlemanly player in juniors my last year. I'm a gentleman, always a gentleman." - Matt Bradley
Key point
Bigity b says “sure he would be the best WR on the roster” and Scott E says he’s “not much of a backup option…” and those comments express the big question – how good is TO? Where would he rank among the receivers? Would he help the team? I don’t know, but my own guess is that he’d be the most dangerous receiver behind Santana, and thus be a huge help to the others (on the field – the opponents would have to cover him). I don’t quite see Scott’s point about training time, reps, equipment, etc – after two years, I don’t think DT and MK are going to suddenly blossom because of training time (It would more likely come as some kind of epiphany). And as to “unless we really really suck at WR” – well, maybe they do, or would if Santana got hurt.
I think (I may be way off base here) Scotts point might be...
the man has not earned the right to own the privilege to even look upon the our facilities, much less participate with the organization we call The Washington Redskins!!
Good counter points all around
TO’s numbers in Buffalo were as good as any of our receivers last year. But, I have to think that with an OLine, real coaching and D-Mac on the attack that DT and MK will be more than serviceable this year with only upswing in the coming years, while TO is sliding into the sunset as I type.
My point about equipment, etc was a little tongue in cheek, but only to emphasize that we need to develop our own talent. Bringing in TO, even if he starts, will likely cost DT and MK needed reps with the 1st string, time with McNabb and coaches, which only delays the answer to the question we need to know. Can either of these guys be legit receivers? By not bringing in TO, the answer will be clearer and sooner and we will know how to strategize for next off season. If TO comes aboard, he helps us….? do something…? for a year?..and either DT or MK will likely be cut and, no doubt with our luck, will turn out to be a fine receiver for someone else, while we use yet another draft pick next year for a WR.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
And those numbers in Buffalo were with an offense worst than ours
Their QB and OL situations make ours look golden, seriously. I don’t want TO, but I don’t think he is completely washed up either.
Then how are they supposed to learn?
I don’t quite see Scott’s point about training time, reps, equipment, etc – after two years, I don’t think DT and MK are going to suddenly blossom because of training time (It would more likely come as some kind of epiphany).
You think Vincent Jackson is a stud WR right? Well he didn’t get over 500 yards in a season till his third year where he had 623, then his fourth and fifth years he broke out with thousand yard seasons. You don’t think it took him alot of hard work, training time, and reps to get better?
Are you implying that all DT or MK have to do to become great wr’s is have an epiphany?
We have to be patient with wr’s, let’s not give up on them and not give them the reps they need to become the wr’s that we all want them to be by picking up some whining, cry baby, “that’s my quartaback,” over the hill, butterfinger, diva, bitch that has a history of locker room problems. Even if he doesn’t bring locker room problems the media will create them, and I think we’re all tired enough of shit like that from Albert.
Vincent Jackson:
First season: 3 catches for 59 yards
Second season: 27 catches for 453 yards
Third season: 41 catches for 623 yards
Devon Thomas:
First season: 15 receptions for 120 yards
Second season: 25 receptions for 325 yards
Third season: Unknown
All Devin Thomas needs is a couple DUIs and he's a pro-bowler!
good stats tho.
Hogs Haven. On Twitter. And Facebook.
seriously!
the reach for parallels are getting worse than gambling the North Korean soccer team would win the World Cup..
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Jul 9, 2010 9:00 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m by no means saying DT will be as good as Jackson, I’m just throwing out stats to show that receivers take development and Jackson was a hot topic so I compared their stats.
I don't see why people have such issues with the parallel
I don’t think that everyone is saying that because their stats are simmilar that DT will be the next VJ. People are just pointing out that it may be premature to rule him out yet because it can happen, not that it will happen.
+1
the comparison is soley because people are trying to write him off…
DT & MK
I was philosophizing a bit. One usually has to work hard to have an “epiphany” – it comes when you have internalized the lessons – you suddenly just “get it”. Like riding a bike, learning to drive stick shift, or at certain points in learning a language (once, I suddenly understood what someone was saying – which came after months of lessons). Sometimes work never pays off. So those guys have to work and observe and think. At some point, they might just “suddenly” improve – start running great routes, getting separation, etc.
By the way, your VJ point was discussed on another thread. VJ started slow, and got great. But many who start slow, stay slow. Starting slow does not ensure later success. I think (but cannot prove) that most top receivers and football players were good right from the first year, although maybe it was not apparent for awhile because of a learning curve – problems of technique and knowledge. VJ just shows that there is still hope for DT & MK, not that they will succeed. This is their third year – they better figure it out pretty soon, or I’d dump them.
+1
But many who start slow, stay slow. Starting slow does not ensure later success. I think (but cannot prove) that most top receivers and football players were good right from the first year, although maybe it was not apparent for awhile because of a learning curve – problems of technique and knowledge. VJ just shows that there is still hope for DT & MK, not that they will succeed. This is their third year – they better figure it out pretty soon, or I’d dump them.
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Jul 9, 2010 9:02 PM EDT up reply actions
I understand and agree with everything you’re saying but what I’m trying to say is let’s not give up on them yet. And going out and signing Owens to the roster is exactly that, giving up on them.
distinction
we don’t want to sign him straight-up, the question raised is whether to invite him to contest a starting position at WR. If he sucks, Shanahan’s no Zorn, he’ll be decisive & cut him loose. If he gives ‘tude, Shanahan’s again no Zorn, Owens will be dropped faster than you can snap. Most importantly, Owens probably knows this situation applies irrespective of the head coach. He’s in a position of vastly inferior bargaining power unlike ever before, where his team holds the superior ground, therefore, logically, if Owens wants to prolong his career & make a run at the HOF, the likelihood of him causing a locker-room firestorm is substantially reduced to extremely unlikely given current factual circumstances.
Again, if the question posed were whether to sign him or not, the issue would be different because signing him without forcing a contest would implicitly defer to him entitlement, not something we need to induce. On the other hand, an invitation to enter the contest for starting spots at our wideout position, I think is extremely desirable given our present weakness at that position, the higher probability Santana would flourish more as a #2 against shorter corners, and because evidently our two ‘potential’ alternative young WRs have been lazy year 1, lazy year 2, and now we’re at year three exuberantly hoping for the best with better policing. If Kelly/Thomas required Big Brother policing in the offseason in order to get them to remain accountable, they’re not exactly “character” guys in contrast to a humbled T.O. given the above mentioned facts concerning his new situation & inferior bargaining power. Unconditional contract? No. Unconditional handing out starting positions to Kelly and/or Thomas given the above facts? No. Merely inviting him to present a good-faith challenge for the starting wide receiver positions, perhaps our weakest unit? Definitely! (I think)
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Jul 12, 2010 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions
Training facilities
Small point (when answering Scott E’s message), but on TO taking time and attention from DT, I meant the difference in attention (due to TO) probably wouldn’t have much impact on DT – he’d be able to work as hard as he wanted. Of course, it might mean fewer reps, but they have 12 guys in there, which must take a little time from him. It’s clear that a player has to work, practice, train, listen and think to become a real pro. Professionalism is perhaps the single most important character trait a player can have. Thoroughness, anything you do, do well. Some players are so talented and dominant in college that they never develop that professional attitude, so never realize their potential. Guys like TO and Ochocinco might be a little odd or immature or egocentric in some ways (I say “might” because I don’t know them personally), but their success shows that they are formidable, professional type people when it comes to playing the game. I’d be inclined to accept a little nuttiness if a guy really gives his all on the field.
i think owens has been humbled these past few years. he does drop a lot of open balls- always has. but i would sign him inexpensively. at a min, he can show them how to work out and take care of their bodies! and he has always been good at pushing off and getting seperation, so that might be passed along too!
cheap though…cheap cheap cheap
by les boulez bomber on Jul 9, 2010 11:28 AM EDT reply actions
it's mind-boggling.
these people play madden too much.
"By far the worst performers on the team are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins
nope
Just folks who don’t like handing out uncontested, starting WR to people because they meet they “You must be young to have a job” qualification that’s boneheadedly the theme i’m seeing mostly trumpeted in these parts
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Jul 9, 2010 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Then bring in more veteran WRs like we've been doing
but not an aging, over the hill player who’s had 1 quiet year after a career of burning bridges, throwing QBs under buses, and splitting locker rooms.
"By far the worst performers on the team are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins
that's a little over the top
looking at the big-picture it’s true, but I don’t think a simple Wikipedia style reading of his career history is predictive of his decreased bargaining position here & now. The question presented is whether he should be brought in to contest a starting WR spot, which reduces his relative bargaining power to “act out” like a diva when he was younger & could get away with it because he was at his zenith youthful talent, and in addition, forces the young wide receivers to develop a work ethic, which has been a conspicuously absent criticism among the majority of people incensed at the question raised. I think it’s a good suggestion by KevinE. If we were unconditionally handing him a spot, that’d be another story, but the fact that he’s probably painfully aware of his declining bargaining position because of all the aforementioned factors, indicates (to me) that coupled with the fact that he’d have to compete for a job, pretty much reduces the possibility of any diva-like scenarios realistically playing out as if he was 25.
Bringing in Terrell Owens to contest for a WR spot with two young wide receivers that have produced cumulatively almost nothing over the span of 2 years & been chronically hampered with nagging injuries because they failed to demonstrate appropriate preseason/offseason work ethic, just doesn’t seem to present a real danger. The question isn’t handing him a job, it’s the opportunity to contest for a job. And either way, we win if he is serviceable enough to be our #1, take pressure off Santana allowing Moss to maximize his skill-set against smaller, less talented corners, and forcing the young WRs to actually work (something they have not done since draft day) & compete with each other for a starting position, and develop from there, OR, alternatively, Owens turns out to be a useless re-tread, but he spurs Thomas & Kelly to actually work, something they haven’t done since draft day, and compete for a position instead of inherit one without qualification.
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Jul 9, 2010 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree a lot with what you are saying
TO will:
- be eating Humble Pie
- will work hard
- possibly even make the team
So what? I think there is already enough competition in camp and the move does nothing for our future, the only possible upside being he is included in the best 11 we can muster for Offense for this year. And I’m not convinced he could be. So, I think it is a complete waste of time to bring him aboard.
I’m also not convinced that DT and MK are the lazy bastards you portray them to be. Immature, first year wasted. Then Zorn and his lack of ability to get almost anyone into the weight room, so bad mentorship to say the least. The fact that DT is working with Chad (not happy with the choice, but..) to get better is a sign that he gets it and is working hard to make this team and be productive. So the glass of Kool-aid is half full for me on this one.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
The geniune question raised is not 'competition', but *bona fide* competition
Roydell Williams, Trent Austin, these guys may not even be able to crack the starting 3 at the top 5 colleges this year. I just don’t think these ‘12 other receivers’ serve any purpose other than depth, so their presence is really extraneous to providing competition for the starting job. Nobody here, nor Shanahan or Allen, would prefer Roydell Williams starting over Thomas or Kelly, & realistically he’s not there to serve that purpose, only to compete for emergency spots.
Thank you for being the first (i think?) to point out Thomas’s mentor of choice … Chad Ochocinco!!! It’s hilarious that according to critics on this thread, that Terrell Owens could potentially poison the team, when one of the shining touted youth among the most vociferous “development for development’s sake”/“TO would provide bad leadership irrespective of his present self-awareness” gang is training among none other than Chad Ochocinco.
Competition? There is, but the competition among receivers presently invited to camp does not fairly represent a good-faith challenge for the starting wide-receiver spots. It’s unthinkable that we’d unconditionally hand one player who was lazy his first year, lazy his second, & trains with Chad Ochocinco his third, & another identical one sans the Ochocinco relationship, starting positions & just cross our fingers they’d “find it” & have the epiphany we need to win. Handing Terrell Owens a starting job without qualification would be a terrible idea, as is handing anyone an open spot unconditionally. Bona fide competition is needed, especially for these two. They’re young, they slacked off, one is training with the heir apparent to diva WRs, how could inviting a tall wide receiver & demonstrable end-zone threat to light a fire under their butts, rather than ignoring him & letting Thomas & Kelly’s possible failure torch our season’s hopes on the offensive side of the ball, be bad? I don’t think age is our enemy here, it’s the lack of good-faith efforts in the past to bring in bona fide competition from those whom are not exorbitant FAs, for starting positions.
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Jul 9, 2010 9:14 PM EDT up reply actions
Roydell, Terrence, et al
Roydell Williams had a very strong season at Tennessee (see Jefferson1935 message above). You mean Terrence Austin, and he’s a pretty promising rookie – fast. But as I mentioned before, competition alone doesn’t ensure that you get a star. 12 bums competing still leaves you with a bum. (Not saying our guys are bums – just making a point).
yikes
I don’t care if we have Fletcher, McNabb, Shanahan, etc in the locker room.
Owens and Haynesworth on the same coast would be enough to scare me, let alone the same franchise.
Voting Yes
No way do I feel absolutely comfortable signing T.O., but I feel even less comfortable giving uncontested free starting positions at wideout to Thomas & Kelly, whom have both shown up the last 2 preseasons out of shape, become easily injured with nagging, hampering injuries throughout the rest of the season as a result of their lackadaisical offseason approach, & produced cumulatively 3 touchdowns: 1 against the 17th-ranked passing defense, 2 against the 26th-ranked passing defense. It makes no sense to take a gamble on TO for no reason. But I believe we have reasons, & his mere addition to provide a contest for the starting WR positions presents 3 net-benefits. 1) He, probably, automatically becomes the best WR option for McNabb on the field. 2) Even if he doesn’t, he generates crucial competition, the only ingredient that could sway the immovable force that is Thomas & Kelly’s slacka$$ work-ethic & move that inertia towards actually demonstrating talent, instead of feeding off of peoples’ vain hopes that simply because they are young, unknown commodities they could be the next Vincent Jackson. 3) Including him for the purposes of competition undercuts the possibility of the worst-case scenario diva act. It makes him aware that if he doesn’t gel with Shanahan’s team, then he’s out, & that if he doesn’t perform, he’s out. Everything hinges on his success & conformity to team standards, & i think post-Bills this is as modest & full of humility a serviceable Terrell Owens the NFL will ever see, which reduces the likelihood of even that occurring.
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Jul 9, 2010 12:57 PM EDT reply actions
Voting yes
Grand Tanyon – for once, I mostly agree with you, although I don’t blame DT and MK as much for laziness or injuries as you do. It might just be talent, not attitude. But they shouldn’t be able to get the #s 2&3 jobs by default, because there’s nobody else. Those “slacker dudes” should know that they have to earn the jobs. I also think TO can be handled (“or else”). I also think Santana would still be #1 in any case.
I just worry it will lessen the development of DT and MK
I mean, I was looking forward to this year being their year to sink or swim. Zorn’s rediculous offense and a horrible offensive line were, imo, the reason they didn’t perform. Lil’ shanny even said that MK was never used right. I think that this year, with an offensive coord. who knows what he is doing and an improved oline, these guys will perform a lot better.
In response to the argument, if TO was here he would take some of the heat of these guya because he will draw the coverage, I say, I don’t want things to be easier on them, I want them to have to deal with full coverage on them and learn how to get free.
If Moss gets hurt knocks on wood then we would have to rely on these guys and I think they would pull a Fred Davis and perform when the team is counting on them. I don’t want to keep “coddling” them. It may sound kind of dumb but I want them to get the #2 and #3 so they won’t be coddled, make them suit up for games and play hard. If they keep playing crappy they will have to live with the fact that they are letting the offense down, letting the team down. That right there could be a huge factor in their development.
Could put it this way...
A vote for “No” is a vote “Yes” for Cerrato.
Hogs Haven. On Twitter. And Facebook.
Ouch!
The fact that we are even having this discussion means we don’t know what these guys can really do. Shanny bringing in proven talent (and a draft pick) at WR is not necessarily an indication he has a negative attitude towards them. It is, however, consistent with his statements about having competition at every position.
Regarding the “Yes” for Cerrato, if you look at all the receivers he has brought in thru the draft and trades, I really feel he is bound to have at least 1 of them work out and I think that is DT. I think MK can be a specialty guy in the Red Zone and emerge over the next few years, but DT should be primed to break out this year in a big way. If they think TO can be a decoy for Moss, DT and Cooley/Davis, well that’s a different strategy than having him be our No. 1 or 2 WR.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
His 1 that worked out was Fred Davis
I still hold high hopes for Devin…Devin even told me Shanny said he had faith in him…(tho that was months ago).
Hogs Haven. On Twitter. And Facebook.
I think Kelly also said something to the effect;
Kyle told him that they were gonna find ways to get him the ball.
I mean we got a 6’4" receiver on the team with great hands but when we’re on the goal line we’re gonna run behind the shottiest O’Line in the league 4 times instead of trying a fade?
I mean how can you can knock him for not having any TD’s when Zorn’s calling the worst plays ever… I’d love to play rock paper scissors against Zorn… Zorn – “Good Ol’ Rock, Nothing beats Rock” Me – “Poor Predictable Zorn Always picks Rock”
hahaah
Zorn to me comes across as a guy that would say “Rock” but throw paper.
Hogs Haven. On Twitter. And Facebook.
Zorn
amazing how the support for “developing a coach” has simply dissipated and he’s now rightly considered a downright awful coach that would have made the team stink like a dumpster fire for years. Anyway, great article KevinE, thanks for raising the issue & hopefully we invite Owens to camp!
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Jul 9, 2010 9:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Swinging Gate
took all the “developing” out of me. I gave him props for a year and a half because the team was still playing hard, but the last 4 or 5 games made me ill.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
I'm not saying it was you ScottE
I’m just stunned at the number of people who ignore key factual elements to this “Whither T.O. – The Invitation to Compete” debate that are so material to the discussion — like the fact that unlike any previous instance, Owens is in a position of vastly inferior bargaining power, & would be under our thumb, exuberantly lauding Thomas & Kelly’s potential unconditional right to a starting position while ignoring their willful laxity in the offseason for over 2 years, and substantially overstating the responsibility of a head coach to act as a Big Brother policeman of Kelly/Thomas’s fundamental accountability to maintain offseason activities that match up with their 2nd round draft status & the fact that they’re paid to show up prepared and serviceable when the pre-season/season begins.
It’s not the function of a head coach to police a 2nd round pick’s offseason physical development. 2nd rounders drafted as men & paid large sums of scratch to self-regulate during the offseason in order to live up to their contract based on their team’s good-faith reliance on them to live up to their basic offseason responsibility of ensuring their physical preparedness come pre-season/season’s time, should police themselves, and i just think it’s stunning that all of these things are getting lost in translation or ignored. Total apples-&-oranges situations, but content aside it feels like the structure of this debate is taking on similar contours in that key facts about the player/coach in controversy are being willfully ignored simply to follow a “X for X’s sake” line (youth for youth’s sake, keep the coach for consistency, consistency for consistency’s sake. piercing details are immaterial). Again, not directed at you ScottE or any one particular person, you’ve written countless awesome pieces on HH & are undoubtedly one of the most important people for this blog to have
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Jul 12, 2010 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions
I think the only papers Zorn is familiar with
are Zig Zag and ZZ Top. If I had to guess…
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
I was thinking WR, but point taken
You can add Cooley in as a whopping success, too.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Gibbs
I remember the story of him saying he called Cooley up like ASAP and said he wanted him
SpottieOttieDopaliscious
Yea
Scouts found him. Gibbs desperately wanted Kellen Winslow but that’s when Gregg Williams absolutely demanded they take Sean Taylor.
Hogs Haven. On Twitter. And Facebook.
well damn
I stand corrected. Thank god for scouts and Williams
SpottieOttieDopaliscious
yep
that’s why it PAINS me when I hear Vinny take credit for drafting Taylor. He had as much say as Sugar did.
Hogs Haven. On Twitter. And Facebook.
Well the org
made the right choice even if Vinny protested, which I doubt he did.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
I'd have to disagree with you on this one
Making the right choice is the exact type of thing Cerrato protests. Just ask the O-line of the past few years.
So let me get this straight
Zorn was a flippin failure as a coach, and our offensive plan was terrible but 2nd year WRs were supposed to do something when other parts of our offense couldn’t?
Our o-line didn’t give our QB enough time to sneeze, but 2nd year receivers (one of which lost a year to injury) were supposed to know how to get separation from NFL level defenses?
We’re sick of bringing in other people’s trash, but 60% of you want to bring in a known malcontent on the downside of his career to compete for a roster spot and mentor the youngins despite the fact that we have that in Galloway and Macardell minues the malcontent part?
SpottieOttieDopaliscious
of course the fact that thomas is training under ochocinco bears no relevance to
“known malcontence”
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Jul 9, 2010 9:18 PM EDT up reply actions
i'd rather gamble on an invitation to camp for bona fide competition to start
than handing out starting jobs unconditionally to Thomas & Kelly with zero qualification, because we “hope” one or both of our young, up to this point, lazy, wide receivers, will turn out like VJ, when there’s a historical graveyard of WR draftees who never were, & never did..
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Jul 9, 2010 9:20 PM EDT up reply actions
I can't wrap my head around
how you label them lazy wide receivers, most likely based on their rookie years. But want to disregard the fact that T.O. has been a cancer on multiple teams for years and just want to use the one year he spent in Buffalo (as someone said, the media equivalent of Serbia) as the measuring stick on his behavior.
SpottieOttieDopaliscious
I can't wrap my head around
1) it’s siberia, not serbia. not trying to be snarky but just so you know for conversation as an FYI.
so as not to beat a dead horse i’ll repeat what i posted above:
i’m not convinced that impliedly repeating Owens’s career-long history, prior to his unique position of being in an inferior bargaining position is necessarily predictive of what he can do in the present.
He’s probably very self-aware that due to age his game has inevitably peaked, therefore, that his talent alone isn’t good enough to sustain what he could previously get away with. This means if we invite him to compete for a starting position, instead of handing one or both out to Thomas & Kelly, we would have him under our thumb, not the other way around.
basically, to simply re-assert T.O.‘s history when he could coerce & buckle teams into caving to his whims without adapting that criticism to his present position in terms of inferior bargaining power, is essentially declaring with overly broad strokes "No matter what, or how old, or whether Owens is in a position of superior or inferior bargaining power, he is going to poison the team", and it just doesn’t make much sense to me to reason about it that way. I’m much more persuaded that in light of his inferior bargaining position, the team that invites him, if he ultimately makes that team, will have unchallenged bargaining power over him, something he must submit to if he wants his career to continue & to make a run at the HOF.
Not only that, but one of our "cleaner/less poisonous" alternatives (Thomas) who of his own volition was lazy his first year, suffered nagging injuries because he didn’t have the ethic to enter the season physically prepared, lazy his 2nd due to that + Zorn’s woeful oversight, & prior to his 3rd is training with Chad Ochocinco, essentially a rearticulation of TO in his prime when he could functionally act as the tail whom could wag the dog, and, to me, isn’t exactly a convincing “substantially more clean” alternative.
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Jul 12, 2010 2:19 AM EDT up reply actions
wow, so a friend just emailed me this post got linked on espn insider page...
With this quote, I kid you not…way to totally mangle my words espn…
“Seems like a certain other veteran WR would make a lot of sense here, although there’s been some uncertainty as to whether the ’Skins want him or not. For his part, Kevin Ewoldt of Redskins blog Hogs Haven has changed his previous anti-T.O. stance and would welcome him with open arms — especially given the alternatives.”
Open arms? Riiiight.
Hogs Haven. On Twitter. And Facebook.
the one hour fellatio of Lebron last night is why they suck actually
SpottieOttieDopaliscious
Only God knows what Pat Riley had to do and for how long...
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Don't even get me started about Lebron and ESPN
ESPN has always been all over Lebron’s jock strap, ready to take it off for him, wash it, and then gently put it back him on. Ever since his high school days ESPN has acted as if he was a god and/or actually won anything of substance.
seriously, the lebronfest was ridiculous
anyone else think he’s going to be popularly reviled now? It seems like people see him as (rightly) weak sauce for taking the coward’s route to a better team, aside from ESPN worship, which may not last if majority sentiment swings against him permanently, & may make him less marketable since there’s not much story to tell except that he doesn’t want to lead a team himself & just wants to win rings cheaply unlike a Jordan
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Jul 9, 2010 9:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Look
If we had 0 options at receiver, TO would be a decent pickup; however, that is not the case. We have a disciplinary head coach with super bowl rings who almost certainly has Moss, Thomas, and Kelly working their asses off. Thomas and Kelly do not have given spots at all. Moss is gonna be incredibly difficult to beat as a #1 receiver, and Bobby Wade can easily compete for a (legitimate) #2 or #3 spot. Thomas and Kelly will have competition, and it is up to them to step up.
The one thing I am against is that if they struggle in training camp and/or the preseason games to bring in TO, because while doing well in training camp is good, they can just as easily turn it on during the regular season. The preseason is like an organized scrimmage to a lot of these guys, and they don’t have the same drive they have in a normal game. I think Thomas and Kelly will work out fine, if not, Moss still has more upside then TO in my opinion and Bobby Wade, while nothing special, could easily be Randle-El-esque #2 guy (600-800yds).
Gross, gross, and gross
Moss as a #1? He’s as tall as most of us. Bobby Wade as #2? Not even on fantasy teams. Thomas & Kelly free jobs? As attractive as free handouts.
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Jul 9, 2010 9:24 PM EDT up reply actions
hell yes #1 wr he would be on this team by far im talking by a long waysssssssssssss
by massbowhunter on Jul 9, 2010 11:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Okay
Okay, so, apparently a short receiver can’t be good (Wes Welker, DeSean Jackson, Steve Smith (CAR)) so there goes my argument for Moss. I guess if a #2 receiver isn’t good for fantasy football, he can’t be good for the team, though Wade’s best season is only 80yds less then Antwaan Randle El’s, who was a very serviceable #2 receiver. And surely it is IMPOSSIBLE for Thomas and Kelly to actually have a good season. It’s not like they are young, talented receivers who are getting a better line, system, quarterback, and overall surrounding cast.
If you aren’t catching onto the sarcasm there, I am basically saying your rebuttal is a joke.
Wow
Wes Welker: Never has been a #1, Randy Moss (a tall receiver) has taken pressure off him, where he’s been able to thrive as a small, speedy #2.
DeSean Jackson: If you think Santana Moss translates into the same weapon as DeSean Jackson, especially in terms of aggressiveness & success against taller cornerbacks, please explain.
Steve Smith: If you think Santana Moss is anything like Steve Smith (CAR) in terms of his talent or how aggressive he can challenge for possession of a thrown ball like Smith, explain. I’m literally bracing for laughter.
Randle El: Randle El was awful, nobody here thought he worked out. You are literally the first person I’ve heard dub him a relative success.
That pain you feel? Falling on your own sword, it was your own fault. Dude chill out, I wasn’t attacking you, until this small repartee, after which I won’t pay attention to you if you make comments that sound like tantrums. No need to trip, we all love the same team.
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Jul 10, 2010 12:22 AM EDT up reply actions
How in any way did you give an honest rebuttal there GTS
The only reason you gave for Moss not being a #1 was that he was short. So BigO pointed out there are successful short recievers. So of course you change the goal posts and create a lame Straw man argument where he said Moss is as good as D. Jackson and Smith. In reality he rebutted your point excellently and then you duck and hid behind a straw man. Pretty fucking lame.
by BayAreaBullet on Jul 10, 2010 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions
ha
i was going to respond in kind, but i’m not going to on the basis of: wow, insecure much? i could smack back but have a policy of not dealing with people that only speak like angry lil bitc*es. you present a decent conversation but ruin it with excess rage. go punch a pillow & cry away your anger son
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Jul 11, 2010 2:52 AM EDT up reply actions
I say welcome him in and give him a shot at wr
T.O. has been humbled in buff and he learned to keep his mouth shut for once so id make a contract with t.o. and say if he runs his mouth just even once he will be off the team that being said id say if we do sign him i do think we will finially be going to the playoffs for once in a long good while , i think we need another good reciever to complement santana moss the other 2 bozos arent doing a thing in washington kelly keeps getting hurt he is getting paid to set in the offense wasting space just like the other wide reciever we drafted , i mean we drafted 2 recievers and a tight end and only one has produced so far drop the bums and get some proven help in here or draft a good reciever , but anyway if we do get T.O. we will be in the playoffs and if we do not get him then we will be staying home again another year as usual.
Our fans are out of their minds
I’m utterly shocked that more people voted for bringing in TO than against. What am I missing? The guy brings to the table a cancerous attitude and terrible hands, that is about it. Do you all forget we live in DC where the media goes out of their way to start trouble with the local athletes? I’d put the over/under on the first TO blow up at about 10 games personally. He has a history of behaving for one year with new teams, but at this point in his career why would he care, he just needs one more pay day before retiring.
I’d rather lose every game than have TO on my team’s roster. At least that would get us a better draft pick, its not like this team has a shot at anything next year anyhow, why make a panic signing like TO?
That's the same as saying
Since we can’t win next season, why’d we bring in McNabb.
I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.
by maxwellsdemon on Jul 10, 2010 1:12 PM EDT up reply actions
Once again the Redskins fan base is swayed by Big Name Appeal
And then they act shocked when Snyder does the same thing. WHy do you think Snyder could get away with it for so long? Because the fan base will march off a cliff like lemmings if you throw a big name out there.
Big names
are big because they are (or were) very good players. Guys like me (and, I think, Snyder) see that a great player in a position we need might be available, so we ask, would he be right for us, help the team? If so – presumably after consulting with the coaches, who should want him as much as we do – we go after him. Occasionally in the past, Snyder or Cerrato or Joe Gibbs didn’t do their homework on the market well enough, didn’t “know the territory”, got too eager, and thus got screwed – and overpaid. Once they decided they wanted someone, they moved hard. Mistakes were made, but I llke the attitude. Being timid or cheap got us stuck with Jason Campbell for two years and cost us guys like Antonio Pierce and Ryan Clark. It’s not an exact science. Snyder hasn’t done as well as he would have liked, but it’s “not over”. “Maybe next year” (ha ha). On TO, the question is, will he help the team? But I sure hope they don’t pay him anything more than the veteran’s minimum. He’s gotta come crawling, for his own good. The only way it can work is if he comes to us.
FOX Sports: Vincent Jackson Is Practically A Redskin
If this article is true, this discussion about TO is mute.
Interesting...
though I’m not sure I agree that this means either DT or MK is forced out.
A 2nd is a high price to pay, can’t they just take Fat Al instead? He’ll love their 3-4.
by TerroristFistJab on Jul 10, 2010 10:59 PM EDT up reply actions
If we get Jackson
I could see Haynesworth getting traded. If they could get the trade talks up and competitive, they could pull a 2nd if they really found a team that needed him. I doubt he’d be apart of this trade, but he could leave in a resulting one.
Also, I doubt it would force DT out, but Vincent Jackson is kind of everything that you would want Malcolm Kelly to be. While that could be a reason to keep Kelly (having a successful receiver with a similar skill set to learn from), they also may want a more varied set of receivers.
by BigOLinemen on Jul 10, 2010 11:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Who would want Fat Albert now?
Unless we get a 6th or 7th rounder in return I don’t see us getting anything higher for Al. He’s damaged goods.
thanks for the link jefferson1935
i had not heard / read that at all. i hope it’s true & that this deal can be worked out
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Jul 11, 2010 2:54 AM EDT up reply actions
There is nothing in that interview that denotes he is practically a Redskin
Just some talking head saying the Skins are a good fit.
(I certainly won’t be surprised if it happens, but to say it’s practically done is way off base)
Hogs Haven. On Twitter. And Facebook.
by Kevin Ewoldt on Jul 11, 2010 10:30 AM EDT up reply actions
Nothing in it
Right, good analysis, it’s all speculation, apparently based on Adam Schein’s opinion, and we have no idea how good his source is. It could be Vinny Cerrato, or Miss Piggy. I hope the Skins get VJ, but I’m not holding my breath. VJ could be a reason why they’re not going after TO yet.
I have found anything that comes close to confirming
a Vincent Jackson trade in the making.
by Jefferson1935 on Jul 11, 2010 12:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Jackson
Wow, I hadn’t seen that. It’s been widely discussed on HH, and opinions are mixed. I confess, I don’t remember much about VJ, but from reading the guys on HH, he’s a top receiver, and I think we really need a good WR. WR is probably our weakest unit, with Moss the only proven, top grade one on board. The others all have huge question marks. If Santana got hurt, we might have to get James Thrash back – we’d really be hurting. Can we get VJ for a second round pick? Sounds like a bargain. On the other thread, I and others speculated about a three way trade with us getting VJ and losing AH. If we gave a second for VJ and got a second for AH (not enough, IMHO), that would be pretty much the same result. The cumulative wisdom and experience on HH has forced me (no first hand knowledge) to see the Skins roster in a more realistic light than previously. In a number of areas (WR, the D-line without AH, maybe RB), we simply need more talent.
I'd take him in a heartbeat
He led the league in TD’s the 3 seasons before he went to BUF and he still almost broke 1000 yds there with that mess.
He has NEVER been in trouble with the law. He’s got a big mouth in front of the media, but he’s a stand up guy.
He has never shown up to any camp out of shape.
He is an extremely high effort guy and will block down field 30 yards from the line of scrimmage.
He still has big play ability; yes he is a bit sporatic, but I’d rather have 2 or 3 drops vs someone not even getting the ball thrown to them because they aren’t open.
The speed/age thing is completely blown out of proportion. He’s got plenty of speed to get downfield; he still made some nice plays last year.
And lastly I really think that he knows that his mouth has screwed up his career and realizes the the media has hurt him more than it helped. He also knows that he’s at the end of his career and this is probably his last chance to get back in the league and finish his legacy for a HoF push. He also wants a ring.
I’d love to have a young group of WR’s see how a professional works in practice and in film study. Nothing against Moss, but he can’t even pull his damn shorts up properly in practice.
Take a look at all of the players in this league that get a big payday and just go through the motions and don’t care. TO can never be accused of not caring….as a matter of fact that is what gets him in trouble. He spouts off to the media, but i guarantee that every NFL locker room has at least 10-20 guys who feel the same way that he does when their team isn’t winning.
Calling him a cancer is stupid; if someone isn’t getting the job done than they need to be called out for it. It’s a tough sport yet we coddle these men like children and worry about their feelings getting hurt. If anyone thinks that having TO say some stuff to a camera is causing players to not play well they are delusional. Most of the time he vents after things are already gone south and then he just becomes a scapegoat.
And Shanahan can manage a guy like that without a problem. He dealt with Marshall pretty well and he’s a complete headcase as well as semi-dangerous to himself and others. TO loves his grandma.
by It's Always Sunny in DC on Jul 11, 2010 9:08 PM EDT reply actions
He's a cancer. Period.
He ruined the locker room of a team coming off a Super Bowl appearance.
He was (and perhaps still is) THE definition of a cancer.
"By far the worst performers on the team are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins
interesting theory you’ve stated there
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Jul 12, 2010 1:37 PM EDT up reply actions
again, cogent theory of argument you’ve put forth. blind statements that are maladaptive to ever-changing factual situations make me feel enlightened
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Jul 12, 2010 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Here’s my argument,
TO is a piece of shit teammate. He’s ruined his relationship with every team he has been on (even Buffalo). Why else is he still looking for a roster spot? No one denies his abilities as a receiver, it’s the extra shit he brings with him.
Now put another sentence together that makes you feel more “enlightened” than others and keep being blind to the fact that TO is a cancer.
He ruined the locker room of a super bowl team.
This qualifies someone as a cancer.
This is not a ‘theory’, nor is it a blind statement.
After years of watching him play, enjoying him ruin rival club houses and arguing about him, it is about as far from blind as one could be.
"By far the worst performers on the team are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins
look guys
Simply re-stating TO is a cancer, while leaving out the fact that he was in a superior position of bargaining power then, where he could essentially command the direction of the team, into chaos, and the present fact that he is in an inferior position of bargaining power, where whichever team ultimately signs him (a different question, since the question raised simply poses if we should invite him, which seems pretty benign in contrast to all of the hard-&-fast angry emotions flying around here) will have Owens under their thumb, is unpersuasive.
Tell me how exactly, in a new situation, completely different from the ones you cite in his past, how he could poison the team without being immediately kicked away by Shanahan like yesterday’s news, like he could in years past when he had superior bargaining power?
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Jul 12, 2010 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions
He didn't have power over the Eagles. They cut him when he went ape shit.
Didn’t stop the locker room drama though.
TO has less leverage than he had in years past. And in theory Shanahan could cut him at the first sign of trouble. But show knows if it plays out that way.
There’s a lot of trouble a guy can make before he gets cut, and that’s assuming Shanahan views him the way you do: ie the first sign of trouble he’s out the door.
He’s a risk, whether big (IMO) or small (you), I think that’s fairly inarguable. And I don’t see compelling reason to bring him in. I think his ability has declined dramatically and I’d simply rather get the same production from someone less volatile.
"By far the worst performers on the team are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins
^But who knows if it plays out that way.^
"By far the worst performers on the team are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins
lets say we bring him on and he does cause problems and then we cut him
now we gotta bring up a practice squad guy or someone who’s missed out on valuable experience to pick up the game in week X. Thats some bargaining leverage on his side, he does have leverage the leverage is that he knows/thinks he’s the best receiver on the team, and if he does help the team significantly then his bargaining power goes up and his ability to cause problems becomes an issue.
Thats how cancer works… starts small, grows unnoticed, then boom your in some serious trouble and you didn’t even see it comming.
But you have to look at what you mean in terms of 'power'
He had power over the Eagles precisely due to a combination of him being such a crucial part of their team, he was able to get half of the locker room on his side purely due to his star power. I think that pretty obviously set the stage for a civil war.
And also because aside from McNabb there was no overwhelming consensus of tenured veterans with big voices in the Eagles locker room that could tell him to stand down. For example, if he had been on the Ravens, & Ray Lewis & Co. wanted him to stand down, he would stand down. Perhaps not completely meekly but certainly not chaotically & destructively like on an Andy Reid-led team circa 2005.
Our team is loaded with those voices the Eagles lacked. Haynesworth is crying because he may or may not be the highlight defensive player with whatever new scheme we implement, but the team is stocked with elder statesmen who can still play and are key to the success of the team. We have Shanahan, obviously (again in my opinion) a more stout disciplinarian than Andy Reid. We have McNabb, whom both the team & city have embraced & would take his side if he & Shanahan were dissatisfied with Owens & cut him at any point. We also have London Fletcher, Philip Daniels, Andre Carter, and Chris Cooley.
In addition to all of that, he knows that he can’t F around because 1) He needs a job, 2) He needs a job to prolong his career to make a run at the HOF, 3) With Shanahan, McNabb, Fletcher, Daniels, Carter, Cooley et. al., this team, unlike an Andy Reid team, is cohesive, many have been together for a long time, & as demonstrated by the consensus of these veterans calling out a younger and more critically important player such as Haynesworth, Owens knows based on this recent event, that he can’t F around on this team.
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Jul 12, 2010 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions
and as for leverage concerning having to bring up a practice squad guy
I think if Thomas/Kelly have diligently physically prepared themselves during the offseason like they should have without having to require a head coach to police them during the offseason, presuming Owens receives an invitation & does come, makes the team, & he, Santana, and one of Thomas or Kelly occupies the third spot, then if the one which doesn’t win out in competition has prepared diligently like those who think the world of them based on what seems to be an offseason epiphany on their part that they need to live up to their draft status & contract and by preseason/season’s beginning be physically prepared, I wouldn’t be afraid if Owens showed some ‘tude, our consensus of tenured veterans didn’t give a dam* about him, Shanahan kicked him away like yesterday’s news, and the new guy stepped up to show us what he really can do after losing out in competition earlier.
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Jul 12, 2010 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions
What you're saying isn't illogical or impossible
I just think you’re assuming a lot about a situation that would involve a guy who’s skills are declining and has a history of wrecking locker rooms.
Would I feel comfortable bringing him in and hoping we have the checks in place to keep him in line?
No.
I don’t even want to bother finding out. He’s not worth trying it out.
"By far the worst performers on the team are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins
it's true, what i'm saying is speculative
but i think it has a better probability of turning out in any event (by that i mean Owens coming, winning a spot, & flourishing, as well as Owens coming, trying to stir up trouble, & being kicked to the curb like yesterday’s news by our uniquely tenured-veteran stocked team led by a much better disciplinarian than Andy Reid circa ‘05) than the likes of Roydell Williams, Anthony Armstrong presenting good-faith competition for starting WR positions re Kelly / Thomas, and a better probability of turning out in any event than the result of that, which i think is constructively handing out one or both starting WR spots after Santana for free to Kelly / Thomas and crossing our fingers that after two years of underperformance in the offseason & if the head coach can police their offseason/off-hour training activities more often (which i think is a joke, considering they’re drafted & paid like men & should be self-regulating NFL players by now) Kelly / Thomas will have an epiphany and make us competitive against the likes of DAL, NYG, PHI, as well as the rest of the NFL.
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Jul 12, 2010 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions
I mean, WRs are one of the places I have complete 100% faith in Shanahan
If MK & DT don’t deserve their spot (ie. aren’t good), Shanny will look elsewhere.
I don’t share nearly the concern that you do for MK/DT, and I’m the most pessimistic person on here.
"By far the worst performers on the team are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins
Heartbeat (It's always sunny in DC)
You said it well. I mostly agree. I don’t quite get this “cancer” stuff, but i’ve never really been on a professional team or locker room.
It’s Always Sunny in DC made alot of excellent points. Especially about never having shown up to camp out of shape. That I think says more than anything in contrast to the 2 ‘potential’ wideouts the 34% against inviting T.O. to camp to compete for a starting position.
How great would it be, if we could get VJ, TO pursuant to Donovan’s thumbs-up, and he of course came in great shape as usual & won a spot, and Moss lined up. Then we could dump whichever of the young WRs showed up again physically unprepared (and i guess then by default mentally unprepared), keep the other, and have him tutor under 1/all 3, and ultimately maximize whatever he could possibly in terms of his talent/abilities be when T.O.’s contract runs and his time comes
A lot of dreaming & if’s, but that would be the best of all worlds in my opinion, what do you think?
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Jul 12, 2010 2:27 AM EDT up reply actions
Yes
Let’s just dump all of the young receivers we would have (minus VJ). Let’s have a line-up of ALL 30 year old and up players!!! Have TO, Moss, Wade, Galloway, maybe even sign Torry Holt!!!! Yes!!!
Sorry for the sarcasm there, but I felt it necessary ( :P) Anyways, while it would be a strong receiver corps no doubt, I really think you have absolutely 0 confidence in these young guys. That’s gotta be the difference between me not liking TO and you liking him. I understand these guys have slacked up before, but that’s with a coach who let them get away with it. As their roles become larger and they enter a team and system that demands their preparation, I know Shanahan did not let them slip by lazily. If they both do show up out-of-shape, I think it would be best to get TO, but I really think they are gonna be ready this season.
We’ll see! Thanks for at least acknowledging the sarcasm, otherwise that much would be kind of insulting & inappropriate since we are both ultimately on the same team, just talking about a fun question & have differing opinions.
In a few words, no to your embellished mock-up of my dream-team. It doesn’t merit a lot of explanation, obviously there is a gulf of distance between wanting VJ & T.O. …
and purportedly wanting Wade – whom i’m on record as not wanting in favor of inviting T.O. because without a Favre Wade is depth material period, like Roydell Williams, Terrence Austin, Anthony Armstrong et al. – but in short nothing is better for players whom have of their own volition been lazy in year 1, lazy in year 2 due again to their own volition in tandem with Zorn’s poor policing of them, and now in year 3 i find a spontaneous exuberance of faith in their ‘finding it’ absent injecting some bona fide, good-faith competition from someone like Terrell Owens, a bit naive.
Also, since when is a player’s choice to take a lazy approach to the offseason substantially mitigated by a coach’s poor policing? These are NFL players drafted in the second round whom have been picked in part because we believe they should do what most early-round NFL draft picks should do nearly by nature: Take care of themselves, self-regulate in terms of basic off-season physical development and consistency. If “blame the coach” were truly a viable mitigator, I’m sure at some point football’s talking heads would have in part placed blame on JaMarcus Russell’s pre ‘perp lethargy on the Raiders’ merry-go-round of ineffectual coaches. But they didn’t, for a good reason. Early round picks are drafted as men not boys, and expected to physically self-regulate in terms of developing & keeping to an offseason/pre-season routine that is true to their contract with their respective team, put them in prepared shape, and put the team they’ve signed with in the position it should be in when Day One of training camp comes around. Physically prepared.
I just think it’s credulous to in year 3 exuberantly proclaim that they’re going to “get it this year” if only due to more effective policing by the head-coach, rather than due to what rightfully should be the driving impetus for an ostensibly non-diva NFL-player like our Kelly/Thomas to develop – his own choice to. If these two were worth believing in by this time, and had all of this imaginary character that’s purportedly so much better than a Terrell Owens whom never shows up out of shape & for the first time ever would be under the team’s thumb than the other way around due to his vastly inferior position of bargaining power, all of these ‘character’ and ‘youth good’ arguments in favor of them wouldn’t be essentially predicated on the implicit declaration that the only way these guys are going to ‘get it’ is with more effective policing by the head coach. Real player-development and players with character & work-ethic worth lauding don’t require Big Brother to ensure they’ll do what they need to do to develop for the team that’s paying them millions to become serviceable.
Putting partial accountability on the offseason physical development on the head coach i think ignores the fundamentally accountable parties, & those are the players. Coach Zorn was an ineffective policeman, but i think it’s this overstates the head coach’s responsibility for a player’s choice of what he does in the offseason. He did not need to tuck them in bed and check on them routinely to see if they were doing what they needed to do to become good, productive Redskins wide receivers one day.
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Jul 12, 2010 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions
I care more about WRs throwing their own QBs under the bus than I do about showing up in to camp
but maybe that’s just me.
"By far the worst performers on the team are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins
I hate this poll and everything it stands for.
Come on Skins fans, you guys are really dissapointing me.
wahhh
come on it’s an interesting question! And a healthy, full debate, so many comments & opinions. So what if you hate Owens so much you’re willing to (in my opinion) overlook key material facts that moot a Wiki-style rehash of his career when he had superior bargaining power whereas when/if we or whatever team gets him henceforth will have him under their thumb if he wants to prolong his career for a HOF-run (the latter observation’s attributable to someone who posted earlier, i don’t want to plagiarize). If you have a counter-vailing opinion that’s more developed than “I hate him, he’s a disease. Essentially unconditional starting spots for Thomas and/or Kelly” then debate it dude! Convince us. Obviously there’s a reason 66% of HH readers are voting yes for an invitation to Terrell Owens to contest our up to this point rather sloth young receivers, if you hate it badly enough, persuade/convince us with something more
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Jul 12, 2010 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Wah?
It’s a healthy full of debate question because of people like you that don’t care about team chemistry and character.
Let’s get this straight though, I don’t hate TO. I just don’t want him on our team.
There is a reason no one has picked him up yet even with all the bargaining power the teams would have on him. You know what the reason is right? Way too much risk involved with brining him in, especially when we already have a cancer distracting our players, bringing in TO would create a media shit show that would be the story line of this year. Not to mention the problems we would have if TO wasn’t getting the ball thrown his way enough.
Kelly and Thomas don’t have starting spots, where did you see that? I was under the impression that everyone had to earn their spots, no one is getting a freebie this year.
Wah relates only to hating the poll & everything it stands for
Not accusing you of hating Owens as a human being. I think the reason other teams have shied is because they don’t have the locker room capable of shutting up loud-mouths effectively with consensus by tenured veterans. Off the top of my head, only the Ravens with Ray Lewis & Co. and us with Shanahan, McNabb (who the team & city have both embraced & would side with in a heartbeat methinks), London Fletcher, Philip Daniels, Carter, & Cooley have the personnel to deal with the “worst case scenario” of Terrell Owens trying to play diva like when he could in a much more easily divided Andy Reid-led Eagles locker room circa-2005.
Esp in light of what our consensus of tenured veterans have said to Haynesworth in reaction to his oversized tantrum. I’ll just copy-paste what i said earlier if it clarifies any:
Owens had power over the Eagles precisely due to a combination of him being such a crucial part of their team, he was able to get half of the locker room on his side purely due to his star power. I think that pretty obviously set the stage for a civil war.
And also because aside from McNabb there was no overwhelming consensus of tenured veterans with big voices in the Eagles locker room that could tell him to stand down. For example, if he had been on the Ravens, & Ray Lewis & Co. wanted him to stand down, he would stand down. Perhaps not completely meekly but certainly not chaotically & destructively like on an Andy Reid-led team circa 2005.
Our team is loaded with those voices the Eagles lacked. Haynesworth is crying because he may or may not be the highlight defensive player with whatever new scheme we implement, but the team is stocked with elder statesmen who can still play and are key to the success of the team. We have Shanahan, obviously (again in my opinion) a more stout disciplinarian than Andy Reid. We have McNabb, whom both the team & city have embraced & would take his side if he & Shanahan were dissatisfied with Owens & cut him at any point. We also have London Fletcher, Philip Daniels, Andre Carter, and Chris Cooley.
In addition to all of that, he knows that he can’t F around because 1) He needs a job, 2) He needs a job to prolong his career to make a run at the HOF, 3) With Shanahan, McNabb, Fletcher, Daniels, Carter, Cooley et. al., this team, unlike an Andy Reid team, is cohesive, many have been together for a long time, & as demonstrated by the consensus of these veterans calling out a younger and more critically important player such as Haynesworth, Owens knows based on this recent event, that he can’t F around on this team.
by Grand Tanyon Sturtze on Jul 12, 2010 4:42 PM EDT reply actions
I am thinking the closest that A-hole gets to DC
is when A Boldin twists an ankle in Training Camp
Not saying he wouldn't be bad for us....
but has anyone watched his reality show? I think its actually pretty entertaining….
My doublestuffed oreos fell on the floor of my mom's basement. Save me swagman!
by SomebodyBuyAustinaSteak on Jul 13, 2010 4:59 PM EDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Hogs Haven
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
