Volourn

Yeah, he's a 'role-player' making 6.5 mil a year when he was making 9mil or so last year. So, yeah, he took a pay cut but he's not being paid to be a role-player. Bill;s are mostd efinitely expecting #1 or #2 WR type numbers. If he plays like a 'role-player', the signing would be a failure.

Answer to the question on whether or not TO is done: NO!

This week's epsiode was alright. Not special; but I actually enjoyed Echo's co thieves. I laughed when 'old stuff guy' ran out of the vault with the old stuff. L0L And, the two others' reactions to Echo's mindwipe was funny too.

And, also ancient news.

"Owens still has value as a starting WR for another season or two. But I'd take any of the 10 guys I listed above ahead of him for those years, as well as at least 5 other guys." K. Let's go by what you just wrote. You ahve 15ish WR rated higher than him. Fine. There are what? 32 teams in the NFL? Like I said, he's still a #1 WR. " if I'm staffing a team for the long haul, there are probably 50 WRs I'd take before a 35-year-old, me-first, camera-hound T.O." Even with your 50 WR, that still makes him, at worst, a #2 WR. And, oh, the Cowboys are better with him in the line up then out. And, the Giants proved lasts eason how important a #1 WR is when they bought the farm without Burress. "That's very admirable of you Volo, but it means that you would make a terrible NFL GM." Wrong. I'd make agreat GM. Great GMs hire the best players they can. This, of course, means some sacrifices have to be made due to salary. However, we both know, Owens being fired had nothing to do with his salary but this perception that he's a bad seed and he is being blamed for the Cowboys' downfall which is baloney. A good GM would make it work like the Patriots did with the Big Bad Evil Moss. You know.. the guy who was gonna destropy the Pats' chemistry. LMAO And, let's not forget that Big bad Evil Owens has a history of making the teams he's on better. Just check out the Eagles who villified him. They'd have won that SB if it wasn't for McNabb choking as Owens put his all and performed pretty well considering the injury he was fighting. Dallas was a joke prior to Owens. And, SF has been pretty bad since Owens left. Coincidences? I think not.

I'm from the school that if you do your job better than anyone else you should keep said job. Of course, this is barring extreme cases like those conficted of heinous crimes, for obvious reasons.

Nonsense. Absolute nonsense. His stats don't look horrible because he still had a great season despite having a washed up QB 'throwing' the ball. Dallas is NOT a better team without Owens. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. This move did NOT make Dallas a better team hence it is a horrible move. Period.

A team like the Giants are retaredd if they don't pick him out. They have no shut at championship without a true #1 eceiver. TO is still one of the best receivers in the game even if he is 35. There aren't 10 - let alone 32 - wide receivers better than him in the league. And, he's been a pretty solid citizen in Dallas. On top of this, Dallas was a better team with him then they were without him. He's just a scapegoat here.

That was dumb by Dallas. Wonder who will pick him up. One of the top 10 receivers in the NFl should NOT be unemployed.

He's a good player who played on a crappy team. He can't be any worse than our top centers. And, he's paid much less too.

Campbell's best work is on Hercules/Xena. Bubba Ho Tep was okay to good. Some parts were amazing. Bruce nailed his part for the most part.

Seasn Avery is a Ranger again. Asw ell he should be. Now, time to bring back JJ so we can actually score goals. And, oh, Tortorella is a hypocritical piece of crap. He was tlaking trash about Avery before, and now he's sucking weiner. Tortorella is a wussy coward who can stand for what he believes in. What a pathetic tool!

"Exactly. When I judge others at least I am not being hypocritical about it." Yes, you are. Because youa re claiming they are bad for judging others for doing thinsg they dissaprove of yet you ar ejduging them for doing things you disaprove of and you hate being judged yourself. And, yes, I'm judging you. All this judging others is a nasty never ending cycle.

Yeah. I agree. Someone somewhere has the perspective that Hitler was a saint. My bad. P.S. Yeah, I went there. Companies that go out of busioness because they cna't sell their products and services or PAY THEIR EMPLOYEES are failures. Otherwise... how would YOU determine a failed game company?

"Again, this is a glass half full/half empty argument. You can post until you are blue in the face about THE GLASS IS HALF EMPTY! But that doesn't make the glass half full people wrong. They are just different perspectives. It's just odd that you are so adamant about your perspective being right." The irony of you guys repeating myself is that's exactly what you are doing. Hypocrite much? And, it's not a matter of perspective. They're a failed company. That's why they no longer exist.

Like they went out of business because they failed to meet the demands of the market they were in? OMG! SUCCESS STORY!

That fits the Troika defenders to a tee. 'They're not a failure. Honest. even if they couldn't pay their employees anymore."

Huh? Who says this threa dis only about Troika's 'successes'? The topic nor the original post suggests that. Don't think trolling is because someone has an opinion YOU disagree with. btw, It's not only me who have pointed out that Troika failed. The trhead is about not forgeting Troika, and to me that includes their failure since 'those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it'. Are you here for any reason other than to flame me? I'm here to discuss, and remember Troika. Period.

"From a business standpoint, Troika managed to pay salaries and secure enough funding to last 7 years and release 3 full products. That is "some success" as you stated. Why are you so down on them?" This shoudl be obvious. Did Troika want to close like some companies who sold themselves for profit or were they forced to close because they couldn't make money? Great. Troika paid their employees for 7 years. They closed down because they couldn't pay those same employees because failing. Unlike, say, BIO's owners who sold their company because they had atcual people who felt BIO had actual value. Troika couldn't even convince one publisher - not a one - to pony up cash for a game despite Troika's owners history in the industry. Their games barely sold. They crashed, and burned. Sure, they lasted 7 years. Big deal. 7 years of failure in terms of profit, popularity, and actuallybeing successful. remember, I said they were somewhat successful because I personally liked their games; but again, my opinion is IRREVELANT. In the rgand scheme of things, Troika is a failed company.

But, their 3 games weren't successes. They were all heavily criticized, they didn't make much profit if any at all, and didn't have any positive long last lasting effect on the industry. What people don't get, just because they (we) personally liked Troika's games or even Troika themselves doesn't make them successes in any way. ie. Just because someone liked that small corner store, and went there all the time during the two years said store was open and they enjoyed the prices, the atmosphere, the service, the owners, etc. does NOT mean that store was a success. And, don't pretend to 'agree' with me when you actually don't as you continue to give 'they were failures but' excuses. It's not complex. Troika failed. They are a failed company. It's why they don't exist anymore. It's why NOBODY wanted to do business with them anymore, and they had to close up. And, nobody did because the games they did release basiclaly failed. If TOEE, ARC, and BL had succeeded; publishers would have had no problem giving Troika more work. Again, it doesn't matter if I personally enjoyed ARC, and BL. My opinion on their games is IRRELEVANT when it comes to Troika's success or failure. Then again, I'm so egotistical, and selfish and 'mememe' like most people who think everything revolves around them.

Nope. They failed. Seriously. How can this even be argued. It's like saying a convience store that was open for 2 year; but had to shut down due to a lack of customers and funding was a success simply because it lasted 2 years. LAME BTW, You cna still have some successes, and still be a failure.

Gridiron Gang - Typical football football a sit brings nothing to new to the sports movie genre; but alright. This is Rock's mvoie, and he nails the part big time as it was tailor amde for him. Scream series - BEST HORROR SERIES OF ALL TIME. 'Nough said.

"I wanna see Volly forming and running a company, and then see how fast that one becomes a failure." Whether a company of mine succeeds or not would not change the fcat that Troika failed. Sorry, but your smoke and mirror trick doesn't work in your lame attempt to prop Troika up by trying to state my fictional never gonna happen company would fail. "How long though does a game company have to last to be considered a success? How many games need to be released? I'm sure Troika wanted to stay in business longer and release more games; so does every company. I think to label companies that go under as failures is pretty hash and dismissive of all the effort that goes into running one's own business." How hard one works doesn't change the fact some companies succeed, and most fail. Business world including gaming is tough. Only the strong survive, and prosper. Troika fialed because they failed to deliver products enough people wanted to play, and keep them in business. They failed because depsite the fact Troika wnated to remain open they couldn't attract enough business to stay afloat. They shut down because they couldn't afford to stay in business. It doesn't matter if a handful of people (including myself) enjoyed their games. We are irrelevant. No matter how egtistical Troika fans are, and how much they think only their opinion matters on whether or not Troika failed or not; bottom line is Troika failed.

"Resting everywhere!" Same as BG your favorite game.

They're failures.