Should T.O. be a first ballot Hall of Famer?

and how does one "carry" ones self like a hall of famer? like LT? this shouldnt matter at all. hell, a murderer is in the hall

Maybe I should restate that more simply; he never carried himself like a professional! One carries himself like a professional by doing their job, taking responsibility for their actions & considering the orgranization they work for & its goals.

Sure, there are plenty of guys that were likely less than stellar teammates that made the hall, but most of them kept their opinions & team biz out of the media.

Yes, the numbers don't lie.

We've had some questionable characters get into the HOF, so that's not the issue. On the field, he was a beast. Teams (including us) game-planned around him and the only man I ever saw stop him in his prime was Sean Taylor. Owens actually looked intimidated against him, cutting routes short, not stretching to make catches...for good reason.

Even at age 37, he's still a physical specimen and I think he'll be back sooner or later. He's not the player he once was, but he had matured and can still help a team. I actually would not mind seeing him here IF we needed a vet WR but we don't, our WR depth chart looks promising.

He always played for teams I hated and at times, I could not stand him as a person, but I have grown to respect him as time has gone on, as a player and in recent years as a person. He never got into real trouble (legally), he was just a nuisance and joker.

If Michael Irvin got in, Owens should.

and how does one "carry" ones self like a hall of famer? like LT? this shouldnt matter at all. hell, a murderer is in the hall

And
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQxTNbh7AVfDMBlBQP22AGdtZIH0JmB-mdxniXCSTmka5NujCfb&t=1

Yes, the numbers don't lie.

We've had some questionable characters get into the HOF, so that's not the issue. On the field, he was a beast. Teams (including us) game-planned around him and the only man I ever saw stop him in his prime was Sean Taylor. Owens actually looked intimidated against him, cutting routes short, not stretching to make catches...for good reason.

Even at age 37, he's still a physical specimen and I think he'll be back sooner or later. He's not the player he once was, but he had matured and can still help a team. I actually would not mind seeing him here IF we needed a vet WR but we don't, our WR depth chart looks promising.

He always played for teams I hated and at times, I could not stand him as a person, but I have grown to respect him as time has gone on, as a player and in recent years as a person. He never got into real trouble (legally), he was just a nuisance and joker.

If Michael Irvin got in, Owens should.

Again, I don't think the comparison is valid. Let's distinguish between off the field or what I would call personal issues, versus behavior that is related to job performance. I'm not even considering personal behavior in this debate, I think the hall has in recent past not considered that too much. Just in terms of performance related to your teams goals, Irvin was so much greater than TO.

Michael Irvin was a winner. Although he could be a pain for his qb & OC, it was never to the point that dallas wanted to get rid of him. In the end, teams couldn't count on TO. Skip Bayless called it best - TO = "TEam obliterator."

And
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQxTNbh7AVfDMBlBQP22AGdtZIH0JmB-mdxniXCSTmka5NujCfb&t=1

smilin in his mug shot, great media presence!

I think yours is debatable at best. Did TO help them get there - yes. But TO was hurt all through the playoffs & they won w/out him. So that has to be considered.

The 2nd point - "haven't been back since he left" actually reinforces my point. If TO could've kept his mouth shut & been a good teammate, that team might've been able to come back strong the next year. What happened after that was him tearing the team apart to the point that Philly got rid of him while he was still in his prime.

While TO is guilty of everything he has done, that doesn't cancel out his numbers and his work ethic. Listening to the Football Today podcast, they mentioned for example that TO never gave up on the field like Randy Moss did towards the end of his time in Minny and the whole time he was with the Raiders.

I still think that the Eagles in 2004 went too much out of their way (including McNabb) to say that they would be fine without TO when he got hurt. I think things would have been much different if TO had played throughout the playoffs. They were just dominant with TO in the lineup. Sure, TO shouldn't have reacted the way he did, but he made a huge impact on that team.

Again, I don't think the comparison is valid. Let's distinguish between off the field or what I would call personal issues, versus behavior that is related to job performance. I'm not even considering personal behavior in this debate, I think the hall has in recent past not considered that too much. Just in terms of performance related to your teams goals, Irvin was so much greater than TO.

Michael Irvin was a winner. Although he could be a pain for his qb & OC, it was never to the point that dallas wanted to get rid of him. In the end, teams couldn't count on TO. Skip Bayless called it best - TO = "TEam obliterator."

Winning games and Super Bowls cure everything. I'm sure if Irvin was on a losing team, we would have heard some issues. I see what you say about TO, but his performance on the field is HOF worthy. They don't let players into the HOF just because they were "nice guys".

The funny thing is that you have a guy like Art Monk, who had the numbers, but probably wasn't voted into the HOF because he didn't talk to the media.

While TO is guilty of everything he has done, that doesn't cancel out his numbers and his work ethic. Listening to the Football Today podcast, they mentioned for example that TO never gave up on the field like Randy Moss did towards the end of his time in Minny and the whole time he was with the Raiders.

I still think that the Eagles in 2004 went too much out of their way (including McNabb) to say that they would be fine without TO when he got hurt. I think things would have been much different if TO had played throughout the playoffs. They were just dominant with TO in the lineup. Sure, TO shouldn't have reacted the way he did, but he made a huge impact on that team.

Actually it did, 3 teams thought so! I won't even count Buffalo, as he was old when he left there. I'll give TO credit for what he's done & I think he should be considered for the hall, but when you analyze his career, he did as much damage to his teams as he did good. Isn't the point of the game to help the team win? By that standard, TO did negate his on-field performance because his employers decided that letting him go was 'addition by subtraction.'

If you want to say the hall is ONLY about career stats, then by that standard, yes, he's got the #s. I would hate it if the hall simply became only about that.

In the HoF? Because of his numbers, for sure.

First ballot? Because of his antics, which included ripping apart the 2005 Eagles, no.

Winning games and Super Bowls cure everything. I'm sure if Irvin was on a losing team, we would have heard some issues. I see what you say about TO, but his performance on the field is HOF worthy. They don't let players into the HOF just because they were "nice guys".

The funny thing is that you have a guy like Art Monk, who had the numbers, but probably wasn't voted into the HOF because he didn't talk to the media.

Who said anything about being a "nice guy" or model citizen? Not arguing that, in fact based on previous hall inductees there are guys in that may have been bad citizens, but in terms of the game they were winners.

My point is that his behavior was detrimental to his teams success. He created divisions that were irreparable.

While we're talking about his on-field performance, TO wasn't flawless either - in Dallas a couple years he compounded his big mouth by dropping a no. of easy passes.