Bill Polian: T.O. and Randy Moss don't belong in HOF

[Dr.Sack]

Wow.

[Cripple Creek]

Yeah, exactly. Both belong and both will get in. The writers have their chance to exact their pound of flesh and they're taking it.

[Mr. WEO]

Both far far better than anyone he ever had playing in Indy.

 

Goofy take.

[YoloinOhio]

Next he's going to want Reggie Wayne in the HOF ahead of them.

[Augie]

Next he's going to want Reggie Wayne in the HOF ahead of them.

Make it Steve Tasker and I'm IN!

[major]

I think polian may have cte. Polian is an NFL great but he is wrong here. Moss and TO are some of the best we will ever see

[Gugny]

Polian is a has been idiot.

 

Therefore, I fully expect the Pegulas to hire him in some capacity.

 

#ticketsalesmatter

[EasternOHBillsFan]

PROVING why Bill Polian is a giant among men in the NFL executive universe and architect of our great dynasty in the AFC. Spot on.

Edited March 1, 2017 by BmoreBills

[Zulu Cthulhu]

PROVING why Bill Polian is a giant among men in the NFL executive universe and architect of our great dynasty in the AFC. Spot on.

I sincerely hope this is sarcasm.

[Thurman#1]

He was a great GM, but this is beyond senile and idiotic. These were two of the greatest wide receivers ever to play the game. Period. Temperament? Really?

 

 

It's not like he's alone. So yeah, really. T.O. didn't get voted in. Polian's got a legitimate point of view. The Hall of Fame says consider only what happened on the field, but that the field can be extended into the locker room, the training facilities and camp, etc. So for those here talking about crimes and drug use, the voters are specifically told not to consider that, whereas breaking up team harmony and blatantly not even trying for several years in Moss' case are allowed to be considered.

 

The argument's not crazy at all.

 

Doesn't mean everyone has to agree, but what he's saying, though not particularly popular, isn't unreasonable.

Edited March 1, 2017 by Thurman#1

[Zulu Cthulhu]

 

It's not like he's alone. So yeah, really. T.O. didn't get voted in. Polian's got a legitimate point of view. The Hall of Fame says consider only what happened on the field, but that the field can be extended into the locker room, the training facilities and camp, etc. So for those here talking about crimes and drug use, the voters are specifically told not to consider that, whereas breaking up team harmony and blatantly not even trying for several years in Moss' case are allowed to be considered.

 

The argument's not crazy at all.

 

Doesn't mean everyone has to agree, but what he's saying, though not particularly popular, isn't unreasonable.

I think everyone knows what the stated HOF "guidelines" for the voters are, the point is that methodology is BS. Allowing the voters to consider a candidate's worthiness as a "teammate" based on hearsay and other anecdotal evidence strays into making value judgments that these writers aren't qualified to make. But since they are allowed to make them, apparently, it makes even less sense to then turn around and forbid the voters from considering other factors that, rightly or wrongly, also factor into making value judgments about candidates. For instance, a man opening fire on a busy street with two handguns in broad daylight might make me, for one, determine that that man is an unhinged thug who belongs in prison, not the pro football hall of fame.

[GunnerBill]

 

 

It's not like he's alone. So yeah, really. T.O. didn't get voted in. Polian's got a legitimate point of view. The Hall of Fame says consider only what happened on the field, but that the field can be extended into the locker room, the training facilities and camp, etc. So for those here talking about crimes and drug use, the voters are specifically told not to consider that, whereas breaking up team harmony and blatantly not even trying for several years in Moss' case are allowed to be considered.

 

The argument's not crazy at all.

 

Doesn't mean everyone has to agree, but what he's saying, though not particularly popular, isn't unreasonable.

 

 

Agreed. I personally think TO and Randy Moss belong in and will get in (might take Moss a few goes like it is TO), but the "Marvin Harrison shot a man" stuff is the biggest example of irrelevance ever and I made that point in the TO thread.

 

The HoF is NOT making a moral judgment on the social ill of shooting a man vs the social ill of being a bad teammate and a distraction in the locker room. It's not saying the latter is less bad than the former.

 

It is simply saying that the locker room is an extension of the football field and the voters are ONLY bound to consider matters pertaining to the football field (and by extension the locker room).

 

It is really simple. How people get this so twisted I have no idea.

[Thurman#1]

I think everyone knows what the stated HOF "guidelines" for the voters are, the point is that methodology is BS. Allowing the voters to consider a candidate's worthiness as a "teammate" based on hearsay and other anecdotal evidence strays into making value judgments that these writers aren't qualified to make. But since they are allowed to make them, apparently, it makes even less sense to then turn around and forbid the voters from considering other factors that, rightly or wrongly, also factor into making value judgments about candidates. For instance, a man opening fire on a busy street with two handguns in broad daylight might make me, for one, determine that that man is an unhinged thug who belongs in prison, not the pro football hall of fame.

 

 

 

Hearsay from teammates and anecdotal evidence is exactly the kind of thing that should be considered when you're looking at the locker room.

 

But as I understand it, you're arguing that the hearsay evidence from teammates should be ignored while the hearsay evidence from a guy who had nothing to do with him or his career concerning a situation that never came to trial should be convincing evidence not only that someone doesn't belong in the Hall, but that he belongs in jail.

 

This makes absolutely zero sense at all. Not least because of that pesky "innocent till proven guilty" thing we have in reference to criminal trials in this country. But also in dismissing hearsay evidence from teammates while totally buying into it in a criminal case.

 

In any case, Polian is addressing whether he belongs in the Hall of Fame. So, of course the guidelines for whether guys should get into the Hall of Fame should be considered in his analysis and any analysis of the situation.

 

If you want to argue that you don't like the guidelines, fine. I'm just not interested in that argument, personally, it may be legit but it doesn't belong in the discussion of Polian's comments. Polian was commenting on whether he belongs and that's clearly based on current guidelines. Again, his comment is reasonable. It's just that simple. Again, not that everyone should have to agree, but his argument makes sense.

Edited March 1, 2017 by Thurman#1

[Zulu Cthulhu]

 

 

 

Hearsay from teammates and anecdotal evidence is exactly the kind of thing that should be considered when you're looking at the locker room.

 

But as I understand it, you're arguing that the hearsay evidence from teammates should be ignored while the hearsay evidence from a guy who had nothing to do with him or his career concerning a situation that never came to trial should be convincing evidence not only that someone doesn't belong in the Hall, but that he belongs in jail.

 

This makes absolutely zero sense at all. Not least because of that pesky "innocent till proven guilty" thing we have in reference to criminal trials in this country. But also in dismissing hearsay evidence from teammates while totally buying into it in a criminal case.

 

In any case, Polian is addressing whether he belongs in the Hall of Fame. So, of course the guidelines for whether guys should get into the Hall of Fame should be considered in his analysis and any analysis of the situation.

 

If you want to argue that you don't like the guidelines, fine. I'm just not interested in that argument, personally, it may be legit but it doesn't belong in the discussion of Polian's comments. Polian was commenting on whether he belongs and that's clearly based on current guidelines. Again, his comment is reasonable. It's just that simple. Again, not that everyone should have to agree, but his argument makes sense.

My Harrison example definitely is pertinent to Polian's comments, because Polian was Harrison's strongest supporter after he failed to get voted in, even calling for "investigations" into the voting process in the aftermath.

 

However you are right - Harrison was never prosecuted, much less convicted, for the shooting or the related murder. There were only allegations made by eyewitnesses. Pretty serious allegations, though - one guy did end up dead after all. I'd argue then that the allegations can still be pertinent when considering someone's character as a whole. That the HOF rules dismiss this from consideration is bogus in my view. Here's a good overview of the Harrison ordeal, in case any of you are curious and haven't read it, btw: http://www.gq.com/story/marvin-harrison

 

Terrell Owens, similarly, was never convicted of anything. But over his playing career he sure was subject to a lot of allegations (mostly by out-of-touch media members, many of the same ones voting to keep him out of the HOF now.) Sure, even some ex-teammates made allegations about TO's character, his supposed disruptive nature, etc. Yet TO continued to produce at an elite level over a very long career on a comparatively small number of teams. Owners, coaches and quarterbacks that TO actually played for and with have said (in public even! imagine that) that he belongs in the hall. But the voters chose to sweep all that aside and let the allegations sway their votes.

 

All I'm saying is you can't pick and choose. The voting rules need to be changed. Would it not be fairer to simply judge based on candidates' actual production on the field? The stuff that can be objectively measured and compared? Doesn't seem that crazy to me.

Edited March 1, 2017 by Zulu Cthulhu

[GunnerBill]

quarterbacks that TO actually played for and with have said (in public even! imagine that) that he belongs in the hall.

 

Even the ones he threw under the bus?

[Zulu Cthulhu]

 

Even the ones he threw under the bus?

Yes even Donovan McNabb.

 

Look, it's pretty clear the HOF is occupied by certain people who aren't exactly paragons of humanity, OJ being only the most prominent example. But if people want to disregard the non-football stuff I get it. But to then attempt to assign a value to a player's "teammate-ness," or whatever you want to call it, is folly. Can we claim that all the of players in the HOF currently were good teammates? Can we know for sure? Well, I'd look no further than some of the Super Bowl era Bills that have recently been inducted. During that time and since, many local writers have shared stories about the fractiousness within the locker room at times. So were Jim, Bruce, Thurman always great teammates? Probably not, but they still got in with relative ease (not Andre.) But on the field, they all proved their worth. TO did as well.

Edited March 1, 2017 by Zulu Cthulhu

[eball]

I know. All those winning seasons would kill.

The early 90s say hi.

[Thurman#1]

My Harrison example definitely is pertinent to Polian's comments, because Polian was Harrison's strongest supporter after he failed to get voted in, even calling for "investigations" into the voting process in the aftermath.

 

However you are right - Harrison was never prosecuted, much less convicted, for the shooting or the related murder. There were only allegations made by eyewitnesses. Pretty serious allegations, though - one guy did end up dead after all. I'd argue then that the allegations can still be pertinent when considering someone's character as a whole. That the HOF rules dismiss this from consideration is bogus in my view. Here's a good overview of the Harrison ordeal, in case any of you are curious and haven't read it, btw: http://www.gq.com/story/marvin-harrison

 

 

As I say, if you want to talk about the Halls' rules, fine, start another thread about it. It may be a legit concern, but it doesn't connect to what Polian said.

 

Polian said he didn't belong in the HOF, and he doubtless means based on how people do or don't belong. As things stand.

 

 

 

 

 

Terrell Owens, similarly, was never convicted of anything. But over his playing career he sure was subject to a lot of allegations (mostly by out-of-touch media members, many of the same ones voting to keep him out of the HOF now.) Sure, even some ex-teammates made allegations about TO's character, his supposed disruptive nature, etc. Yet TO continued to produce at an elite level over a very long career on a comparatively small number of teams. Owners, coaches and quarterbacks that TO actually played for and with have said (in public even! imagine that) that he belongs in the hall. But the voters chose to sweep all that aside and let the allegations sway their votes.

 

All I'm saying is you can't pick and choose. The voting rules need to be changed. Would it not be fairer to simply judge based on candidates' actual production on the field? The stuff that can be objectively measured and compared? Doesn't seem that crazy to me.

 

 

Fine. Start a thread about it. But of course you can pick and choose. Everybody does, in every decision they make. It's just what gets included and excluded. There have to be guidelines, even if the guidelines are that everything should be considered.

 

Your objections don't seem crazy to me at all, they just seem irrelevant to what Polian said.

Edited March 1, 2017 by Thurman#1

[Zulu Cthulhu]

 

 

As I say, if you want to talk about the Halls' rules, fine, start another thread about it. It may be a legit concern, but it doesn't connect to what Polian said.

 

Polian said he didn't belong in the HOF, and he doubtless means based on how people do or don't belong. As things stand.

 

 

 

 

 

Fine. Start a thread about it. But of course you can pick and choose. Everybody does, in every decision they make. It's just what gets included and excluded. There have to be guidelines, even if the guidelines are that everything should be considered.

 

Your objections don't seem crazy to me at all, they just seem irrelevant to what Polian said.

That's fair - I am hesitant to beat that horse again in a new thread since there were so many last month.

 

To Polian's comments specifically, I wonder if his opinion extends to someone like Marshawn, who'll probably get serious consideration when he becomes eligible.

[GunnerBill]

Yes even Donovan McNabb.

 

Look, it's pretty clear the HOF is occupied by certain people who aren't exactly paragons of humanity, OJ being only the most prominent example. But if people want to disregard the non-football stuff I get it. But to then attempt to assign a value to a player's "teammate-ness," or whatever you want to call it, is folly. Can we claim that all the of players in the HOF currently were good teammates? Can we know for sure? Well, I'd look no further than some of the Super Bowl era Bills that have recently been inducted. During that time and since, many local writers have shared stories about the fractiousness within the locker room at times. So were Jim, Bruce, Thurman always great teammates? Probably not, but they still got in with relative ease (not Andre.) But on the field, they all proved their worth. TO did as well.

 

 

I'm not anti-TO getting in and he will eventually get in. As will Moss. But Polian's comments are not as nonsensical as being argued... they are based on the current criteria. That is all I am saying. It is pretty clear what that criteria is.... even if you or anyone else doesn't agree with it.