Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

23 Nov 2005

Arbitrator DOES NOT Reduce T.O.'s Suspension

Hey, remember earlier today when this Extra Point said that T.O.'s suspension was going to be shortened according to a reporter from New York Newsday? Never mind. "Sources have told FOXSports.com that the Eagles have won on all counts of Terrell Owens' grievance hearing against the team. In a 38-page decision, arbitrator Richard Bloch upheld Owens' four-game suspension. In addition, Bloch also ruled that the Eagles do not have to play the All-Pro receiver after the suspension." (Updated: 1:45 pm)

Posted by: Aaron Schatz on 23 Nov 2005

70 comments, Last at 26 Nov 2005, 2:00pm by Starshatterer

Comments

1
by B (not verified) :: Wed, 11/23/2005 - 1:55pm

I think he's going to end up a Raven.

2
by Vash (not verified) :: Wed, 11/23/2005 - 2:00pm

God knows the Texans need a solid receiver. If they get a good wideout, maybe they'll actually figure out that they need to draft linemen.

3
by Drew (not verified) :: Wed, 11/23/2005 - 2:12pm

I'd expect several teams to claim him, even with the baggage. I'd laugh if the 49ers claim him out of spite, but they probably won't. One interesting possibility would be San Diego, but I don't know what their cap situation looks like.

4
by DMP (not verified) :: Wed, 11/23/2005 - 2:16pm

It would be sweet if the 49ers do it. TO's head might melt.

5
by stereochemistry (not verified) :: Wed, 11/23/2005 - 2:19pm

Plenty of teams would like to claim him, but does Owens have the gall to complain about which team's unproductive QB is suddenly throwing him the ball?

Will he just be "happy to be playing", or will he try and force his way out, like he did with the Ravens?

It'll be a fascinating thing to watch unfold, especially when the list of teams that don't claim him come out in the end, and whether that list is as long or as short as people hope or expect it to be.

6
by CoreyG (not verified) :: Wed, 11/23/2005 - 2:27pm

If you're a star player why would you want to play for a crapass team that claims you on waivers? Its a shame the NFL doesn't have some sort of relegation like the English Premier League. Not that it'd function in the same exact manner, but some punishment/disbanding of perennial suckholes like Detroit or Arizona or [Insert crappy team here], at least for a season or two.

7
by Ivarsson, Sweden (not verified) :: Wed, 11/23/2005 - 2:57pm

Re #6:

Heh, I think for a relegation system to work, you'd have to have a second (and maybe third/fourth) division to get replacements from, and where relegated teams could play ;)

Besides, with the current situation with rebuilding cycles due to salary cap management, I'm not sure that arrangement would work very good. Of course, it'd make the bottom teams very interested in winning even after thanksgiving, meaning less rookie QB's and such.

In the interest of seeing both sides of an argument, parts of the Swedish Elite League and people in the Swedish Ice Hockey Federation are currently lobbying for a closed league without relegations, for just that reason - talented rookies/young players could be given chances without teams gambling on the future of the club/franchise.

This might have been a way too serious reply. ;)

8
by MJK (not verified) :: Wed, 11/23/2005 - 2:57pm

If a team claims him off waivers, then they get him on the same contract, right? So if they're willing to shell out next year's bonus, he's locked up for 4 more years or so with that crappy team, right?

CoreyG,

Bad idea. The nature of the salary cap tends to mean teams tend to go in cycles of being good. How long do you make a team "suck" before you disband it? A year? Obviously not--or the Jets would be gone next year, due to bad years from injuries.

Two-three years? Nope. It takes at least that long to recover from poor cap management under a "boom or bust" strategy.

Five to ten years? Maybe, but very few teams are consistently bad for that long a time period. The only NFL team I can think of that would qualify is Arizona. And they ALMOST got it turned around last year (if they'd picked one QB and stuck with him, they could very well have made the playoffs).

Anyway, I kind of like the fact that TO has to go through waivers and has the chance of ending up on a bad team if he's released. It discourages players from doing exactly what TO did--behaving badly so that his team will get rid of him and rid him of an onerous contract.

9
by Eric (not verified) :: Wed, 11/23/2005 - 2:58pm

But no.6, where and who are those relegated teams going to play?

I guess it's possible that they play each other 15 or 17 times concurrent with the rest of the league, with the winner reentering the league while the loser tries again against another relegated team.

10
by Ivarsson, Sweden (not verified) :: Wed, 11/23/2005 - 2:58pm

And to add something on-topic: please, arbitrator, do not shorten the suspension and pretty please, Packers, do not claim TO if he's released!!!

11
by Andrew (not verified) :: Wed, 11/23/2005 - 3:02pm

TO to Cleveland.

12
by Art (not verified) :: Wed, 11/23/2005 - 3:08pm

Even if TO is claimed by a losing team with a subpar QB, he'll never be able to work a deal out with them and will eventually just go to a winning team.

13
by LTA (not verified) :: Wed, 11/23/2005 - 3:14pm

Hmm...I hadn't followed the whole TO saga as closely as most people, but this story doesn't make sense to me. Wasn't this hearing only to determine if they could suspend him without pay? In other words, I thought that it would take a second hearing to determine whether they could simply pay him to stay home? At least this is what I've seen reported everywhere. Also, what do the Eagles care if he becomes a distraction at the practice facility? There season is already down the tubes. If they really want to nail him, why not just let him show up and be rude?

14
by Eric (not verified) :: Wed, 11/23/2005 - 3:15pm

Those spiders in the ad on the right really freak me out.

I don't think it's inconceivable that the Patriots claim him. Before the TO/Eagles situation became such a mess, which I guess is key, Mike Vrabel said in a interview that he wouldn't mind having TO on the team because of how hard he plays on the field. And it's not like TO would be there after this season. There might not be enough cap room left but if possible, their middle of the road record could put them in a position to win a waiver claim if they so choose. A difference maker like Owens would somewhat offset all the significant losses they've suffered.

15
by Michael David Smith :: Wed, 11/23/2005 - 3:15pm

I feel confident in saying that if any question begins with, "does Owens have the gall," the answer is yes.

16
by Terry Bradway (not verified) :: Wed, 11/23/2005 - 3:17pm

Come on guys!
Who wouldn't love to see Brooks Bollinger trying to get the ball downfield to T.O.!

The Jets must be the worst team, with the worst corps of receivers in the league.

17
by LTA (not verified) :: Wed, 11/23/2005 - 3:27pm

Okay, so I re-read the article and I guess I understand what he is saying. The order of the paragraphs just makes it confusing, saying that the Eagles are prepared to release him before admitting that they will try to suspend him with pay.

18
by T. Diddy (not verified) :: Wed, 11/23/2005 - 3:31pm

ESPNews is saying that the arbitrator just ruled totally in favor of the Eagles. The suspension stands and the Eagles can keep him off the team for the rest of the year, if I hear correctly (and ESPN has it right).

19
by LTA (not verified) :: Wed, 11/23/2005 - 3:33pm

Okay, so now the AP version is claiming that Owens will be released by the Eagles. What the heck is going on here? What was this hearing about?

20
by Tally (not verified) :: Wed, 11/23/2005 - 3:33pm

Re #3:

I don't think SD would take a flyer on TO after the David Boston fiasco. Besides, the SD offense isn't really a problem.

This just in: heard on the radio the arbitrator ruled against TO on all counts of the grievance.

21
by Matthew Furtek (not verified) :: Wed, 11/23/2005 - 3:40pm

It would seem like the worst punishment for TO is to be deactivated the rest of the season.

I can't believe how many people want TO to play for their favorite team...

" will be able to keep him under control."

It's a pity for us we never got to see the TO-Billick-Boller triangle!

22
by LTA (not verified) :: Wed, 11/23/2005 - 3:45pm

Yep, ESPN says T.O. was shot down on all counts. He will lose all four game checks and be inactive the rest of the season. Bet the Newsday reporter feels like an idiot.

23
by Starshatterer (not verified) :: Wed, 11/23/2005 - 3:45pm

Regardless of the outcome, what is the mechanism by which one side or the other would appeal?

Update: ESPN reports the arbitrator has upheld the suspension (linked).

24
by Stevis (not verified) :: Wed, 11/23/2005 - 3:45pm

It seems to be a moot point now, but I'm sure Matt Millen would have put in a claim. After all, you can't invest too much in the WR position.

25
by Terry Bradway (not verified) :: Wed, 11/23/2005 - 3:47pm

Good one Stevis!!

26
by Richie (not verified) :: Wed, 11/23/2005 - 3:51pm

I'm a Dolphin fan, and have no interest in T.O.......
...
unless he can play QB.

27
by White Rose Duelist (not verified) :: Wed, 11/23/2005 - 3:58pm

#26

He'd only throw to himself anyway.

28
by Zac (not verified) :: Wed, 11/23/2005 - 4:10pm

I always thought the word was arbiter.

29
by Theo (not verified) :: Wed, 11/23/2005 - 4:10pm

TO to Toronto

30
by Ivarsson, Sweden (not verified) :: Wed, 11/23/2005 - 4:11pm

"Arbitrator Richard Bloch wrote in a 38-page decision"

38 pages?!? He needed 38 pages? Now I personally want this story to unfold into a TO vs Rosenhaus soap opera...

31
by ABW (not verified) :: Wed, 11/23/2005 - 4:19pm

Ouch. TO gets shot down.

Where is he going to end up next year? It seems like given that the arbitrator has given teams the power to shut him down if he gets out of line, then more teams might be willing to take a flyer on him.

32
by tom (not verified) :: Wed, 11/23/2005 - 4:35pm

woo hoo! amazing!
In your face, TO, this is fantastic! Until he signs with Dallas, that is...

33
by Michael David Smith :: Wed, 11/23/2005 - 4:53pm

That's a really good point, ABW. I'm sure a lot of teams will say to themselves, "Well, he already knows if we suspend him he's going to lose at arbitration, so he'll probably behave himself." Worth a try. I still think if I'm the GM of a marginal playoff team, I sign T.O. and hope he turns me into a Super Bowl contender.

MDS

34
by Michael David Smith :: Wed, 11/23/2005 - 5:06pm

The league's official statement is very interesting. It specifically mentions that Owens and his agent engaged in detrimental conduct. Since Rosenhaus really wasn't a party to this, it's almost like the NFL just wanted to take a little jab at him. I really think it's going to be hard for Rosenhaus to spin this thing in a way that looks good for him. Is there any doubt that T.O. will end up with less money than he would've gotten if he had just kept his old agent, kept his mouth shut, and played well?

35
by Bobby Mozitis (not verified) :: Wed, 11/23/2005 - 5:30pm

MDS....not only less money, but a lot less money. Almost 800 grand right off the bat for the suspension this year. Also, there is a decent chance the eagles would have kept him after this season if there had never been a holdout and he behaved all year, which would have triggered the 5 million dollar bonus this offseason. He probably won't get anything close to that in free agency. And lastly, the eagles may now go after the 1.8 million dollars worth of signing bonus they believe they have a right to because he didn't fullfill obligations to the team.

36
by JG (not verified) :: Wed, 11/23/2005 - 5:39pm

I am anti-TO and extremely anti-Rosenhaus an I think he should be suspended, cut, and possibly publicly flogged, but let the man keep his signing bonus. He did play for you in the Superbowl with a broken ankle after all.

37
by princeton73 (not verified) :: Wed, 11/23/2005 - 5:44pm

I think TO should go to Detroit and be reunited with Garcia

38
by ChrisS (not verified) :: Wed, 11/23/2005 - 5:45pm

Ooops, the arbitrator just ruled in Philly's favor and TO is out for the season.

39
by Podge (not verified) :: Wed, 11/23/2005 - 6:10pm

Wow. What a non-decision. Honestly to me it seemed there was no case for Owens.

So where's he goin then? I reckon Denver. They're about the only fit i can think of. Owens will never go to a team that isn't at least a playoff contender, which counts out half the league, and very few teams will actually take him (Dallas might :P). Shanahan and Denver showed that they reckon they can handle trouble makers by drafting Clarett (which went well). Plus they need a WR

40
by Andrew (not verified) :: Wed, 11/23/2005 - 6:19pm

"I still think if I’m the GM of a marginal playoff team, I sign T.O. and hope he turns me into a Super Bowl contender."

Wide Receivers are not difference makers offensively.

The key positions on the football team are the QB, O-Line and D-Line, middle Linebacker, and Cornerbacks. Most everything else is interchangeable.

Eagles Points For
2002 - 415
2003 - 374
2004 - 386

Points/Game
1st 10 w/ McNabb 2002 - 27.20
Last 6 w/o McNabb 2002 - 23.83
Last 14 w/ Pinkston/Thrash 2003 - 26.00
1st 14 w/ TO/McNabb 2004 - 26.35
Playoffs w/o TO 2004 - 27.00
1st 7 w/ McNabb injured/TO 2005 - 23.29

Its difficult to discern a difference in offensive outcome here for the Eagles given the rostering of a clearly superior wideout in TO in 2004. McNabb had been on fire ever since Week 8 of 2003, and the Eagles were the same powerhouse in the 2004 playoffs without TO that they had been in the season with him. There is a clear difference between games with a healthy McNabb and an injured McNabb or the back-up QB's, on the order of 3.5 points per game, or 56 per season. That is not so coincidentally close to McNabb's DPAR for 2002 and 2003 w/o TO.

TO isn't going to be helping anyone.

41
by SJM (not verified) :: Wed, 11/23/2005 - 6:51pm

I agree with the posters who think teams will delude themselves into thinking that they will be able to control TO.

I've heard pundits say that TO won't be offered any more multi-year contracts and he'll become a mercenary until he retires. I don't believe a word of it. Sure, his asking price has gone way down, but there are teams out there who will offer him multiple years, and he will probably take whatever deal has the most money.

And maybe you fans don't want him on your playoff-bound, successful teams, but those of us rooting for bad teams (in my case, the Skins) don't have the luxury of worrying about "chemistry" and "locker room cohesion" because we don't have those things now without TO. Note that the 49ers and the Eagles both had good playoff runs with TO, so it's not like he's a teamkiller like Jeff George or Rob Johnson.

42
by Drew (not verified) :: Wed, 11/23/2005 - 6:52pm

Now the NFLPA is saying they're going to dismiss Bloch. Seems like a futile, spiteful gesture. Way to lose with dignity, guys.

43
by Optical (not verified) :: Wed, 11/23/2005 - 6:54pm

#24 and #37

Beat me to the punch line.

44
by Ruben (not verified) :: Wed, 11/23/2005 - 7:21pm

Hi all,

No one seems to be willing to address the "meat" of this semi-legal issue. If you consider that the arbiter (click my name) is the appellate judge in this case, precedent is very important.

As I understand it, TO's case was this: He should be allowed to play for the team, as he was being denied the opportunity to make good on the incentives in his contract, by the Eagles limiting his playing time.

The NFLPA sided w/him, because it is their stated purpose to help the players realize the full potential of their contracts.

That said, Bloch's ruling made perfect sense for precendent: Taken literally, siding with Owens would mean that any player who felt he was not "getting the damn ball" enough to meet his incentive potential would file under similar circumstances, and be able to leave his contract at any time. He would then bank on being re-signed by a more desperate team, further down the waiver wire, who would make him the every-down-back, or go-to reciever.

The suspension aside, the Eagles' action is nothing more than benching him, or not including him on plays (similar to Stephen Davis in Washington) due to play design.

They're just including the caveat that he not show up to the facility; they have this right, as does any employer or place of business. Has anyone heard of "administrative leave with pay?"

That statement leaves on the table the altercation with Douglas; with the right lawyers, Philly could probably get a restraining order on Owens for the property...but it'd be in bad taste.

That's all I have; I just think people are viewing this too much through the lens of sport, rather than that of legality and business operations. If this were the goof-off at McDonald's, who mouthed off to management, started fights with the french-fry cook, and repeatedly extolled the virtues of Burger King, no one would think twice about this case.

Alas, nerds like me have to watch the popular jocks play by a different set of rules ad infinitum...

45
by Tarrant (not verified) :: Wed, 11/23/2005 - 8:03pm

Kind of amusing that the NFLPA is saying they will fire Bloch, given he's the guy that was about to rule in their favor in the original TO situation. I agree with the earlier post that it just makes them look petty and trite, given that he's been an arbitrator with the league for a while, and has generally been considered pretty good. Ruling against them in this case, which few legal experts figured they had any shot at anyway, is such a weird thing to consider the 'last straw'.

I'm not sure how they thought they would win this - I never really understood their position (particularly the one where they said the Keyshawn situation was completely difference since any team can choose to deactivate a player, but what the Eagles were doing to TO after the suspension wasn't deactivation. But what was the first thing the NFLPA asked for? To force the Eagles to re-activate him after the suspension).

T.

46
by jds (not verified) :: Wed, 11/23/2005 - 8:38pm

The arbitrator's opinion is up on the ESPN site in its entirety. It is a great read (although, pretty lengthy).

47
by Alan Milnes (not verified) :: Wed, 11/23/2005 - 8:41pm

Any one have a link to the full verdict?

48
by Jay B. (not verified) :: Wed, 11/23/2005 - 8:47pm

Click my name for the full text of the arbitrator's decision.

49
by Alan Milnes (not verified) :: Wed, 11/23/2005 - 9:11pm

Cheers

50
by Michael David Smith :: Wed, 11/23/2005 - 10:32pm

The full verdict is devastating to Rosenhaus. It becomes very clear that in the opinion of the impartial arbitrator, Rosenhaus made things worse for his client. You've got to wonder whether other players are going to look at how Rosenhaus handled this and think he might poison their relationships with their teams as well.

Also interesting is this statement from the letter the team sent Owens to inform him he was suspended:

"If you need to continue treatment or rehab please contact Rick Burkholder so we can set you up at an off-site facility."

There had been some talk, and it sounded persuasive to me, that the team couldn't keep Owens away because he was entitled to team trainers, doctors, etc. But if the team is willing to make those things available to him, that argument goes out the window.

51
by Richie (not verified) :: Wed, 11/23/2005 - 11:10pm

Coach Reid testifies, the Player declined to speak to him and Reid resorted to communicating with Owens through the Player's position coach. Owens also declined to talk to various Eagles personnel, including the Offensive Coordinator, Brad Childress. Childress testifies that, as contrasted with the first year of their relationship, Owens was incommunicative. From the first time they met in training camp that second year, he says, he was met "with nothing, no response, just kind of a straight-ahead stare." Childress continued to greet the Player for some seven or eight nights until Owens, at one point, said: "Why do you talk to me? I don't talk to you. You don't talk to me. There's no reason for you to talk to me."

52
by Scott de B. (not verified) :: Wed, 11/23/2005 - 11:39pm

If this were the goof-off at McDonald’s, who mouthed off to management, started fights with the french-fry cook, and repeatedly extolled the virtues of Burger King, no one would think twice about this case.

But man, can that guy make a mean batch of french fries....

53
by Ruben (not verified) :: Thu, 11/24/2005 - 12:32am

Addendum to my previous post: After reading the entire ruling, I see that the NFLPA and Owens' claims vary a bit from what I wrote (I was going off Sal Palintonio's commentary from yesterday; had not yet read the whole ruling). All the same, I feel this is the gem:

The Club's concern is focused, instead, on his articulated intent to engender disruption and dissent off the field. May a coach consider these factors in deciding how to form and field a team? The answer must be "yes".

Work, specifically work as a pro football player, is a privilege, not a right. No employer is obligated to harbor and tolerate your antics at the office. Payment, though, is another issue.

This whole debacle is Reason #437 as to why football players should be at-will employees. :-D

54
by Stevie (not verified) :: Thu, 11/24/2005 - 12:34am

After reading the full ruling I think Owens is even more of a dick then I did before. With the documented letters that were issued him by the team what chance did he think he had? Its fully documented insubordination which will get you fired from any job. And Upshaw and the union announcing they will fire Bloch is absurd. The Eagles case was airtight. Upshaw must be seeing with one eye here as the ruling was fair and well explained. He should have announced that the Union did there best for their member bbut the decision stands.

55
by TWD (not verified) :: Thu, 11/24/2005 - 1:40am

I'm reading the decision and having a dandy of a time. Bloch basically sums up the timeline, and it's priceless.

"On Aug. 5, you slept through a team meeting..."

Seriously, Andy Reid is a SAINT for having put up with TO's attitude for as long as he has. The man's quest this year was pretty much to try to annoy them to death.

56
by CoreyG (not verified) :: Thu, 11/24/2005 - 2:02am

Re #54:

TO wanted to get "fired" so he could play for another team. The Eagles are doing the equivalent of sticking him in the basement with Milton and his stapler. Why are the Eagles being so spiteful? They've given up on the season, as evidenced by McNabb's surgery and complete suspension of TO, so why not release him?
Just think of how big a stick this gives teams to deal with players. Oh so you're going to hold out on a contract? We'll just deactivate you for the entire season then. Good luck getting a new contract after not playing for a year.

57
by Israel (not verified) :: Thu, 11/24/2005 - 3:51am

#22 (LTA) Bet the Newsday reporter feels like an idiot.

What fantasy world are you living in? Reporters (like Senators) never feel like idiots.

58
by Larry (not verified) :: Thu, 11/24/2005 - 4:49am

I just finished reading the opinion, and it is absolutely devastating to Owens and Rosenhaus, both in its conclusions and in the facts laid out. That those facts are noted to be undisputed by Owens and the NFLPA is staggering. Of particular note was that it appeared Owens put forth no evidence of his 'secret waiver' nor did he deny threatening to Reid on the phone that he would disrupt the team. I mean, did they mount a defense at all? It seems like the defense was, "Yeah he did all that, but it wasn't that bad, and he didn't realize it would bother anyone." Wow. Just, wow.

The conclusion that the coach has the discretion to keep a player trying to create daily disruption away from practice is pretty unremarkable, and has pretty limited precedential power, I'd think. It's confined to a case where there is willful, documented, and threatened conduct to be disruptive and no effort to make reasonable positive use of the practice time (by not talking to the QB, HC or OC among other things). It doesn't imply an ability to do the same in a future case where the infractions are different, or no overt threat and campaign was undertaken.

Also, Bloch was not the arbitrator in the Owens free agency dispute. I'm pretty sure that was a UPenn professor, whose name I can't recall. Since Bloch is usually referred to as "Redskin season ticket holder," I'm thinking, not the same guy. The decision by the players union to fire him as an arbitrator immediately following his decision is an afront to the idea of arbitration, and I expect to see the league firing arbitrators who make decisions the other way (assuming the CBA gives them that right).

59
by NF (not verified) :: Thu, 11/24/2005 - 4:58am

The arbitrator ruling is simply unflinchingly devastating.

Why was Owens so self-absorbed and self-deceiving?

60
by Michael David Smith :: Thu, 11/24/2005 - 8:25am

Bloch didn't hear Owens' challenge of his trade to the Ravens, that was Stephen Burbank. Burbank was about to rule that Owens was an unrestricted free agent, but he never got to make his ruling because they reached a settlement where Owens could go to the Eagles, and that's where he wanted to go.

61
by ian (not verified) :: Thu, 11/24/2005 - 4:36pm

Will Drew Rosenhaus become the Scott Boras of the NFL - the guy who you _don't_ wan to be your agent if you want to get signed by certain teams?

62
by Dervin (not verified) :: Thu, 11/24/2005 - 8:58pm

CoreyGJust think of how big a stick this gives teams to deal with players. Oh so you’re going to hold out on a contract? We’ll just deactivate you for the entire season then. Good luck getting a new contract after not playing for a year. I don't think the ruling applies to a player holding out, but I think TO took everything to a new level of jerkassness that any player in a situation like this will say "I'm not as bad as TO."

63
by Duane (not verified) :: Thu, 11/24/2005 - 10:18pm

Gene Upshaw just doesn't seem to get it. After a ruling based on a very strong case by the Eagles, including clear precedent, he says, "His ruling ... ignores the obligation a club has to either provide employment to a player or allow him to play somewhere else. We are confident that we put in a winning case at the hearing last Friday, and we still believe Terrell Owens had a right to a legitimate reinstatement." First of all, the Eagles are not denying him employment, they are simply not allowing him to be involved with his employer. And as for threatening dismissal of the arbiter/arbitrator, that's just poor sportsmanship that I hope he reconsiders. I wonder if/how this attitude and posturing by the NFLPA will affect the CBA negotiations.

64
by Starshatterer (not verified) :: Thu, 11/24/2005 - 10:55pm

Duane (#63 )--
I wonder if/how this attitude and posturing by the NFLPA will affect the CBA negotiations.
Probably not at all. The owners are not nearly done huffing and posturing at each other, so the huffing and posturing between the owners and the union will have to come at some future date. By which time Owens will be playing for some other team, and most of the other parties involved should have calmed down.

65
by Moses (not verified) :: Fri, 11/25/2005 - 12:39am

Note to Eagles fans:

I told you so... :)

Note to anyone else that wants jerk boy:

Remember how he through Garcia & the 49ers under the bus? And you said it was because the 49ers sucked,blah, blah, blah...

And now he's thrown the McNabb and the Eagles under the bus? And some of you are still thinking "he could change..."

You're welcome to try... :) I'm always up for a good laugh at someone else's expense in these dark days of suckiness...

66
by Andrew (not verified) :: Fri, 11/25/2005 - 12:46pm

Moses #65:

Anyone desiring TO on their team should (re)read his book "Catch This" in light of recent events, and notice just how much they fit the pattern.

Also how he was happy with his Eagles contract then, and McNabb, but how he has done the same things to them that he did in 2002-3 in Frisco.

The one new twist in all of this is his turning on his supposed friend, agent David Joseph.

I'd be interested in a psycho-analysis of Owens.

67
by bobstar (not verified) :: Fri, 11/25/2005 - 7:25pm

Anyone remember how Owens tattled on the Ravens' GM Ozzie Newsome back when they held brief negotiations prior to signing with the Eagles, accusing Newsome of using the N-word in their discussions. I wonder in what context it's not acceptable for two black men to use this term when speaking among themselves?

To me, it's another indictment of just how much of an immature jackass Owens is. He'll throw anyone and everyone under any bus. How did he manage to attend college? Did he graduate? What courses did he take?

The Eagles did well to protect themselves from being burdened with undue salaries if/when Owens turned sour, but he still has severely disrupted their team this year. Which team would take him on under what circumstances? Can anyone provide any examples of a similarly immature and disruptive player succeeding anywhere?

68
by Michael David Smith :: Fri, 11/25/2005 - 8:22pm

"it’s another indictment of just how much of an immature jackass Owens is. He’ll throw anyone and everyone under any bus. How did he manage to attend college? Did he graduate?"

I agree with your assessment of Owens as an immature jackass, but I should add that I've met plenty of immature jackasses who are college graduates.

69
by Scott C (not verified) :: Sat, 11/26/2005 - 12:23pm

Does anyone know where you can download a copy of the report? Bob Ford of the Inquirer says it's quite an interesting read.

70
by Starshatterer (not verified) :: Sat, 11/26/2005 - 2:00pm

Scott C (#69 )--

Check the link in #48 above.