AMC Posted November 14, 2005 Report Posted November 14, 2005 Thanks for putting thoughts in his head Petey!What a crock!http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writ...1114/index.html Quote
jjakq27 Posted November 14, 2005 Report Posted November 14, 2005 If something like that ever happened, this league would be a wreck. It wouldn't just be Chad and TO it would four or five guys per team per year.And if Chad ever bails (see Drew Rosenhaus), then I would say it was fun while it lasted, but don't let the door hit ya....... Quote
Stripes Posted November 14, 2005 Report Posted November 14, 2005 Reading that won't inspire Chad to follow in T.O.'s footsteps, so much as it would show him how retarded this entire situation is. Chad's a good man. Quote
AMC Posted November 14, 2005 Author Report Posted November 14, 2005 I do agree...I think TO put himself and Drew Rosenwhore on an island by themselves...Marvin will have Chad's ear, I do believe! As will Carson, TJ, Big Willie, you name it. Quote
NYBengalfan Posted November 14, 2005 Report Posted November 14, 2005 What an ass hole. I think that he wants that to happen. he is a son of a bitch! Quote
turningpoint Posted November 14, 2005 Report Posted November 14, 2005 I think he's doing this to prove a point, and make sure something like this can't and doesn't happen.Anyways if we make the playoffs, chad will be just more hungry next year to be with us to go win the superbowl. Quote
HoosierCat Posted November 14, 2005 Report Posted November 14, 2005 There's just one problem with King's scenario: according to profoootballtalk, it can't happen.It turns out that contrary to what King thinks (and contrary to what I believed), if T.O. forces his release (or Chad were released under King's scenario), they would go on waivers first. Yes, both are vested vets and usually that means that if you are cut you don't go on waivers, you become an UFA. But it turns out there's a tweak in the rules: vested vets only become UFAs if they are cut between Feb 1 and the trading deadline (which passed a couple weeks back).So if T.O. gets out of Philly he stands a good chance of getting claimed by...San Fran !PFT's piece...T.O. WOULD BE SUBJECT TO WAIVER SYSTEM There's a misconception out there regarding the status of Terrell Owens, if arbitrator Richard Bloch finds that the Eagles must give T.O. access to to the team while deactivated, and the Eagles then opt to release him instead. Some folks believe that, because T.O. is a vested veteran (i.e., he has at least four credited seasons), he will not be subject to the waiver system. This is true -- but only between February 1 and the trading deadline. Per Article XXII, Section 1(a) of the CBA, a vested veteran released after the trading deadline is subject to the waiver system. The most recent example of this phenomenon occurred in 2002, when the Redskins released the rights to Deion Sanders so that Sanders could sign with the Raiders. The problem, however, was that the Chargers claimed him on waivers. If the player is claimed, and if he has a "no-trade" clause in his contract, he can declare himself an unrestricted free agent after the season. If (as in T.O.'s case) there is no "no-trade" clause and the contract covers at least more than one additional season, the player may declare himself an unrestricted free agent after the next season. Owens' contract requires payment of $7.5 million in roster and option boni in March 2006. The fact that he can bail out after 2006 guarantees that whoever might claim him in 2005 would not exercise the option for 2006. Bottom line -- if Owens is released by the Eagles, he must clear waivers before he can pick and choose his next destination. And this means that a team who wants to block him from landing with a Super Bowl contender (or a team that merely wants to become one) could make a claim. Quote
derekshank Posted November 14, 2005 Report Posted November 14, 2005 There's just one problem with King's scenario: according to profoootballtalk, it can't happen.It turns out that contrary to what King thinks (and contrary to what I believed), if T.O. forces his release (or Chad were released under King's scenario), they would go on waivers first. Yes, both are vested vets and usually that means that if you are cut you don't go on waivers, you become an UFA. But it turns out there's a tweak in the rules: vested vets only become UFAs if they are cut between Feb 1 and the trading deadline (which passed a couple weeks back).So if T.O. gets out of Philly he stands a good chance of getting claimed by...San Fran !No Chance. SF would never take him back. While I see GB as too high class an organization to take this kind of risk... they might consider it, just to give Favre a chance to end the season well.The Texans, the Titans, the Jets, the Saints... anything is possible... but he definetly won't fall all the way to Denver or Atlanta... So I don't really see it impacting the Bengals this year at all, as far as the playoffs are concerned,Not to mention that Chad doesn't "want out" of Cincy, like T.O. wanted out of Philly, and Chad likes Marvin, and Carson. He doesn't approach the game the same way T.O. does. He's not selfish on the field... he just likes being famous. Quote
walzav29 Posted November 14, 2005 Report Posted November 14, 2005 I've talked about my hatred for this tart for a long time. Does anyone have any insight on why he is so anti-Bengal? Was his wife the chick that the 89 Bengals hooked up with in Seattle? Quote
buck3y3d Posted November 14, 2005 Report Posted November 14, 2005 I've talked about my hatred for this tart for a long time. Does anyone have any insight on why he is so anti-Bengal? Was his wife the chick that the 89 Bengals hooked up with in Seattle?He is anti-Bengal, which is wierd because he lived in Mt. Adams, but this article was not anti-Bengal. his power rankings are, but he does not want this scenario to play out. This was more of an activists article as he hopes the arbitrator will not rule in TOs favor. Quote
membengal Posted November 14, 2005 Report Posted November 14, 2005 Even for Peter King, this was over-the-top a**h***. Quote
rob_justdmb Posted November 14, 2005 Report Posted November 14, 2005 I've talked about my hatred for this tart for a long time. Does anyone have any insight on why he is so anti-Bengal? Was his wife the chick that the 89 Bengals hooked up with in Seattle?If I wrote a book of the top 10 things that sent the Bengals downhill, this would be #3. It was actually in 1990 when we played the Monday night game up there. I read a lot about this in a few "celebrity rape" textbooks. Basically all the Bengals and her were dumbasses. I work for Allen Heim's brother and he tells stories from back then about how he was the first one to get the phone call from "Victoria"'s lawyer.yeah ok, he's a douchebag. Even what he said in the power rankings, and his ranking prove this. I'm not saying that we should be #2 or anything, but we're better than Dallas and New England that's for F'n sure. Quote
USMC203 Posted November 14, 2005 Report Posted November 14, 2005 No way, CJ is to smart for that and he will not follow the same path as T.O. If he goes to the pro bowl this year and we all know he will, and we go to the playoffs, we know that also. He will get a new contract next year . Quote
AMC Posted November 14, 2005 Author Report Posted November 14, 2005 No way, CJ is to smart for that and he will not follow the same path as T.O. If he goes to the pro bowl this year and we all know he will, and we go to the playoffs, we know that also. He will get a new contract next year .I trust Katie Blackburn 100%. She has done a wonderful job with contracts... Quote
The Big Orange Posted November 14, 2005 Report Posted November 14, 2005 What an ass hole. I think that he wants that to happen. he is a son of a bitch!Billy, You're my best bud on this board, but I have to say, what you have written offends me. You've got to be more careful than that...you have no idea who may be reading this thread...I've met some very nice bitches in my day and to say that any of them could have begat Drew Rosenhaus is a slap in the face to all bitches...and heaven knows that many of them have been bitch-slapped enough.Throw Drew in the Clink with Sadam...they're both trying to ruin our country. Quote
HoosierCat Posted November 14, 2005 Report Posted November 14, 2005 anyhow...speaking of T.O....http://www.bangcartoon.com/childsplay.htmcoach! he's touching me! make him stop! Quote
HairOnFire Posted November 14, 2005 Report Posted November 14, 2005 You can always count on one thing in every Bang cartoon. Specifically, that I'll get so bored waiting for it to load that I'll bail before seeing it. Quote
Wraith Posted November 14, 2005 Report Posted November 14, 2005 Of Course he wants that to happen this TO thing has been a bonanza for all the talking heads. Quote
lando griffin Posted November 15, 2005 Report Posted November 15, 2005 The whole thing that threw me off and pissed me off was that Pittsburgh was the team that "signed" him and CJ was "happy" about it. Jesus Christ, Chad would not want to play with them at all....they never throw the ball. Also, he makes it look like Cincy is bad for not giving him the money, and that Pittsburgh would give him that huge deal. What a clown. Quote
Spain Posted November 15, 2005 Report Posted November 15, 2005 TO is considered the plauge by the leauge. Chad saw what happened to his uncle and he wont fall for that. If CJ wantws to go we trade him, hopefully to the worse team we can to get a bit of revenge. I dont even remeber his uncles first name now. Rosenhaus has gone way over board with TO and every one hates him. CJ is not that stupid or he would have done it this year! Quote
derekshank Posted November 15, 2005 Report Posted November 15, 2005 Chad saw what happened to his uncle and he wont fall for that.Uncle? I assume you are talking about Keyshawn, and he isn't THAT old. They are cousins... as well as Samari Rolle. Damn good genes. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.