Rss

THE T.O. CHRONICLES: THE DIVAS ALWAYS LOSE

NFL execs and coaches have seen too much T.O., not enough Terrell Owens.

We all know the signs of a formerly elite level player who, even though he may be past the “Get On My Back And I’ll Carry You To The Promised Land” years can still play at a high level and help a team win. His speed seems a little less unbelievable, his game a little less sharp, perhaps his mind a little less interested in a losing situation. Often, this guy finds new life and a strong finish in a more winning-friendly environment where he can be a solid piece of the puzzle rather than the franchise savior. Marcus Allen went to Kansas City and proved to Al Davis that he was still nails, a feat LaDanian Tomlinson will try (and fail) to repeat in New York in 2010.  Corey Dillon in New England is a good example Neil Smith in Denver. Kurt Warner did it three times and went to a couple of Super Bowls.  I’ve got a billion baseball examples, Paul Molitor sticking out like a sore thumb. His grand finale lasted a decade and got him to Cooperstown.

Aging but still undeniably productive, why then does Terrell Owens find himself an unmarketable free agent just weeks away from NFL training camp?  In a word: Diva. That is what every single evaluator (relevant or otherwise) of football talent sees when he looks at Owens.  After more than a decade of his thoroughly-publicized act, it has become impossible for NFL folks to see Terrell Owens, outstanding professional wide receiver, because his alter-ego, T.O., is always Vaudeville-ing around like a buffoon and getting in the way, diverting attention from all the rampant productivity.

I can only assume, therefore, that they believe as I do and as Mike Singletary so succinctly put it when calmly discussing an unfortunate Vernon Davis incident.  You just can’t win with guys who aren’t wholly committed to the team-first concept.  Sure, you can get to a title game and a Super Bowl.  But if your go-to guy is a disruption, you are in deep trouble when you get there, because most likely the team you play will have all oars on their spaceship paddling in unison.  Or something like that.

Look back at the last 30 years.  See any Super Bowl Champions whose alpha dog was a certifiable T.O.-style diva? I don’t. Remember, now, that having off the field issues is not the same thing.  Some would no doubt argue that The Playmaker qualifies. Michael Irvin was an occasional distraction, but you would never have caught him dead publicly criticizing his pro bowl quarterback or openly shouting down his coaching staff on the sideline or intentionally making a spectacle of himself by doing sit-ups amidst a media throng in the driveway of his home.  It’s the little things, you see. And it’s important to note that T.O. is squeaky-clean off the field, which only amplifies the point.  Productive.  No off-the-field trouble.  If you have those two traits but no contract, you’re either overvaluing yourself financially or…you are considered locker room cancer.

Probably both are present here, along with teams wanting to get a longer look at younger talent on hand before committing the 2010 season to everything that goes along with T.O.  But it’s not like we’re in March, here.  T.O.’s numbers from last year on a brutal Buffalo offense warrant some attention from teams needing quality receiving help, and there are a lot of those teams.  You mean to tell me the Chargers couldn’t use T.O. on the field with the Vincent Jackson issue looming, or that the Browns don’t need a reliable veteran to take the pressure off youngsters Mohammed Massaquoi and Brian Robiskie?  Or that the Patriots wouldn’t have signed him three different times in the last decade if he weren’t a problem child?

T.O. made his own bed, with a little help from a media monster he doesn’t understand half as well as he thinks he does and which offers him both edges of the sword at all times.  And he’s going to get his just desserts as a result, almost certainly retiring without a Super Bowl ring and a Hall of Fame bubble case who on the numbers

"THE (DIVAS) ALWAYS LOSE!!"

should be a first-ballot entry.  Pay attention, young bucks (I’m looking at you, CJ2K and DeSean).  To paraphrase the Big Lebowski: “The Divas Always LOSE!!!!”

Comments are closed.

Comments (4)

  1. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Sen Sogah . Sen Sogah said: RT @FtblSickness: NEW Burns Theory post at FootballSickness.com THE T.O. CHRONICLES: THE DIVAS ALWAYS LOSE http://ping.fm/ZUiVt […]

  2. Question: if Philly takes out New England in 2005, do you write this post? I’m of the opinion – and I think most would agree – that T.O. was not the problem on that team and was in fact the missing piece for most of the season. Of course, you can’t question his performance in the SB… and things didn’t fall apart until the year after.

    I’d also point out that his former teams didn’t have the most headstrong guys under center – particularly McNabb and Romo (and Garcia?) who both have a reputation for being flakey/soft.

    I think maybe the problem – and you alluded to it – is that Owens has indeed been the alpha dog wherever he’s been, at least since the early SF days. The bigger issue, then, may just deal with teams whose “leader” is a star receiver. You can talk about Irvin or Moss in NE or Keyshawn (found one! headcase AND winner), but none of those guys were THE guy. They were all surrounded by high-character, veteran SUPERstars.

    IMO, chemistry helps, but it’s severely overrated. Mr. Ron Artest agrees with me.

    And strong post.

    • It’s a fair point. The Philly Super Bowl season is easily the best argument contrary to my point, and I did wrestle with it. He was MVP-worthy that year…and had they won it, you’re right. I probably don’t write this. So maybe it’s unfair to a degree. Or maybe it’s exactly how the world works. I’m not sure, but I do think there’s something to the latter. Also, I considered Keyshawn and decided (in no small part based on Warren Sapp’s synopsis in the 2002 Bucs “America’s Game”) that he was not in the class of receiver I was talking about. Keyshawn in my opinion was just solid. Not great. He couldn’t carry T.O.’s jock game-wise, in my view. He got a ring by riding the coattails of a great defense, a killer backfield, and a great coach. He was about 5th dog on that team, which he just didn’t understand. It’s not the same thing.

      • You’re right about Keyshawn, and that he was nowhere near as talented as he thought he was only speaks to my point. Now, you could make the argument that he wasn’t on the TO Cancer Level… but he did enough to get himself kicked off the team. Again, I think the key is to make sure the divas are surrounded by the likes of Brooks and Barber and Emmitt and Aikman, etc. Then again, I was a big Keyshawn fan when he was in Dallas (always went over the middle) and Irvin was a troubled guy that succeeded on troubled teams (‘Canes/’Boys). So maybe those guys aren’t even proper TO comparisons.

        I’ll chime in again after Brady/Moss/Owens receive their SB rings. That’s right. I said it.