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

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by freddyg12

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.

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

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.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

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.

And that's why people in the media shouldn't vote. The people voting should be made up of former players and coaches. If that was the case Monk would've got in asap. Sports writers (like Peter King) have no business voting on the HOF. I'll never forget Peter King saying Danny Weurfel would be the next Kurt Warner. What an idiot.

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by freddyg12

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."

so by your logic, if TO had won at least 1 super bowl all would be forgotten, and he gets in easily? and by you quoting that idiot Bayless, your losing any credibilty in this arguement. i cant stand Owens, but your damn right he is hall of fame worthy. contrary to you, it should be all about the stats

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by dmek25

so by your logic, if TO had won at least 1 super bowl all would be forgotten, and he gets in easily? and by you quoting that idiot Bayless, your losing any credibilty in this arguement. i cant stand Owens, but your damn right he is hall of fame worthy. contrary to you, it should be all about the stats

No, that's not my "logic" at all. I'm calling Irvin a winner by the way he played & his ability to share the spotlight w/other good players, which TO couldn't do. I'd say Irvin was a winner even if Dallas didn't win any super bowls w/him. I'd have the same opinion of TO if he'd won a SB. I'm saying TO was not necessarily a "loser" but he proved over & over that he was more about himself than the team, and his teams paid for it.

On the 2nd bolded point about stats; we just disagree over that, and I would bet there's quite a no. of hall voters, coaches & players that will disagree over it too.

But while we're on stats, here's the most important one to me: No. of times player was traded or released: 3.
The stat in itself isn't that bad, but knowing why says it all about TO.
btw, regardless of what you think of Bayless, quoting one phrase he coined does not mean I accept all his views & hardly see how I lose all credibility w/that.

[SmootSmack]

T.O. probably spoke the truth more often than not. Unfortunately, speaking the truth does not often make a good teammate

[hooskins]

first doesnt read well. he said almost. and if you are implying winning a superbowl is a criteria for the HOF, then they really made a big mistake enrolling marino.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by hooskins

first doesnt read well. he said almost. and if you are implying winning a superbowl is a criteria for the HOF, then they really made a big mistake enrolling marino.

No I read just fine. If you read this a knew TO never won a SB then you knew what he was saying if you did not know you could take that either way.

"few receivers I can think of that almost single handily (or as close to single handily one can be in football) won his team a Super Bowl"

[CultBrennan59]

No he shouldn't, Cris Carters IMO was better and less of a headcase as Owens (voters will take that into account when voting for him) and he still hasn't gotten in.

[Chico23231]

Can be easily argued TO is the 2nd greatest WR after Rice ever. Me, I prefer to give that title to Randy Moss, NO ONE was as dominating at WR in their prime IMO. Moss is the greatest deep ball reciever ever by an enormous margin.

Back to the question, TO is a first ballot HOF NO question. Go ahead and a give him biggest Douchebag title as well though.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Can be easily argued TO is the 2nd greatest WR after Rice ever. Me, I prefer to give that title to Randy Moss, NO ONE was as dominating at WR in their prime IMO. Moss is the greatest deep ball reciever ever by an enormous margin.

So you would say the NFL's 2nd greatest WR is a one trick pony that gave up on plays and had a horrible attitude.

Without a doubt, Moss could have been the NFL's best ever to play the WR position based on talent alone. The problem is, Moss has never (or ever will be) a complete WR. He was a one trick pony. If it wasn't the deep ball, then chances are Randy isn't trying to catch it. I've seen Jerry Rice take 5 yard slants to the house on numerous occasions. Catch balls over the middle, one handed catches on the sideline. There wasn't a route he couldn't run with perfection. I look for a WR to be complete in all aspects and Moss isn't even remotely in that category.

In fact, he's not even on Steve Largent's class in terms of what a WR should be. You shouldn't get into the Hall of Fame merely because you were more athletic and could jump over people to obtain a bunch of numbers. It should be based on how hard you worked and the effort you put for to get there and the dedication to your position you exhibited. Many guys in there didn't have 1/3 the athletic talent that Randy has and still got the job done through practice, hard work, and respect for the game. He has none of that. One thing you could never fault Owens for was his dedication to his craft. He worked hard, he ran his routes precisely, and he executed more times than not. It's just unfortunate that he chose to open his mouth one too many times.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

So you would say the NFL's 2nd greatest WR is a one trick pony that gave up on plays and had a horrible attitude.

Without a doubt, Moss could have been the NFL's best ever to play the WR position based on talent alone. The problem is, Moss has never (or ever will be) a complete WR. He was a one trick pony. If it wasn't the deep ball, then chances are Randy isn't trying to catch it. I've seen Jerry Rice take 5 yard slants to the house on numerous occasions. Catch balls over the middle, one handed catches on the sideline. There wasn't a route he couldn't run with perfection. I look for a WR to be complete in all aspects and Moss isn't even remotely in that category.

In fact, he's not even on Steve Largent's class in terms of what a WR should be. You shouldn't get into the Hall of Fame merely because you were more athletic and could jump over people to obtain a bunch of numbers. It should be based on how hard you worked and the effort you put for to get there and the dedication to your position you exhibited. Many guys in there didn't have 1/3 the athletic talent that Randy has and still got the job done through practice, hard work, and respect for the game. He has none of that. One thing you could never fault Owens for was his dedication to his craft. He worked hard, he ran his routes precisely, and he executed more times than not. It's just unfortunate that he chose to open his mouth one too many times.

To be fair to Moss, he didn't have a whole lot to prove re: the hall of fame after his seven years with the Vikings, when he was the most dominant receiver of the pre-shogun spread era.

Any questions on Moss as a hall of fame player after that point were answered when he was put in one of the great passing offenses of all time and was its centerpiece for three seasons.

Randy Moss has had a couple of really waste-of-a-year dreadful seasons (2006 and 2010), but this is a guy who is just a half year older than Plaxico Burress is, and I guess what I'm saying is that if there's anyone out there who would take Burress over Moss in free agency, let the record show that they're passing on a hall of famer for a guy who hasn't played football in two seasons.

The eyeball test says Moss is done as an elite receiver, but the guy is so undeniably talented that who knows. He could be the best free agent signing of the year. Or, I suppose, that he could really be done.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

So you would say the NFL's 2nd greatest WR is a one trick pony that gave up on plays and had a horrible attitude.

Without a doubt, Moss could have been the NFL's best ever to play the WR position based on talent alone. The problem is, Moss has never (or ever will be) a complete WR. He was a one trick pony. If it wasn't the deep ball, then chances are Randy isn't trying to catch it. I've seen Jerry Rice take 5 yard slants to the house on numerous occasions. Catch balls over the middle, one handed catches on the sideline. There wasn't a route he couldn't run with perfection. I look for a WR to be complete in all aspects and Moss isn't even remotely in that category.

In fact, he's not even on Steve Largent's class in terms of what a WR should be. You shouldn't get into the Hall of Fame merely because you were more athletic and could jump over people to obtain a bunch of numbers. It should be based on how hard you worked and the effort you put for to get there and the dedication to your position you exhibited. Many guys in there didn't have 1/3 the athletic talent that Randy has and still got the job done through practice, hard work, and respect for the game. He has none of that. One thing you could never fault Owens for was his dedication to his craft. He worked hard, he ran his routes precisely, and he executed more times than not. It's just unfortunate that he chose to open his mouth one too many times.

I think the year Moss set the record for 23 TD catches in a season, the same year TO lead the league in drops. Maybe im a year off. Dominance does not equal one trick pony. Moss is a huge prick, but imo TO was/is a locker room cancer which is way worse. Like I said, you can easily argue TO 2nd greatest all time, Id prefer Moss all day long. And yeah, Id probably take Moss over Steve Largent.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

I think the year Moss set the record for 23 TD catches in a season, the same year TO lead the league in drops. Maybe im a year off. Dominance does not equal one trick pony. Moss is a huge prick, but imo TO was/is a locker room cancer which is way worse. Like I said, you can easily argue TO 2nd greatest all time, Id prefer Moss all day long. And yeah, Id probably take Moss over Steve Largent.

You mean the same Moss that gave up on the Vikings (the infamous time he walked out of the field before the game was over during a Redskins/Vikes game) and didn't even try with the Raiders? I'm not going to deny Moss' abilities, but come on he was no saint. I think Moss got really lucky to land with a team like the Pats. But he was a bit of a one-trick pony, of course I would take that trick any time (you could just fling a bomb downfield to Moss and he would beat any receiver to catch it). But TO could do more, as it is seen by his YAC stats.

In the end, both TO and Moss are very good receivers. If you take out their attitudes...I would lean slightly towards TO. But, their numbers are pretty similar, and it seems silly to make one out much better than the other:


----Gm--|--Rec--|--Yds----|-Y/G-|-Avg--|-Lg-|-YAC-|-1Dw-|-TD
TO: 219-|-1078--|-15934---|-72.8-|-14.8-|-98-|-5.3-|-742-|-153
RM: 202-|-954---|-14858---|-73.6-|-15.6-|-82-|-3.9-|-682-|-153

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

You mean the same Moss that gave up on the Vikings (the infamous time he walked out of the field before the game was over during a Redskins/Vikes game) and didn't even try with the Raiders? I'm not going to deny Moss' abilities, but come on he was no saint. I think Moss got really lucky to land with a team like the Pats. But he was a bit of a one-trick pony, of course I would take that trick any time (you could just fling a bomb downfield to Moss and he would beat any receiver to catch it). But TO could do more, as it is seen by his YAC stats.

In the end, both TO and Moss are very good receivers. If you take out their attitudes...I would lean slightly towards TO. But, their numbers are pretty similar, and it seems silly to make one out much better than the other:


----Gm--|--Rec--|--Yds----|-Y/G-|-Avg--|-Lg-|-YAC-|-1Dw-|-TD
TO: 219-|-1078--|-15934---|-72.8-|-14.8-|-98-|-5.3-|-742-|-153
RM: 202-|-954---|-14858---|-73.6-|-15.6-|-82-|-3.9-|-682-|-153

No it must be done to satisfy the Football Gods