It's stuff like this that makes you really, really appreciate Michael Irvin.
I kinda like TO. (I think he's a nutcase, but a loveable nutcase.) Still and all, I think I would probably breathe a big sigh of weight-off-the-shoulders relief if he were gone. If I as a fan think that, I can appreciate how his teammates may think the same thing.
It's a funny thing about receivers. Some of them demand all the attention, but how big a factor are they really in the games, compared to what their replacements would provide? If a guy goes for 6 and 120 with a score as a receiver, he has had a huge day. What if his replacement gets 3 and 30, and the other receiver gets another 3 and 30 that he would have got, and the TE gets another touchdown? Did you really lose anything?
You only lose anything if you had a receiver that the other team had to seriously alter their game plan to account for him...AND you were able to take advantage of that. I'm starting to think that the easiest thing for a defense to do is to take a receiver out of the game if they want to.
I like TO, but let him go, roll with Williams and Crayton and Austin and Witten and a running game. It's no fun walking on eggshells. A player has to be really, REALLY good to make it worth your while to walk on eggshells around him. I don't think TO is that good.
|