Split Decision on Terrell Owens

Considering his track record as "clubhouse cancer," the media reaction to the Dallas Cowboys' decision to cut Terrell Owens this week has been surprisingly mixed.

Initially, the Dallas media seemed to agree that cutting Owens was the best, if not the only, thing to do.

Writing in the Dallas Morning News, Jean-Jacques Taylor said releasing Owens "had to be done."

Jennifer Floyd Engel of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram said the Cowboys are "far less radioactive" without Owens. His departure, she said, "makes them a team. Period."

And Jim Reeves of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram agreed with his colleague.

"Owens sows controversy like a Kansas farmer sows wheat," Reeves wrote. "He has made three stops in the NFL ... and departed each one in a cloud of unhappiness and internal backbiting."

Even so, it wasn't long before speculation began on where Owens will wind up.

While Jason Cole wrote, for Yahoo! Sports, that the Cowboys' offense will be better without Owens, Kirk Bohls of the Austin American-Statesman wrote that releasing the "gifted if occasionally troubled wideout" won't cure what ails the Cowboys.

It was, Bohls wrote, a "colossally stupid move."

Steve Rosenbloom writes, for the Chicago Tribune, that the Bears should pursue Owens. Newsday's Bob Glauber suggests that the Giants should enter the bidding war. Others have suggested that the Vikings, Dolphins, Patriots, Chiefs, Raiders — even the Super Bowl champion Steelers — might enter the fray as well.

Owens' agent, Drew Rosenhaus, didn't indicate which team was the front-runner for Owens' services, but he said, in a text message today, that he expects to have a deal in place by late next week.

I have to wonder if Owens is all that valuable now. He is in his mid-30s, which is getting a little old for a wide receiver in the NFL.

But it seems that, as long as he wants to play, there will be someone who is willing to pay.

So I feel confident in saying this — we haven't heard the last from Terrell Owens.