Portis Endorses T.O. Coming To Washington, Would You?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by offiss

There is only one way for any team to deal with Owens and thats 1 year contracts, just give him a 1 year deal every year and you will eliminate a lot of the nonesense, no one will be over committed to the other, if things don't go well he's gone at the end of the year, no money issuies or long term contracts to deal with.

The problem is I don't believe Owens would want to play for a QB like Brunell, remember what he said about Garcia he wanted out because he said Garcia was incapable of getting him the ball deep, thats why he wanted a strong armed QB like McNabb, it is also the reason he turned down the Ravens, he felt Boller was a lowsey QB, turns out he was right about all of them, something tells me if we ever tried to sign him so long as brunell and his 30 yard arm is throwing the ball for us he would say thanks but no thanks.

Somehow it always comes back to Brunell.

Hilarious.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by irish

The bottom line in pro sports is winning, all this locker room happiness, and buddy buddy stuff is for high schools and colleges. When a team is winning everyone is happy and no spats come out of the locker room (Indy now).

You put the cart before the horse - team chemistry is a requisite for winning. Look at the Skins "super team" Snyder bought in 2000, and the first two Patriot Superbowl teams, which were largely role players. The Skins lost and the Patriots won. You simply CANNOT have team chemistry if there is dissension in the locker room.

You brought up Indy, which is a perfect example. That is a team of superstars, but no egos. You don't hear Marvin Harrison say "Give me the damn ball" because he hasn't broken 1000 yards through 12 games.

[irish]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

You put the cart before the horse - team chemistry is a requisite for winning. Look at the Skins "super team" Snyder bought in 2000, and the first two Patriot Superbowl teams, which were largely role players. The Skins lost and the Patriots won. You simply CANNOT have team chemistry if there is dissension in the locker room.


You brought up Indy, which is a perfect example. That is a team of superstars, but no egos. You don't hear Marvin Harrison say "Give me the damn ball" because he hasn't broken 1000 yards through 12 games.

The winning creates the happy and close knit locker room, not the other way around. Remenber what happened in the Nationals locker room this past season?

Thats because Indy is winning. If Indy started 8-0 and had lost their last 5 things would likely be different. Indy is full of big egos (all pro athletes have huge egos) but the players on Indy are better at putting their egos aside than most other teams.

[Master4Caster]

Donovan McNabb endorsed TO coming to the Eagles. That only worked one season. If the Skins were only one season away from the Super Bowl -- and they are not -- maybe you take the risk with a one year contract. I bet they can upgrade the receivers without the risk of dysfunction that Owens brings.

And think about this: say you sign Owens to a one year high incentive contract, about the second game that he's triple covered and the plays go to another receiver, are you ready for the reaction you will surely get? Be careful what you wish for.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by irish

The winning creates the happy and close knit locker room, not the other way around. Remenber what happened in the Nationals locker room this past season?

I'm not talking about "happy" - I said non-devisive (OK, I said "dissension", but same thing). There's a big difference. I don't argue that happiness comes from winning. I do think you are flat wrong if you are saying that a devisive locker room is conducive to winning.

Originally Posted by irish

Thats because Indy is winning. If Indy started 8-0 and had lost their last 5 things would likely be different. Indy is full of big egos (all pro athletes have huge egos) but the players on Indy are better at putting their egos aside than most other teams.

Sure they would be different, but I seriously doubt they would have TO-type issues.

[mheisig]

Originally Posted by irish

The winning creates the happy and close knit locker room, not the other way around. Remenber what happened in the Nationals locker room this past season?

Thats because Indy is winning. If Indy started 8-0 and had lost their last 5 things would likely be different. Indy is full of big egos (all pro athletes have huge egos) but the players on Indy are better at putting their egos aside than most other teams.

Sorry, but that's just a huge leap. Not every losing team in the league has the same problems that seem to follow Owens around, in fact virtually none of them do. His attitude has destroyed the Eagles team this year. Does losing games contribute? Sure. But saying that a losing team makes for locker room dissension is just asinine - plenty of teams have losing records each season and manage to maintain their professionalism and sense of team unity.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by irish

Please look at my entire paragraph, not just a sentence taken out of context and maybe you will understand the point I was trying to make.

The bottom line in pro sports is winning, all this locker room happiness, and buddy buddy stuff is for high schools and colleges. When a team is winning everyone is happy and no spats come out of the locker room (Indy now). When a team is losing everybody is unhappy and looking for stuff to snipe about (philly this year). When TO is on a winning team he is fine (philly last year, SF a few years ago) so if the skins brought him here and they won TO would be just fine. The thing is if TO did not think the skins were real contenders he would not come here to begin with (like he did with Balt last year) so like you all think, it may not happen but I think it will be because TO says no to the skins, not the other way around.

But the sniping with TO started in the offseason, just after the Eagles made the Super Bowl for the first time in 25 years, so the bottom line for TO doesn't necessarily seem to be winning. Going into the season, the Eagles were legitimate SB contenders again. Their downward spiral began when TO started complaining about getting paid more.

Not to drop names, but when I spoke to Tony McGee about this whole notion of winning at all costs he told me that's just not going to happen in a Gibbs locker room. He has no inside info on whether they would actually pursue TO but he doesn't believe it's going to happen. Simply because what Gibbs, and I'm sure many if not all other coaches, preaches is knowing that when you sit in the locker room the person to each side of you is going to have your back win or lose. That you don't sell out your teammates, that you are there to pick them up when they're down and they're to cheer with them when they do well. Players don't win, teams win.

[irish]

Originally Posted by mheisig

Sorry, but that's just a huge leap. Not every losing team in the league has the same problems that seem to follow Owens around, in fact virtually none of them do. His attitude has destroyed the Eagles team this year. Does losing games contribute? Sure. But saying that a losing team makes for locker room dissension is just asinine - plenty of teams have losing records each season and manage to maintain their professionalism and sense of team unity.

Al I can say is that I 100% believe that had Philly been winning early this season like they were last season the TO thing would not have happened.

[Bozzy]

I know TO is a basket case, but with Santana Moss and Terrell Owens on the same team? Who do you double team?

[irish]

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

But the sniping with TO started in the offseason, just after the Eagles made the Super Bowl for the first time in 25 years, so the bottom line for TO doesn't necessarily seem to be winning. Going into the season, the Eagles were legitimate SB contenders again. Their downward spiral began when TO started complaining about getting paid more.

Not to drop names, but when I spoke to Tony McGee about this whole notion of winning at all costs he told me that's just not going to happen in a Gibbs locker room. He has no inside info on whether they would actually pursue TO but he doesn't believe it's going to happen. Simply because what Gibbs, and I'm sure many if not all other coaches, preaches is knowing that when you sit in the locker room the person to each side of you is going to have your back win or lose. That you don't sell out your teammates, that you are there to pick them up when they're down and they're to cheer with them when they do well. Players don't win, teams win.

The way I saw it, TO complained, the team suffered some key injuries that caused them to start losing, and the downward spiral started and TOs complaints went way up. So to me the downward spiral started when the injuries mounted causing the team to start losing.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by Bozzy

I know TO is a basket case, but with Santana Moss and Terrell Owens on the same team? Who do you double team?

Moss, because TO has been suspended for conduct detrimental to the team.

[Bozzy]

LOL Yeah... putting aside TO, we still need another WR that is of equal or greater value than Santana.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by irish

The way I saw it, TO complained, the team suffered some key injuries that caused them to start losing, and the downward spiral started and TOs complaints went way up. So to me the downward spiral started when the injuries mounted causing the team to start losing.

Fair enough. Let me ask you this then, when our backs were to the wall after having lost 3 in a row and we were about to face the Rams how do you think TO would have acted if he were a Redskin? Do you think he would have been a positive for this team? Or let's say it was TO, not Moss, that was with us this year. And his numbers were great to begin with but had recently been going down, do you think he would handle it the same way Moss has?

[mheisig]

Originally Posted by irish

Al I can say is that I 100% believe that had Philly been winning early this season like they were last season the TO thing would not have happened.

They were 4-2 before they totally fell apart. That's not stellar, no, but losing 2 out of 6 games is hardly something to whine about.

Still, for the sake of argument I'll grant that their start was not up to expectations - so now it's ok for Owens to act like a child? Who wants players who are only useful when things are on the up? Just like the old saying "A fairweather fan ain't a fan," I maintain a fairweather teammate isn't a teammate.

[irish]

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

Fair enough. Let me ask you this then, when our backs were to the wall after having lost 3 in a row and we were about to face the Rams how do you think TO would have acted if he were a Redskin? Do you think he would have been a positive for this team? Or let's say it was TO, not Moss, that was with us this year. And his numbers were great to begin with but had recently been going down, do you think he would handle it the same way Moss has?

No not the same as Moss. But there is no way TO would have come here because the redskins are not a championship contender and he would only go to a championship contender (thats why he went to philly instead of balt). Like I said above, I think TO would reject any offer the skins make because even next year they are not contenders for the championship. But lets say TO was here and if this team had TO I dont think they would have lost those 3 in a row and would I think only have 1 or 2 losses now and be cruising to the playoffs instead of hanging on by a thread.