clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

More hack-tacular press articles

New, comments

You guys know I love to read the hack-tacular stories written by the mainstream media about the Cowboys. The DFW S-T, save for Clarence Hill, have lost their minds from Terrell Owens overload. But lest you think it's just the local media that is capable of hacking up a fur ball of a story about the Cowboys, I give you MSNBC.

Let's start with this one by Bill Williamson, tasked with writing about five coaches to watch this year. Of course, the Tuna is included, and here's a clip of Williamson's lucid commentary.

This is going to be fun. Just buckle in, and enjoy the show.

In fact, it's already started. The entire Cowboys' season is going to be overshadowed and distracted by the presence of Terrell Owens. And it's going to drive Parcells crazy.


It's already started! Wait a minute, what's already started? Well, we don't really know because the author doesn't give us an example. Has it started because nitwits like this guy say it's started, does the fact that people have written that it has started, make it so? The only thing that has started is the press going crazy over Terrell, and missing the real story of camp, this team is good. I can guarantee you one thing, if the Cowboys are winning, nothing will overshadow that. So the premise must be that we won't win, and it will be because Terrell Owens has overshadowed the team and caused a distraction. Wait, there's more.
Parcells is perhaps the most volatile presence in all of sports. Add T.O. to the mix and it is going to be explosive. It's going to get ugly.

Really? Parcells is more volatile than his good friend Bobby Knight? Or Ron Artest? Or Rasheed Wallace? More volatile than Terrell Owens?
If Parcells has already had meltdowns because Owens is lollygagging in the preseason, what's the Tuna going to do when Owens screams at his quarterback or an assistant during the course of a game?

If Parcells has already had meltdowns... If? Come on man, either he has or hasn't. How wishy-washy of a sentence can you write? To my knowledge, and everybody else's knowledge, Parcells hasn't suffered a meltdown; even Parcells himself says Owens is not a problem. Not good enough for the press, they just write it anyway because they want it to be true.

Moving on, Ron Borges does a review of the Dallas Cowboys as a team, and does a very thorough job. He obviously did some research on his subject. But then he has to blow the whole thing by regurgitating tripe like this about Owens:

Instead he [Owens] seems to be trying to do what he did for them in his second season, which is cause more problems for his team than opposing teams.

It was his insecurities that laid them low last season, and this summer he's made a spectacle of himself, claiming for weeks he couldn't practice because of a hamstring problem. His failure to practice had Parcells irate and left quarterback Drew Bledsoe with few chances to get his timing down with what was supposed to be his most dangerous receiver.

Nice, subtle insinuations without having the guts to actually say it. Owens was claiming to have a hamstring injury. So what's the story Borges, do you have some inside information that casts doubt on the injury? If you do, tell us. If you don't, then have the guts to say that you're calling Terrell a liar. Since you did neither, you're just hacking up a fur ball.

Also, please clue the rest of us in on the moment when Parcells was irate over the Owens injury. What? You don't know that he was irate? You were just guessing, or perhaps relying on hearsay? Tsk, tsk, and we thought you were a journalist.

But Borges isn't all bad, his review rings true on a lot of points, and he did end up with the right prediction.

This is his fourth year in Dallas, and he looks to have a team that could go deep into the playoffs.

Prediction
First [in the NFC East].


Sad that he had to ruin a very nice article about the Cowboys by trying to throw in the sensationalistic Owens angle, with no facts or examples to back up his claims.

Finally, MSNBC has this tidbit on the QB's in the NFL.

The spotlight is always bright in Texas, but it could be blinding this season for Drew Bledsoe. The addition of Terrell Owens indicates the Cowboys are intent on returning to the Super Bowl for the first time since Dallas won Super Bowl XXX. But Bledsoe's lack of consistency irritates Bill Parcells and the volcanic coach could decide to go with Tony Romo if Bledsoe's play gets under his skin. Romo does not have a great track record, but he senses pressure and can buy time with his feet.

Here we go again. Bill Parcells is irritated by Bledose's play. Good thing he didn't go out of his way to bring Bledsoe back to him to close out their careers. Oh, wait a minute, he did. Has Parcells ever said that Bledsoe's play irritates him? At least anymore than any other player's play irritates him on occasion. That paragraph could've been just fine if he would've said: If Bledsoe play isn't up to par, and the Cowboys start losing, Parcells could turn to Tony Romo at quarterback. Because that's the only way Romo gets a shot, not because Bledsoe irritates Parcells.

Rant over.