Well, if you haven't heard by now, the Bengals decided not to get their popcorn and sign Terrell Owens, instead the "Queen City's" team opted for Antonio Bryant. Now, one can point to the fact that Owens is 36 years old, while Bryant is only 29, but at the end of the day, the Bengals are playing for a Championship next season. By signing Owens, they would have placed themselves at the top of the AFC along with Indianapolis, New York and New England. Not in any way am I trying to knock Antonio Bryant, he's a good wideout, but when you have a chance to get a game changer, you have to go for it.Let's discuss, if you are a G.M. of a team that is coming of a playoff year and you're lacking a deep threat, who do you sign, Terrell Owens or Antonio Bryant?
T.O. is better and would have been cheaper. He's old, but Bryant isn't a spring chicken himself. Plus, name me one receiver in the NFL that has a better physique (no homo) and workout regimen than T.O. He's better off at 36 than most are at 26.
ReplyDeleteI think TO would end up doing more damage than he would make up for in production. The instant he stops getting balls thrown his way he will act out somehow. I don't think the Bengals locker room could deal with a major TO drama and stay competitive. Antonio Bryant had a fairly decent year this past year with the Bucs (given he had a rookie throwing to him in Josh Freeman) and had a monster year with a good QB in Jeff Garcia in 2008. I think the Bryant signing is a great one even though the price tag was a bit steep. He will make a better compliment to Ochocinco than Coles did.
ReplyDeleteTO has never been a problem during year 1 with any team he's played for though. He was absolutely LOVED in Philly and Dallas during the first year he played for those teams.
ReplyDeleteBengals should have signed him to a 1 year deal and drafted another receiver in the 2nd round like Brandon LaFell from LSU or Mardy Gilyard from UC to groom while 85 and 81 do their thing.