Should the Eagles take back T.O.? the paper asks columnists and scribes Nick Cafardo, Bob Ryan, Dan Shaughnessy, Jerome Solomon and Mike Reiss.
Cafardo: "I believe the Eagles will be told by an arbitrator they can't suspend him for four games and then deactivate him the rest of the season, given that the team crimes T.O. has committed are annoying, selfish, and disruptive -- but not horrible. They can cut him after the season, but for now I think the Eagles will have to take him back. They're the ones who made the bad choice. Now live with it."
Ryan: "I go with whoever it was that likened T.O. to a pet rattlesnake. Whatever stupid reason they brought one home in the first place, when the stupid thing does the only thing it knows how to do and bites you, that's a signal that perhaps it's time to think about replacing the rattler with a goldfish, or at least a chocolate Lab."
Shaughnessy: "T.O. hasn't committed any crimes and he has apologized, and we're all about forgiveness. Let's not forget that they can use his skills on the field."
Solomon: "The Eagles shouldn't take him back; they should give him his wish and unite him with Brett Favre in Green Bay. Then he'd find out what the cold shoulder really means."
Reiss: "In a physical, sometimes violent game, all 53 players need to be working off the same script. While T.O. is an exceptionally talented receiver, he ranks last in the good-teammate category."
In yet more space dedicated to Philadelphia's problems, Ron Borges does deep in a piece outlining the positions of the players union and the Eagles in a run-up to T.O.'s Nov. 18 grievance hearing. Taste: the union will argue the Eagles back-to-back suspensions constituted a "double jeopardy."