Wayne Arnold Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 Why the hell does a bitter, sourceless hack like Vic Carucci have a Hall of Fame vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zulu Cthulhu Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 Why the hell does a bitter, sourceless hack like Vic Carucci have a Hall of Fame vote? Every team has a designated vote from their local media. Vic is ours lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 I'm glad to see those of you late to the party now realize what many of us have been saying about Vic since he returned to Buffalo. The guy has lost it. What an embarrassment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zulu Cthulhu Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 I'm glad to see those of you late to the party now realize what many of us have been saying about Vic since he returned to Buffalo. The guy has lost it. What an embarrassment. Again, Amen. I'm embarrassed myself for not realizing it earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 One thing that is worth saying.... fair play to Vic for coming out and admitting he was one of those against and setting out his reasons - as much as I disagree with him. Easy to hide behind collective decision making. I have a bigger problem with Moss than TO. I thought Moss quit on the Raiders, thats worse than anything I can remember TO doing. I wasn't a fan of either player but they both belong. Fair. Maybe TO goes in next year then and they make Moss wait a year as well. I just know that TO's childish rant will not have helped his case. Imperfect humans judging imperfect humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zulu Cthulhu Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 One thing that is worth saying.... fair play to Vic for coming out and admitting he was one of those against and setting out his reasons - as much as I disagree with him. Easy to hide behind collective decision making. Fair. Maybe TO goes in next year then and they make Moss wait a year as well. I just know that TO's childish rant will not have helped his case. Imperfect humans judging imperfect humans. I said something similar before but yes - as abhorrent as Vic's article is at least he came out with his stance publicly. I think most of this nonsense starts and stops with this anonymity these guys enjoy, as if they sre voting for the next pope or something. As far as Moss goes, he, in public, explicity, told the media that he tries when he wants to. Cant find TO ever saying something similar, and I've looked because this has infuriated me over the past week. But Moss has pressed the right flesh since retirement and it wouldnt surprise me if he got in since he's got a job in the media so he's in the club now. Love to know Vic's opinion on Moss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 I'm glad to see those of you late to the party now realize what many of us have been saying about Vic since he returned to Buffalo. The guy has lost it. What an embarrassment. its what always becomes of a national writer. The indoctrination of the media pressure, so called elites. They believe their holier than thou abilities transcend rational to simply report the news and return home to impress upon us an agenda of self righteous heir. Its a shame but happens every time one comes home to roost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 2nd best wideout of all time. Randy Moss says hi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zulu Cthulhu Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 Randy Moss says hi. We'll say 2nd or 3rd (post Rice era). Reasonable minds can disagree. But that's us, and we don't get a HOF vote. Vic does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobobonators Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 We'll say 2nd or 3rd (post Rice era). Reasonable minds can disagree. But that's us, and we don't get a HOF vote. Vic does. Agreed. Looking at the numbers theres a clear line of demarcation between Rice, Moss, Owens and everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddoublee Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 You know; for all the talk about him being a bad teammate and having a negative influence on his teams....his teams sure did have some nice W-L records while he played for them...and that super bowl performance while injured was a thing of beauty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 You know; for all the talk about him being a bad teammate and having a negative influence on his teams....his teams sure did have some nice W-L records while he played for them...and that super bowl performance while injured was a thing of beauty. It always started well and went bad at the end.... at San Fran, Philly and Dallas. There was a pattern with the guy and I think that is what Vic is trying to say with his "teams never wanted to keep him." I just don't think the antics, the stupid press opportunities on his front lawn, the throwing Quarterbacks under the bus, the bitter endings is enough to override the talent and the production. I can see why it might preclude him from the honour of first ballot status.... but that should have been the end of his punishment. He should be in the club now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 I am mostly bothered by the hypocrisy of it (like with all hall of fames). You can't pick and choose when to be the moral police. Marvin Harrison shot a guy and TO did sit-ups in his front yard. Which is worse? Ray Lewis MAY have killed a guy and was charged with obstruction of justice; he walks in 1st ballot next year. What criteria are they using when it comes to character? It feels like the voter's perception of a particular player is heavily influencing their vote. They are ignoring things like "while he did shoot a guy" while factoring in "he was a bad teammate (who also happened to dominate a Super Bowl with a broken leg)." You can't just randomly inject your personal feelings in while ignoring things like Harrison shooting the guy. Take the resume of the player and say "was he a HOF player?" If the answer is unequivocally yes, as it is with Owens, he goes in immediately. If it is up for debate, he goes in when there is a spot available. If you want to factor in character concerns then there needs to be a clearly defined morality clause and it has to be applied EVENLY throughout. As an example, Darren Sharper SHOULDN'T have been on the ballot last year. There is a bright light shining on the absurdity of the process at the moment and it needs to be fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 I am mostly bothered by the hypocrisy of it (like with all hall of fames). You can't pick and choose when to be the moral police. Marvin Harrison shot a guy and TO did sit-ups in his front yard. Which is worse? Ray Lewis MAY have killed a guy and was charged with obstruction of justice; he walks in 1st ballot next year. What criteria are they using when it comes to character? It feels like the voter's perception of a particular player is heavily influencing their vote. They are ignoring things like "while he did shoot a guy" while factoring in "he was a bad teammate (who also happened to dominate a Super Bowl with a broken leg)." You can't just randomly inject your personal feelings in while ignoring things like Harrison shooting the guy. Take the resume of the player and say "was he a HOF player?" If the answer is unequivocally yes, as it is with Owens, he goes in immediately. If it is up for debate, he goes in when there is a spot available. If you want to factor in character concerns then there needs to be a clearly defined morality clause and it has to be applied EVENLY throughout. As an example, Darren Sharper SHOULDN'T have been on the ballot last year. There is a bright light shining on the absurdity of the process at the moment and it needs to be fixed. I'm not sure that this is quite right... I think Vic's explanation is they are given guidance to exclude non football matters but there is an acknowledgement that the locker room is a "football matter" so I don't think it is hypocritical. I think their explanation is shooting a guy in your private life is totally out of scope of their considerations. Throwing your Quarterback under the bus and making lewd assertions to the media about his sexual preferences whilst likening him to a rodent is in scope..... because it affects the football team. I have no real problem that they made him wait one year, it might be a bit childish but then TO was the king of childish. I just think that was sufficient. TO is a Hall of Fame player.... he has served whatever penalty the voters think appropriate for being a total jerk..... now just put him in the Hall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 it is a reflection of the last 20 yrs of media. A "newsman" "reporter" or "media expert" (I can't get italics on cell easily for expert) believes they are of a moral high ground in which they must make a statement of impact to educate us, the public, swine vermin, basket of deplorables, etc. Its worth note looking at recent history on how the public responds once they hear this rhetoric enough. Carucci is treating us as if we need enlightened to a higher ground of intelligence. Sullivan, major news networks, ESPN, olberman, et al take this route. It is why some of the best sources of information remain so distant from opinion. It is why someone like Adam schefter receives different treatment than Jason lacanforwhatever. Schefter is wrong a lot and has done some vile things as a journalist but he seldom grandstands any of his news the way jason lafrenchpansy does. Reporting isn't about the news if you can educate someone. It hasn't been for a while. Watch how the dam situation in California will play out. It will be blame and blame and blame until someone can take a minute to educate someone on what happened to get us here. At that point we will blame them because they appear to have known the issue. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 I'm not sure that this is quite right... I think Vic's explanation is they are given guidance to exclude non football matters but there is an acknowledgement that the locker room is a "football matter" so I don't think it is hypocritical. I think their explanation is shooting a guy in your private life is totally out of scope of their considerations. Throwing your Quarterback under the bus and making lewd assertions to the media about his sexual preferences whilst likening him to a rodent is in scope..... because it affects the football team. I have no real problem that they made him wait one year, it might be a bit childish but then TO was the king of childish. I just think that was sufficient. TO is a Hall of Fame player.... he has served whatever penalty the voters think appropriate for being a total jerk..... now just put him in the Hall. I guess that I follow the reasoning (or lack thereof) from the voters but it is no less absurd. Character in the locker room matters but the character of the person doesn't? It doesn't pass the "sniff test." There is no world where insinuating that Jeff Garcia is gay is a worse offense than shooting a guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 The HOF is a farce, it has been for a couple of decades now in pretty much all major sports. It's a marketing opportunity. I can't really care too much about this issue. Fact is, TO had episodes where he was a good teammate and there were also times where he instigated severe dysfunction in weak locker rooms. But I always attributed his behavior to mental illness and his really difficult upbringing (his father was a POS from what I recall). And there have been plenty of dudes like him in the NFL and plenty of them made the HOF - but none of them were the media spectacle that TO became (which is ironic - he probably generated more clicks for Big Media than any player of his era, and now Big Media is punishing him for some weird reason). And as for Vic & Co., the traditional media as an institution has suffered so much decline in relevance and credibility that they'll do just about anything to gain a new foothold. As they say, the smallest amount of power typically is abused to the greatest extent, or something to that effect. Yawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 I guess that I follow the reasoning (or lack thereof) from the voters but it is no less absurd. Character in the locker room matters but the character of the person doesn't? It doesn't pass the "sniff test." There is no world where insinuating that Jeff Garcia is gay is a worse offense than shooting a guy. They are not arguing it is worse. Just more relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 I'm not sure that this is quite right... I think Vic's explanation is they are given guidance to exclude non football matters but there is an acknowledgement that the locker room is a "football matter" so I don't think it is hypocritical. I think their explanation is shooting a guy in your private life is totally out of scope of their considerations. Throwing your Quarterback under the bus and making lewd assertions to the media about his sexual preferences whilst likening him to a rodent is in scope..... because it affects the football team. I have no real problem that they made him wait one year, it might be a bit childish but then TO was the king of childish. I just think that was sufficient. TO is a Hall of Fame player.... he has served whatever penalty the voters think appropriate for being a total jerk..... now just put him in the Hall. I wrote a response in a prior post so excuse me for the duplication. There were certainly antics and disruptive behavior associated with TO. But the picture portrayed in the link wasn't necessraily an accurate portrayl. It was a stereotypical view of TO when the actual picture of him drawn from his teammates and associates was much more complicated and nuanced. I'm not a fan of TO. Never have been and never will be. But it is unfair and it is an injustice to allow a personal attitude toward him to cloud one's objectivity when evaluation him. The TO story elicits a lot of potent reactionary responses when it is being examined. The criticism I have for Vic is that even in considering the side-issues relating to TO he didn't examine the story adequately enough to get a fuller and truer picture of him. I believe that judging someone to be considered a HOF member is a serious endeavor. Vic did a lazy and incomplete job in examining TO's consideration into that august body. His vote was more of a statement about his prejudices as it was about TO. That is wrong. (Again, I am not a TO devotee.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 (edited) They are not arguing it is worse. Just more relevant. 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 play or their character. They can't selectively choose when one is important and the other isn't. Edited February 13, 2017 by Kirby Jackson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts