This just cracks me up

[DEAD!]

So is she . . .

so is she

[Brass]

The scary thing is, that in 10-15 years, all athletes are gonna be like this.

[brennus]

The Seahawks should sign him then they go on and win the Super Bowl and everyone around me would just stfu.

I agree.

[CaolinaJoe]

The Seahawks should sign him then they go on and win the Super Bowl and everyone around me would just stfu.

I agree.

Did you not realize you were quoting yorself?

[See Red]

Wouldn't it be GREAT if Owens decided to get himself traded to the Raiders?  Owens and Moss on one team!  THink about it!

No, wait.

We LIVE in the Bay Area.

Forget I said that.

If I were the Eagles, at this point, I'd consider trading Owens for Jerry Porter.

[paynomind]

Call me a moron if you will, (and I'm guessing you will) but I need to refute a couple points here -

First off, the 49ers are not 'better without him.' They are the worst team in all of the NFL with little to no hope of having a winning record in the next 5 years. Getting rid of arguably the best WR in the game, and indisputably the second leading TD receiver in the league last year doesn?t improve anybody.

TO has a point. If he caught 6 balls for 12 yards and no TDs for the next two years, the Eagles would cut him, and he'd get nothing. So why is it any different for him to demand the money he is worth? I think both things are deplorable, but one is considered ok, why isn?t the other? A contract should be a contract. Pay, and play. But you cant have it one way and not the other.

TO runs his mouth, but have you seen him arrested? Beating his wife? Raping his babysitter? Snorting coke? Testing positive for steroids? No. Do you see teammates supporting him? Yes. So, he is certainly not the cancer you make him out to be.

I'll take the incredible athlete with no off-the-field problems who dances some, talks to the media some. He will win me games. You will end up with a bunch of no-talent-ass-clowns.

To sum it all up, I don?t think he should hold out. I think he should play. Particularly between years one and two of a seven year deal. But I also think the "contract" structure of the NFL is flawed, and he is pointing out and exploiting that flaw.

I love watching TO play. I'm glad he plays for my second favorite team.

[yh]

Call me a moron if you will, (and I'm guessing you will) but I need to refute a couple points here -

First off, the 49ers are not 'better without him.' They are the worst team in all of the NFL with little to no hope of having a winning record in the next 5 years. Getting rid of arguably the best WR in the game, and indisputably the second leading TD receiver in the league last year doesn?t improve anybody.

TO has a point. If he caught 6 balls for 12 yards and no TDs for the next two years, the Eagles would cut him, and he'd get nothing. So why is it any different for him to demand the money he is worth? I think both things are deplorable, but one is considered ok, why isn?t the other? A contract should be a contract. Pay, and play. But you cant have it one way and not the other.

TO runs his mouth, but have you seen him arrested? Beating his wife? Raping his babysitter? Snorting coke? Testing positive for steroids? No. Do you see teammates supporting him? Yes. So, he is certainly not the cancer you make him out to be.

I'll take the incredible athlete with no off-the-field problems who dances some, talks to the media some. He will win me games. You will end up with a bunch of no-talent-ass-clowns.

To sum it all up, I don?t think he should hold out. I think he should play. Particularly between years one and two of a seven year deal. But I also think the "contract" structure of the NFL is flawed, and he is pointing out and exploiting that flaw.

I love watching TO play. I'm glad he plays for my second favorite team.

I agree.

[yh]

Call me a moron if you will, (and I'm guessing you will) but I need to refute a couple points here -

First off, the 49ers are not 'better without him.' They are the worst team in all of the NFL with little to no hope of having a winning record in the next 5 years. Getting rid of arguably the best WR in the game, and indisputably the second leading TD receiver in the league last year doesn?t improve anybody.

TO has a point. If he caught 6 balls for 12 yards and no TDs for the next two years, the Eagles would cut him, and he'd get nothing. So why is it any different for him to demand the money he is worth? I think both things are deplorable, but one is considered ok, why isn?t the other? A contract should be a contract. Pay, and play. But you cant have it one way and not the other.

TO runs his mouth, but have you seen him arrested? Beating his wife? Raping his babysitter? Snorting coke? Testing positive for steroids? No. Do you see teammates supporting him? Yes. So, he is certainly not the cancer you make him out to be.

I'll take the incredible athlete with no off-the-field problems who dances some, talks to the media some. He will win me games. You will end up with a bunch of no-talent-ass-clowns.

To sum it all up, I don?t think he should hold out. I think he should play. Particularly between years one and two of a seven year deal. But I also think the "contract" structure of the NFL is flawed, and he is pointing out and exploiting that flaw.

I love watching TO play. I'm glad he plays for my second favorite team.

I agree.

Yes, I agree as well.

[Plaid Paint]

Do you see teammates supporting him? Yes. So, he is certainly not the cancer you make him out to be.

Like who?

Donovan McNabb certainly isn't supporting him and I doubt he ever will in the future, as TO has once again poisoned the well with yet another quarterback.

I haven't heard a single teammate speak up on behalf of Owens, in fact the only person I've heard who seems to be even remotely on Ownes side is shocker, his new agent Drew Rosenhaus, who isn't exactly a favorite around the NFL either with players or owners.

Owens is scum, plain and simple, and Freddie Mitchell is just about on the same level.

[Brass]

Getting rid of arguably the best WR in the game, and indisputably the second leading TD receiver in the league last year doesn?t improve anybody.

Have him actually win a SB ring, then we'll talk about the best WR in the game.

[See Red]

TO has a point. If he caught 6 balls for 12 yards and no TDs for the next two years, the Eagles would cut him, and he'd get nothing. So why is it any different for him to demand the money he is worth? I think both things are deplorable, but one is considered ok, why isn?t the other? A contract should be a contract. Pay, and play. But you cant have it one way and not the other.

But that's if his production dropped dramatically. They wouldn't cut him if he continued to prove himself to be worth what they were paying him -- so should Terrell Owens be entitled to ask for more money when he never proved himself to be worth more now than he was the day he signed the contract. This wasn't his best year -- he's had 2 or 3 years that have been statistically better in the same amount of games. So why is he suddenly worth more now than he was when he signed the contract?

He wants to be paid what he's worth? He should've thought of that before he signed the contract to begin with because quite frankly, he hasn't shown himself to be worth any more than he was the day he signed his contract. Chalk that one up as his bad, to begin with.