GunnerBill Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 Semantics to me at this point, there is no world where insinuating that Jeff Garcia is gay is more relevant than shooting a guy. You can't possibly ding a guy for being a bad teammate while overlooking another guy shooting someone. I will take it a step further. Sharper was on the ballot last year. He didn't make the final cut but say he was Ed Reed and not Darren Sharper. What criteria would the voter's use? Would he be penalized more or less for being a serial rapist than Owens, at times, being a bad teammate? If the answer is they would hold it against Sharper more because of the seriousness of his offenses where is the line? Shooting a guy is okay but being a serial rapist isn't? Ray Lewis' murder investigation probably isn't enough to hold him off of the 1st ballot. If the answer is "what Sharper did off the field isn't relevant" than the HOF should just shut their doors. You are either inducting players based on their player or their character. They can't selectively choose when one is important and the other isn't. They are not selectively choosing. They have a criteria. If it is relevant to football they can consider it, if it isn't they can't. You might not like the criteria... frankly I'd have character much higher on my list of considerations and allow the shootings and the rape convictions to count into my consideration.... but there is a criteria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 They are not selectively choosing. They have a criteria. If it is relevant to football they can consider it, if it isn't they can't. You might not like the criteria... frankly I'd have character much higher on my list of considerations and allow the shootings and the rape convictions to count into my consideration.... but there is a criteria. So to answer the question Darren Sharper being a serial rapist wouldn't hurt his chances but TO insinuating that Jeff Garcia is gay will hurt his? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 So to answer the question Darren Sharper being a serial rapist wouldn't hurt his chances but TO insinuating that Jeff Garcia is gay will hurt his? That is their current criteria, yes. If it happens outside of the football space it is irrelevant to consideration, if it relates to football it is relevant. I don't like it either but that as they are explaining it appears to be the criteria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 That is their current criteria, yes. If it happens outside of the football space it is irrelevant to consideration, if it relates to football it is relevant. I don't like it either but that as they are explaining it appears to be the criteria. Which is EXACTLY why the system is so flawed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 The fact that Owens put up those numbers playing with so many different QBs, not one of which is even remotely HoF material unlike Moss or Rice, makes his accomplishments even more impressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddoublee Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 (edited) i dont know gunnerbill. his last year in SF they had a losing record - but to ignore his previous 7 seasons with them where they had success seems short sided. he had 2 years in philly - his last year they had a losing record, and he only played half the season. so they kicked him to the curb for the last half, didnt seem to help much. in fact, they had a winning record until they told him to go away. dallas, they had a winning record in his last season there. if that is their rationale, then they are not evaluating the whole picture. they are being lazy journalists and using headlines to frame their narrative. Edited February 13, 2017 by oddoublee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 I think you are politicizing the Carucci vote when there is a simpler and less sinister explanation. After reading the link that was provided it became apparent that he used the side issues relating to conduct and internal team relations to overshadow most of what he did on the field. What makes his position even more untenable is that his personal views weren't not necessarily accurate. The response VC got from many people who played with him and were involved with painted a different picture or at least a more nuanced picture of who TO was as a player and teammate. My point being while VC over-weighed the subjective aspect of his vote his subjective view wasn't necessarily accurate. My criticism of Vic Carucci is that in a task that he should have given serious thought and put effort into reviewing he gave a lazy and sloppy effort. His vote was predicated on his own prejudices toward the man without putting in the effort to get a fuller picture. If people want to categorize TO as a rogue then so be it. But even rogues deserve fairness and due process. TO was blatantly cheated out of an outer that he easily deserved. That is wrong. With respect to the serious California dam situation the story is simple. If you don't invest in infrastructure and keep up with the upkeep the deterioration will happen and eventually a maintenance issue becomes a catrosphic issue. If you don't want to pay for upkeep you will end up paying more when the structure predictably collapses due to neglect. That's the real story. politicizing not so much. Explaining a bias to garner support yes. The rest I agree with but not the place to discuss it. It is what happens across the world. Jon jonnyson gets in and will be argued that he diluted the significance of Eric Ericeded because of the playing style. And therefore Eric is better and Jon is why we don't have a good hof Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted February 13, 2017 Author Share Posted February 13, 2017 (edited) Before TO joined the Bills, the teams he played for went 121-67 when he played. That works out to a a team going 10.3-5.7 per season on average over 13 seasons. Collectively, those teams had a losing record in the games he didn't play. He played in 12 postseason games, and prorated over 16 games his stats work out to 72 catches, 1,001 yards, 7 TDs, and 13.9 ypc. If he was such a terrible teammate, how does one explain this? Edited February 13, 2017 by dave mcbride Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 Before TO joined the Bills, the teams he played for went 121-67 when he played. That works out to a a team going 10.3-5.7 per season on average over 13 seasons. Collectively, those teams had a losing record in the games he didn't play. He played in 12 postseason games, and prorated over 16 games his stats work out to 72 catches, 1,001 yards, 7 TDs, and 13.9 ypc. If he was such a terrible teammate, how does one explain this? I told you - it's a variable label. At certain times in his career he completely destroyed weak locker rooms with his aberrant (at best) behavior (which struck me at the time as a clear display of mental illness). In more structured environments (and/or perhaps during more stable points in his life) he was fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hondo in seattle Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 I lived in San Francisco when TO was there. And TO quickly built a reputation as a me-first, disruptive kind of guy. He might have behaved well with the Bills but he did not earlier in his career. Part of the impact you have as a player is the impact you have on your teammates. Some players - like Jim Kelly - get 'bonus points, for their leadership. I can see why certain selectors would assess 'penalty points' to TO for his anti-leadership traits so to speak. I hope/think these selectors don't intend to keep TO out of the HOF forever. I'm guessing they're just denying him the honor of early entry. TO will eventually get in. Btw, I personally would have voted for TO in his first year of eligibility. There was just too much undeniable talent there, too much production. I get it's not fair to compare receivers of different eras, but I've got to point this out: TO has 3 times as many 1000 yard seasons as John Stallworth and Lynn Swann combined and they're both in the HOF. Nonetheless, I can't vilify those on the other side of the argument. Performance in the huddle, locker room, meeting rooms and on the practice field count. These also effect a team's chances of winning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted February 13, 2017 Author Share Posted February 13, 2017 I lived in San Francisco when TO was there. And TO quickly built a reputation as a me-first, disruptive kind of guy. He might have behaved well with the Bills but he did not earlier in his career. Part of the impact you have as a player is the impact you have on your teammates. Some players - like Jim Kelly - get 'bonus points, for their leadership. I can see why certain selectors would assess 'penalty points' to TO for his anti-leadership traits so to speak. I hope/think these selectors don't intend to keep TO out of the HOF forever. I'm guessing they're just denying him the honor of early entry. TO will eventually get in. Btw, I personally would have voted for TO in his first year of eligibility. There was just too much undeniable talent there, too much production. I get it's not fair to compare receivers of different eras, but I've got to point this out: TO has 3 times as many 1000 yard seasons as John Stallworth and Lynn Swann combined and they're both in the HOF. Nonetheless, I can't vilify those on the other side of the argument. Performance in the huddle, locker room, meeting rooms and on the practice field count. These also effect a team's chances of winning. But the teams he played won, and won consistently. He was a big part of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommonCents Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 (edited) How about him playing in that super bowl shortly after breaking his leg? TO said and did many stupid things to earn his reputation but he was ridiculously talented and wanted to win more than many of these modern day players. I wasn't a fan during his career because I don't like "look at me players" but he backed up his talk. This is now a black eye for the voters, and Vic is a fool for sticking his head out on this one. Edited February 13, 2017 by Commonsense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bills Fan in MD Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 I'm not sure what it is about voting for hall of fame candidates, but it seems to turn people into sanctimonious, insufferable jerks -- regardless of the sport. As annoying as Carucci's take is with regard to T.O., it's nothing compared to the twisted logic baseball writers use to vote against highly qualified players year in and year out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hondo in seattle Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 (edited) But the teams he played won, and won consistently. He was a big part of that. You're right. That's why I would have voted for him. But the argument you could make is that those teams would have won even more games if TO had been a better teammate. Would a strong, team-first coach like Vince Lombardi have wanted Jerry Rice on his team? Absolutely. Jerry was an amazing individual talent and a good teammate who inspired his fellow players to better themselves with his work ethic. Would Lombardi have wanted TO? I'm not so sure. Edited February 13, 2017 by hondo in seattle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stony Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 Every team has a designated vote from their local media. Vic is ours lol. It's unfortunate. Mark Gaughan was the BN previous representative. I remember reading on numerous occasions by Peter King and others that it was Gaughan's persuasion that finally got Andre in as the "log jam" at WR was becoming a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpberr Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 Owens should be in the Hall of Fame. They blew it. I watched the Eagles/Patriots Super Bowl from 2004. Owens, essentially playing on one leg, kept the Eagles in that entire game. I've never understood the Terrell Owens hate, especially from Bills fans. He played hard when he was here and treated the fans and area well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luxy312 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 Owens should be in the Hall of Fame. They blew it. I watched the Eagles/Patriots Super Bowl from 2004. Owens, essentially playing on one leg, kept the Eagles in that entire game. I've never understood the Terrell Owens hate, especially from Bills fans. He played hard when he was here and treated the fans and area well. Notwithstanding how good he was in that game, he was ridiculously productive over the course of his career. Only Jerry Rice had more YPG than Owens. Put him next to Tim Brown. 255 games, 58.6 YPG and 100 TD's for Brown, who's a hall of famer. Owens played in 219 games, had 72.8 YPG and 153 TD's. That's just ridiculous. He should be in the HOF and should have been first ballot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DriveFor1Outta5 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 I'm not sure what it is about voting for hall of fame candidates, but it seems to turn people into sanctimonious, insufferable jerks -- regardless of the sport. As annoying as Carucci's take is with regard to T.O., it's nothing compared to the twisted logic baseball writers use to vote against highly qualified players year in and year out. Good point and it's one that I was waiting for someone to mention. The Baseball HOF has been doing this for years. It actually has little to do with the type of teammate TO was, and they don't care about players off the field transgressions either. What the media cares about is how they feel the player treated them. There are members of the media who took a personal dislike to TO. They feel as if he didn't give them the respect they deserve. They are going to punish him by denying him the honor of being a first ballot hall of famer. Think about how the media portrays athletes. The so called "good guys" are always the ones who are polite and available to the media. This is how Derek Jeter's nice guy reputation gets elevated to sainthood by the media, and it's how Roethlisberger will be a first ballot hall of famer regardless of all the dirt that's out there on him. The media are people who hold grudges just like the average person on the street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meathead Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 i kinda feel bad for these news journalists, especially the ones from print media. they are under enormous pressure to generate clicks and consequently have no choice but to sacrifice some of their objectivity and integrity to make it happen. if they dont go full salacious they run the serious risk of getting fired or having their employer go to the big printing press in the sky. even from what are considered reputable sources i would guess at least half of what we read could be legitimately considered fake news bc the spin on it is so hard that it loses most of its claim to a factual basis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanForever19 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 Starting to wonder if he came back because the good people of Cleveland quietly ran him out of town. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts