Terrell Owens Declined His Invitation to the Pro Football Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony

[Rico]

Just now, Golden Goat said:

 

Yeah, to hell with his 162 TDs. Let's judge him based on one playoff game.

By far the biggest game of his career. Totally gutless.

[Golden Goat]

3 minutes ago, Rico said:

By far the biggest game of his career. Totally gutless.

 

So Jim Kelly sucks, too, right? Andre? Thurman? 

Edited June 9, 2018 by Golden Goat

[Rico]

Just now, Golden Goat said:

 

So Jim Kelly sucks, too, right?

No, Jimbo was very, very tough. So was Phillip Rivers that day.

[Golden Goat]

2 minutes ago, Rico said:

No, Jimbo was very, very tough. So was Phillip Rivers that day.

 

All good. Just wanted to confirm that you're judging a Hall of Famer -- Top 5 all-time in most statistical categories on crappy teams -- by one game. Thank you.

[Rico]

Just now, Golden Goat said:

 

All good. Just wanted to confirm that you're judging a Hall of Famer -- Top 5 all-time in most statistical categories on crappy teams -- by one game. Thank you.

Well, stats are for losers.  And LT was a chump and a loser in by far the biggest game of his career. He would not have gotten my vote, definitely not first ballot.

[Golden Goat]

1 minute ago, Rico said:

Well, stats are for losers.  And LT was a chump and a loser in by far the biggest game of his career. He would not have gotten my vote, definitely not first ballot.

 

And that's why your vote doesn't count.

[Rochesterfan]

12 hours ago, 3rdand12 said:

Horrible comment from him.
Sounds needy. Like relationship needy. Those voters seem hormonal>

Heart broken even.

 

 but yes , it is about on the field accomplishments. Thanks for the sad chuckle from me.

 

 

I disagree - I think these voters understand they are making decisions that reflect on the legacy of the player and what a huge honor it is.  TO deserves to get in, but if he is going to once again disrespect the process, the other classmates, and HOF by not showing up and calling them out again - then give the spot to someone that will appreciate it because there are other worthy candidates that will have to wait.

 

I can totally understand his position and I am guessing that it impacted others previously and that he is not alone in wishing he could take back his vote.

 

I think the HOF got it right - we are going to ignore this and we will celebrate those that attend.  I also think someone like Moss or Irving will get in TO’s ear and tell him to get his butt there as this is special and in the end he will show up.

[Rochesterfan]

12 hours ago, Dopey said:

You know hom well enough to call him a messed up human being? Aside from doing things you don't like, what has he done to be a messed up human being? Did he cut Nicole's head off or something?

Free ageny and $. Who cares if he bounced around. Follow the $.

It was not money as much as teams that would take him.  

 

He was technically traded from SF to Philadelphia after his agent screwed up.  In SF - he got in repeated arguments with teammates and basically told the media he though Jeff Garcia was gay.  Not exactly a great teammate.

 

Philidelphia he got a 5 year contract - went to the SuperBowl in year 1, but called out his QB and effectively ended his Philly career.  Year 2 got in a fist fight with Hugh Douglas and was suspended and cut following the season - again a great teammate.

 

His one real FA push got him to Dallas for 3 years after which he was released.

 

Then 1 year in Buffalo and 1 year in Cincinnati and neither team nor any other teams wanted him really at that point.

 

He repeatedly had issues with teammates and other teams - including His celebrations in Dallas as a 49er and the sharpie incident, the football as a camera, etc. those do not endear you to other fan bases and media to help your induction chances.

 

He was suspended multiple times in his careers for conduct detrimental to the team and for his actions on the field - all of which should be taken into account when voting for a HOF candidate.  

 

His numbers make him worthy - his actions and antics deem him questionable and in the end it took a couple of years, but they decided he was worthy and once again his antics make the media question that decision.

[SouthNYfan]

7 hours ago, Golden Goat said:

 

All good. Just wanted to confirm that you're judging a Hall of Famer -- Top 5 all-time in most statistical categories on crappy teams -- by one game. Thank you.

 

8 hours ago, Golden Goat said:

Your entire argument is, "According to... uh... people... TO was better." Until you look at the stats and start thinking for yourself, I have no use for you. Sorry.

 

Looking at the stats and thinking for myself does show something.

LT was on stacked teams many years, don't act like he wasn't.

 

TO :

16,185 yards from scrimmage (#12)

156 TD combined(#4 tied with moss)

153 TD receiving (#3 moss had no rushing)

15,934 receiving yards (#3)

1,078 receptions (#8)

 

 

 

LT:

18,456 years from scrimmage (#5)

162 TD combined (#2)

13,684 rushing yards (#6)

145 rushing TD (#2)

 

There is only one receiver with more yards from scrimmage or receiving than TO (the goat, Jerry rice), there are only two with more TDs (rice and moss, but he is tied with moss for today TDs including rushing)

 

TO was as good as LT in statistical rankings in relation to others.

I'm not sure why you "have no use for me" and like to act like TO was trash and nowhere in any lists.

 

Either LT should be higher on my list (#2-5 like TO and a first ballot) or TO should be higher on yours.

 

You can't have it both ways.

 

I do think LT was a first ballot, but TO should have been as well, arguably moreso.

The argument was that TO shouldn't have been, which I think is absurd if you are just going by in the field performance.

[Go-Bills]

Very disrespectful to every one who helped him get there! He is a CHILD.......

[apuszczalowski]

15 hours ago, JoPar_v2 said:

Come on man don’t strawman me you’re better than that. No, he doesn’t get anything tangibly special for being a first ballot HOFer. What I am saying is the perception is that the honor is different. The voters feel that way, the media makes the distiction. It’s not just a few football nerds.

 

The perception that he “bounced around” the league is false. He spent 8 years in SF. He left for more money, which is his right. Functionally he basically played for 3 more teams after that, he was done after Buffalo for all intents and purposes.

So what your saying is that there is no difference between getting in first ballot or 10th ballot except that he  will have a butt hurt ego because he is insulted he didnt get in the first time he was able to.

 

Does his plaque or bust even say how many tries he needed to get I to the HOF? Does he get to be put on the front row or in a special spot where he is more prominent then the ones who got in on their 4th or 5th time?

[mileena]

I find it disturbing here that supposed Bills fans are bashing a former Buffalo Bill. I guess you are just bandwagoners. TO was wronged by the HOF voters, and now they HOF looks like the scumbag organization it is. TO has the guts to teach them a lesson.

[JoPar_v2]

54 minutes ago, apuszczalowski said:

So what your saying is that there is no difference between getting in first ballot or 10th ballot except that he  will have a butt hurt ego because he is insulted he didnt get in the first time he was able to.

 

Does his plaque or bust even say how many tries he needed to get I to the HOF? Does he get to be put on the front row or in a special spot where he is more prominent then the ones who got in on their 4th or 5th time?

Wow. No - never did I say or even imply that TO is the one making the distinction between a first ballot HOFer and a player that is forced to wait multiple years. Where’d you even get that from?

[Golden Goat]

6 hours ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

 

Looking at the stats and thinking for myself does show something.

LT was on stacked teams many years, don't act like he wasn't.

 

TO :

16,185 yards from scrimmage (#12)

156 TD combined(#4 tied with moss)

153 TD receiving (#3 moss had no rushing)

15,934 receiving yards (#3)

1,078 receptions (#8)

 

 

 

LT:

18,456 years from scrimmage (#5)

162 TD combined (#2)

13,684 rushing yards (#6)

145 rushing TD (#2)

 

There is only one receiver with more yards from scrimmage or receiving than TO (the goat, Jerry rice), there are only two with more TDs (rice and moss, but he is tied with moss for today TDs including rushing)

 

TO was as good as LT in statistical rankings in relation to others.

I'm not sure why you "have no use for me" and like to act like TO was trash and nowhere in any lists.

 

Either LT should be higher on my list (#2-5 like TO and a first ballot) or TO should be higher on yours.

 

You can't have it both ways.

The argument was that TO shouldn't have been, which I think is absurd if you are just going by in the field performance.

 

YES! Kudos for looking it up. If you're going to make a comment that X player is better than Y player and Z player, all I ask is that you attempt to back it up, which you have done here. For the record, comparing a RB to a WR -- to a DE -- to me -- is not very practical. But that's the hand we were dealt with your proclamation that TO was better than LT and Jason Taylor. I took exception with your "educated" comment -- I don't think that was much of an education. That's what started all of this. Agree to disagree on that, I guess. Onward.

 

<< Looking at the stats and thinking for myself does show something... TO was as good as LT in statistical rankings in relation to others. >>

Why did you omit the most important detail? TO played 15 seasons. (So did Emmitt Smith!) LT played 11. How does that not make LT's numbers all the more impressive?

 

<< Either LT should be higher on my list (#2-5 like TO and a first ballot) or TO should be higher on yours. You can't have it both ways. >>

Not asking for it both ways. You seem to think I dislike TO. Why? Because I have massive love for LT? To be clear, TO should have been a first-ballot HOFer. I'm not down on TO at all, other than his crappy attitude which caused him to bounce around the league. Had he stayed with one or two teams, he might have now been in the discussion for "best ever." But that didn't happen, and TO has nobody to blame for that but his big mouth and his lousy attitude. He had all the physical tools.

 

<< LT was on stacked teams many years, don't act like he wasn't. >>

And... You're back to your old ways. There's zero substance to this comment, much like your "educated" comment. Why shouldn't I act like he wasn't? Drew Brees wasn't "Drew Brees" when he was in San Diego. That's why he was traded. Philip Rivers is (to me) is a little above average at best. Who "stacked" these teams for a sustained period of time other than LT and Gates? OTOH, here were Owens' first four quarterbacks: Steve Young, Jeff Garcia, Donovan McNabb, Tony Romo. Let's not act like learning under -- and catching passes from -- a HOF QB is irrelevant. TO played with McNab and Romo in their primes. Give me either any day over Rivers. (TO made Jeff Garcia -- I will absolutely give you that). I'm more than happy to list players who stacked TO's teams, but it's common knowledge to even the most casual football fan that the 49ers, Cowboys and Eagles were loaded those years.

<< I'm not sure why you "have no use for me" and like to act like TO was trash and nowhere in any lists. >>

Lists? Don't you mean "click bait?" There are very few publications and writers I respect anymore. These "best of" lists are laughable to me. I want to hear YOUR rationale for YOUR points. Deflecting by essentially saying "I read it somewhere" neuters your argument. Also, please show me where I acted "like TO was trash." Please reference my specific quote(s). This should be good.

 

<< I do think LT was a first ballot, but TO should have been as well, arguably moreso. The argument was that TO shouldn't have been, which I think is absurd if you are just going by in the field performance. >>
Don't disagree with anything here but "moreso," for the above reasons. As much as you want to turn this into an argument about me saying TO was trash, there's just no "there" there -- and you know it. Sorry.

 

 

Edited June 9, 2018 by Golden Goat

[3rdand12]

8 hours ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

 

I disagree - I think these voters understand they are making decisions that reflect on the legacy of the player and what a huge honor it is.  TO deserves to get in, but if he is going to once again disrespect the process, the other classmates, and HOF by not showing up and calling them out again - then give the spot to someone that will appreciate it because there are other worthy candidates that will have to wait.

 

I can totally understand his position and I am guessing that it impacted others previously and that he is not alone in wishing he could take back his vote.

 

I think the HOF got it right - we are going to ignore this and we will celebrate those that attend.  I also think someone like Moss or Irving will get in TO’s ear and tell him to get his butt there as this is special and in the end he will show up.

I respect your opinion. but i still feel ambiguous about what it takes to get into the HoF.

[GunnerBill]

7 hours ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

The argument was that TO shouldn't have been, which I think is absurd if you are just going by in the field performance.

 

The criteria says nothing about "just going by onfield performance". It says contribution as a player. You are still a player in the locker room, in meetings and on the practice field. 

[SouthNYfan]

14 minutes ago, Golden Goat said:

 

YES! Kudos for looking it up. If you're going to make a comment that X player is better than Y player and Z player, all I ask is that you attempt to back it up, which you have done here. For the record, comparing a RB to a WR -- to a DE -- to me -- not very practical. But that's the hand we were dealt with your proclamation that TO was better than LT and Jason Taylor. I took exception with your "educated" comment -- I don't think that was much of an education. That's what started all of this. Agree to disagree on that, I guess. Onward.

 

<< Looking at the stats and thinking for myself does show something... TO was as good as LT in statistical rankings in relation to others. >>

Why did you omit the most important detail? TO played 15 seasons. (So did Emmitt Smith!) LT played 11. How does that not make LT's numbers all the more impressive?

 

<< Either LT should be higher on my list (#2-5 like TO and a first ballot) or TO should be higher on yours. You can't have it both ways. >>

Not asking for it both ways. You seem to think I dislike TO. Why? Because I have massive love for LT? To be clear, TO should have been a first-ballot HOFer. I'm not down on TO at all, other than his crappy attitude which caused him to bounce around the league. Had he stayed with one or two teams, he might have now been in the discussion for "best ever." But that didn't happen, and TO has nobody to blame for that but his big mouth and his attitude.

 

<< LT was on stacked teams many years, don't act like he wasn't. >>

And... You're back to your old ways. There's zero substance to this comment, much like your "educated" comment. Why shouldn't I act like he wasn't? Drew Brees wasn't "Drew Brees" when he was in San Diego. That's why he was traded. Philip Rivers is (to me) is a little above average at best. Who "stacked" these teams for a sustained period of time other than LT and Gates? OTOH, here were Owens' first four quarterbacks: Steve Young, Jeff Garcia, Donovan McNabb, Tony Romo. Let's not act like learning under -- and catching passes from -- a HOF QB is irrelevant. TO played with McNab and Romo in their primes. Give me either any day over Rivers. (TO made Jeff Garcia -- I will absolutely give you that). I'm more than happy to list players who stacked TO's teams, but it's common knowledge to even the most casual football fan that the 49ers, Cowboys and Eagles were loaded those years.

<< I'm not sure why you "have no use for me" and like to act like TO was trash and nowhere in any lists. >>

Lists? Don't you mean "click bait?" There are very few publications and writers I respect anymore. These "best of" lists are laughable to me. I want to hear YOUR rationale for YOUR points. Deflecting by essentially saying "I read it somewhere" neuters your argument. Also, please show me where I acted "like TO was trash." Please reference my specific quote(s). This should be good.

 

<< I do think LT was a first ballot, but TO should have been as well, arguably moreso. The argument was that TO shouldn't have been, which I think is absurd if you are just going by in the field performance. >>
Don't disagree with anything here but "moreso," for the above reasons. As much as you want to turn this into an argument about me saying TO was trash, there's just no "there" there -- and you know it. Sorry.

 

 

 

Your initial responses very much seemed to imply that LT was worthy first ballot and TO was not.

If that was not your intent, then it was misread by me.

TO's "big mouth and attitude" shouldn't be held against him, since the NFL HoF committee has said that they only use on field performance, and nothing else, to determine who gets in.

 

The chargers were 44-18 from 2006-2009, the first 4 years of Rivers starting, with their receivers being Antonio Gates (TE), Vincent Jackson, Keenan McCardell (aging at this point), Chris Chambers (aging but still decent), Malcolm Floyd

Tomlinson's backups were Sproles and Turner.

They were pretty stacked on offense.

This is an educated comment.

 

I'm not trying to knock LT, and I fully believe he was a first ballot HoF, which if I implied or stated otherwise was not what I meant.

 

I omitted the seasons played just because I did, I wasn't really paying much attention to those, having said that, yes Tomlinson did play less seasons than TO, and TO missed most of a season mid career due to an injury. All in all he played about 50 less games than TO, so yeah, he an omission I should have included (I was working it all out on my phone earlier while waiting for my car to get serviced)

Learning from HoF players is definitely big, and I believe TO benefited from that greatly, so you are correct there.

I never said TO was on trash teams, but you did make a notion that Tomlinson was on pretty crappy teams most of his career, which was just not true, but early on he did produce great numbers, but he also had great receivers and a pretty solid QB in Brees, with Gates, David Boston (not terrible), and a couple of other solid receivers in there as well.

He was on a pretty stacked offense his entire career in SD, although he was one of the things stacking it to be sure.

 

I initially wasn't comparing TO to players of other positions, I was merely saying that he was an all time great at his position, top #3-5, and should have been first ballot.

Somebody asked who was inducted in 2016 and 2017 who TO was more deserving than, and I was stating the players who were inducted those years.

I would say him and LT are on par with each other after a little more scrutiny about it, in terms of relation to their peers at their positions, so we can call him a wash.

Jason Taylor, Marvin Harisson are two I can say he should have been over without a doubt, plus the others I listed.

I'll give you LT as an equal in relation to his peers.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

On 6/8/2018 at 10:49 AM, JackKemp said:

I'm thinking you all need to read the selection process. Who else was eligible the last couple of years? Why is TO better than some of the other position players that were eligible the last few years? Usually first ballot electees are usually considered the best of all time type of players. TO is really a best of all time type of player that you think of in the same breath as a Dick Butkus, Johnny Unitas, Peyton Manning, or from other sports Chipper Jones, Hank Aaron, Sandy Kofax and the like? If I'm a homer then I'm a proud one.

 

http://www.profootballhof.com/heroes-of-the-game/selection-process-faq/

 

....it is also a personality contest with the voting writers who remain anonymous voting from underneath their desks.....if you're not a media darling, punishment ensues......any idea why Thurmal had to wait?.......mediocre?...he sucks?........not initially worthy?....

[SouthNYfan]

6 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

The criteria says nothing about "just going by onfield performance". It says contribution as a player. You are still a player in the locker room, in meetings and on the practice field. 

 

I don't disagree with you there Gunner, but contributions as a player are mostly about on field performance.

In the words of the immortal Allen Iverson "we're talkin about practice...we aint talking about the game!"

TO showed up in the games.

I never saw him dogging it, not showing up, anything.

The guy played hard, but was a huge jagoff, and yes, that could affect the locker room, no doubt about it, but in the end, he performed.

[Rochesterfan]

2 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

The criteria says nothing about "just going by onfield performance". It says contribution as a player. You are still a player in the locker room, in meetings and on the practice field. 

 

Agreed - I have heard the media guys talk while the Bills were getting inducted and it covered more than just the on the field stuff.  I do not remember ever hearing about things away from the game being talked about, but things like player interactions, media interactions, along with the playmaking.

 

My guess is that individual voters take each thing into consideration and some parts weigh more heavily on some voters than others.  May not be totally fair, but the voters are human and if you treat them like dirt - that colors their opinion long term.

8 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

I don't disagree with you there Gunner, but contributions as a player are mostly about on field performance.

In the words of the immortal Allen Iverson "we're talkin about practice...we aint talking about the game!"

TO showed up in the games.

I never saw him dogging it, not showing up, anything.

The guy played hard, but was a huge jagoff, and yes, that could affect the locker room, no doubt about it, but in the end, he performed.

 

He was also suspended by multiple teams for conduct detrimental to the team.  He missed over 1/2 a season due to team initiated suspensions because of that attitude.

 

That has to say something to these guys that are making a decision - a team like Philadelphia decide after 2 years into a five year deal (with half of one of those seasons spent on the suspended list due to comments and fighting team leaders) that the team was better off without him.

 

All of those things need to and should be taken into account.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

3 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

Agreed - I have heard the media guys talk while the Bills were getting inducted and it covered more than just the on the field stuff.  I do not remember ever hearing about things away from the game being talked about, but things like player interactions, media interactions, along with the playmaking.

 

My guess is that individual voters take each thing into consideration and some parts weigh more heavily on some voters than others.  May not be totally fair, but the voters are human and if you treat them like dirt - that colors their opinion long term.

 

...any idea RF as to why voters' votes remain anonymous?.....what's the big secret?......hell, even publish their comments/reasoning.......there would be one helluva media frenzy dissecting the entire mess which could be a cash cow tripling the sales of some of these rag publications out there......Boy Scout popcorn sales would be through the roof.....as would Bourbon...

[Rochesterfan]

Just now, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

...any idea RF as to why voters' votes remain anonymous?.....what's the big secret?......hell, even publish their comments/reasoning.......there would be one helluva media frenzy dissecting the entire mess which could be a cash cow tripling the sales of some of these rag publications out there......Boy Scout popcorn sales would be through the roof.....as would Bourbon...

 

None - other than can you imagine the backlash in today’s twitterverse.  

 

I think they they should all be required to provide the exact card they are voting from and then be asked to account for their decisions.  I believe that many of these media members that are on good terms with each other make agreements to help so and so this year and I will help your guy next year.

 

Ideally they would make it more transparent and allow scrutiny of the process, but alas they are mostly a bunch of keyboard jockeys that prefer to spew venom than answer for their decision- that is my opinion.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

Just now, Rochesterfan said:

 

None - other than can you imagine the backlash in today’s twitterverse.  

 

I think they they should all be required to provide the exact card they are voting from and then be asked to account for their decisions.  I believe that many of these media members that are on good terms with each other make agreements to help so and so this year and I will help your guy next year.

 

Ideally they would make it more transparent and allow scrutiny of the process, but alas they are mostly a bunch of keyboard jockeys that prefer to spew venom than answer for their decision- that is my opinion.

...slam dunk response from the best..........

[SouthNYfan]

15 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

Agreed - I have heard the media guys talk while the Bills were getting inducted and it covered more than just the on the field stuff.  I do not remember ever hearing about things away from the game being talked about, but things like player interactions, media interactions, along with the playmaking.

 

My guess is that individual voters take each thing into consideration and some parts weigh more heavily on some voters than others.  May not be totally fair, but the voters are human and if you treat them like dirt - that colors their opinion long term.

 

He was also suspended by multiple teams for conduct detrimental to the team.  He missed over 1/2 a season due to team initiated suspensions because of that attitude.

 

That has to say something to these guys that are making a decision - a team like Philadelphia decide after 2 years into a five year deal (with half of one of those seasons spent on the suspended list due to comments and fighting team leaders) that the team was better off without him.

 

All of those things need to and should be taken into account.

 

All fair points.

 

1 minute ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

None - other than can you imagine the backlash in today’s twitterverse.  

 

I think they they should all be required to provide the exact card they are voting from and then be asked to account for their decisions.  I believe that many of these media members that are on good terms with each other make agreements to help so and so this year and I will help your guy next year.

 

Ideally they would make it more transparent and allow scrutiny of the process, but alas they are mostly a bunch of keyboard jockeys that prefer to spew venom than answer for their decision- that is my opinion.

 

I agree with this.

If you're voting for or against somebody over somebody else, say why.

Same with MVP voting.

There was a year LeBron clearly should have had unanimous MVP, but some jagoff writer who hated him voted for somebody else, when everybody on the planet was like 'Uh seriously?'

[Rochesterfan]

15 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

All fair points.

 

 

I agree with this.

If you're voting for or against somebody over somebody else, say why.

Same with MVP voting.

There was a year LeBron clearly should have had unanimous MVP, but some jagoff writer who hated him voted for somebody else, when everybody on the planet was like 'Uh seriously?'

 

Definitely- I think Baseball is even worse than Football for these types of votes, but if you are going to be on the committee- then be open about it.  You have some writers that treat it like a joke - I believe it was Lebatard that was willing to allow a fan to fill out his Hall of Fame ballot.  That is the kind of junk that ruins the integrity of the vote.

 

 

[Golden Goat]

57 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

Your initial responses very much seemed to imply that LT was worthy first ballot and TO was not.

If that was not your intent, then it was misread by me.

TO's "big mouth and attitude" shouldn't be held against him, since the NFL HoF committee has said that they only use on field performance, and nothing else, to determine who gets in.

 

The chargers were 44-18 from 2006-2009, the first 4 years of Rivers starting, with their receivers being Antonio Gates (TE), Vincent Jackson, Keenan McCardell (aging at this point), Chris Chambers (aging but still decent), Malcolm Floyd

Tomlinson's backups were Sproles and Turner.

They were pretty stacked on offense.

This is an educated comment.

 

I'm not trying to knock LT, and I fully believe he was a first ballot HoF, which if I implied or stated otherwise was not what I meant.

 

I omitted the seasons played just because I did, I wasn't really paying much attention to those, having said that, yes Tomlinson did play less seasons than TO, and TO missed most of a season mid career due to an injury. All in all he played about 50 less games than TO, so yeah, he an omission I should have included (I was working it all out on my phone earlier while waiting for my car to get serviced)

Learning from HoF players is definitely big, and I believe TO benefited from that greatly, so you are correct there.

I never said TO was on trash teams, but you did make a notion that Tomlinson was on pretty crappy teams most of his career, which was just not true, but early on he did produce great numbers, but he also had great receivers and a pretty solid QB in Brees, with Gates, David Boston (not terrible), and a couple of other solid receivers in there as well.

He was on a pretty stacked offense his entire career in SD, although he was one of the things stacking it to be sure.

 

I initially wasn't comparing TO to players of other positions, I was merely saying that he was an all time great at his position, top #3-5, and should have been first ballot.

Somebody asked who was inducted in 2016 and 2017 who TO was more deserving than, and I was stating the players who were inducted those years.

I would say him and LT are on par with each other after a little more scrutiny about it, in terms of relation to their peers at their positions, so we can call him a wash.

Jason Taylor, Marvin Harisson are two I can say he should have been over without a doubt, plus the others I listed.

I'll give you LT as an equal in relation to his peers.

 

Very well crafted reply. Thank you for taking the time. (I mean that).

Absolutely no knock on TO (the player) whatsoever, and I don't think his attitude should have had any bearing on him being or not being a first-ballot HOFer. My comment there was more about the fact that his coaches kept getting tired of his antics and shipping him off, killing the type of long-term coaching and QB chemistry that helped define some of the other greats (Montanta/Young to Rice, Manning to Harrison, and pretty much any other elite receiver before free agency as we know it began in ’92). To his credit, Owens still put up gaudy numbers. My sense is they would have been a lot higher with more stability, and he could have been the greatest receiver ever.

 

Owens, Tomlinson and Taylor were all ridiculously talented and should have been first-ballot no-brainers. (I had told my nose while typing that about Taylor because he was a Dolphin. I find solace in the fact that for as good as Taylor was, he was not Bruce Smith).

 

<< I would say him and LT are on par with each other after a little more scrutiny about it, in terms of relation to their peers at their positions, so we can call him a wash. >>
 

Agreed. ?

 

 

Edited June 9, 2018 by Golden Goat

[SouthNYfan]

25 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

Definitely- I think Baseball is even worse than Football for these types of votes, but if you are going to be on the committee- then be open about it.  You have some writers that treat it like a joke - I believe it was Lebatard that was willing to allow a fan to fill out his Hall of Fame ballot.  That is the kind of junk that ruins the integrity of the vote.

 

 

 

Agreed 100%.

Look at baseball with the PED's.

I remember a few years back when they were making the case for testing, they had every player take the test, but the results would be held anon, and if a high enough number tested positive that would initiate the new rules, and it was quite a large # that came up positive.

Those tests were supposed to be sealed, but crazy, a couple of the names "leaked" out, even though it was a US Federal Supreme Court ruling that it remain sealed and anon.

Now those guys are going to be shunned when MLB HoF voting comes up, and while they probably should be, what about the guys who weren't leaked?

Is it fair that they get in even though they tested positive, just because some dingbat didn't want to release their name too, since maybe he was a fan?

The voting is all a crock of sh*t.

 

19 minutes ago, Golden Goat said:

 

Very well crafted reply. Thank you for taking the time. (I mean that).

Absolutely no knock on TO (the player) whatsoever, and I don't think his attitude should have had any bearing on him being or not being a first-ballot HOFer. My comment there was more about the fact that his coaches kept getting tired of his antics and shipping him off, killing the type of long-term coaching and QB chemistry that helped define some of the other greats (Montanta/Young to Rice, Manning to Harrison, and pretty much any other elite receiver before free agency as we know it began in ’92). To his credit, Owens still put up gaudy numbers. My sense is they would have been a lot higher with more stability, and he could have been the greatest receiver ever.

 

Owens, Tomlinson and Taylor were all ridiculously talented and should have been first-ballot no-brainers. (I had told my nose while typing that about Taylor because he was a Dolphin. I find solace in the fact that for as good as Taylor was, he was not Bruce Smith).

 

<< I would say him and LT are on par with each other after a little more scrutiny about it, in terms of relation to their peers at their positions, so we can call him a wash. >>
 

Agreed. ?

 

 

 

Yeah, Taylor was pretty awesome, I just wasn't sure if he was a no-brainer first ballot, but if you want to look at it the other way, if he and LT were first ballot, then I feel TO should have been also, in respect to his peers at the position.

 

Anyway, I also agree on the QB-WR connection issue.

Even in his time in SF, TO went through two QBs (aging Young into Garcia) followed by McNabb, then Romo, then Fitz/Edwards pu-pu platter ( I mean the guy had like 100+ receptions and 850+ yards with fitz and edwards throwing to him...)

I can't even imagine the #'s he would have had if he was with Montana-Young his whole career (similar to rice, who only went to oakland at the end, with gannon), or somebody like Manning or Rodgers his whole career.

The same can be said about Moss, he was with a revolving door of QB's too.

Moss was kind of a jackoff IMO as well, just not as flashy with his on the field antics, so I think that was also a bit of a double standard, with Moss not getting bopped by the HoF voters but TO being bopped by them.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

...bottom line is petty payback because he didn't get in on 1st year of eligibility.......great way to demean yourself, but if the shoe fits...................

[GunnerBill]

4 hours ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

I don't disagree with you there Gunner, but contributions as a player are mostly about on field performance.

In the words of the immortal Allen Iverson "we're talkin about practice...we aint talking about the game!"

TO showed up in the games.

I never saw him dogging it, not showing up, anything.

The guy played hard, but was a huge jagoff, and yes, that could affect the locker room, no doubt about it, but in the end, he performed.

 

All of which is an argument for him being enshrined at Canton as he will be. To my mind to be first ballot you need to check all the boxes. And TO didn't. I'd have had no problem him going in last year, but his first year of eligibility I thought he should have to wait. 

[SouthNYfan]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

All of which is an argument for him being enshrined at Canton as he will be. To my mind to be first ballot you need to check all the boxes. And TO didn't. I'd have had no problem him going in last year, but his first year of eligibility I thought he should have to wait. 

 

I respect your side of it.

What's your take on Moss getting in first year, but TO having to wait?

If TO had to wait, then Moss should as well, but Moss is getting in 1st year.

 

[Bob in STL]

Seems odd to not show up for a crowning achievement such as this but not surprising given his outspoken nature.  

 

His numbers definitely back his entry into the HOF but WR numbers are escalating as the game continues to evolve into a passing game. There are players with less stats that I liked better.  

 

I understand why he was not a first ballot entry.  If Thurman Thomas was not a first year entry then no way is Owens. 

 

 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

Tim Daniels -BR   June 9, 2018:

 

Former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Steve Young urged former Niners teammate Terrell Owens to reconsider his decision to skip the 2018 Pro Football Hall of Fame enshrinement ceremony in August.

 

On Thursday, Cam Inman of the Bay Area News Group provided comments Young, who was inducted in 2005, made on ESPN about Owens potentially burning bridges with the Hall of Fame and its members.

 

"The damage to the relationship could be permanent. You don't want that," he said. "So I beg him to reconsider because the longevity of all the people that want to respect him and that he should respect as well. Forget about, 'I'm mad at the voters, I'm mad at the system.' The damage that could be done by not going could overwhelm him over a period of time."

[Spiderweb]

On 6/7/2018 at 12:39 PM, JoPar_v2 said:

Good for TO. Never should have had to wait as long as he did for enshrinement, while dingbats like Vic Carucci found any and every excuse to not vote for him.

 

Many, MANY of the current voters need to be booted. Hopefully TO skipping will prompt the HOF to do something about that cadre of out-of-touch, lazy writers.

 

 

...and TO is blameless for all the negative opinions of him.... Strange days...strange days indeed.

[JoPar_v2]

29 minutes ago, Spiderweb said:

...and TO is blameless for all the negative opinions of him.... Strange days...strange days indeed.

Never once asserted that TO is “blameless,” in fact, I said that most of the negative opinions of his personality are probably justified. 

 

The HOF voters have a responsibility to look past that stuff however; and they put that responsibility on themselves when they adopted their criteria. I am not going to let them off the hook because TO was flamboyant.

 

 

[Rochesterfan]

15 hours ago, JoPar_v2 said:

Never once asserted that TO is “blameless,” in fact, I said that most of the negative opinions of his personality are probably justified. 

 

The HOF voters have a responsibility to look past that stuff however; and they put that responsibility on themselves when they adopted their criteria. I am not going to let them off the hook because TO was flamboyant.

 

 

 

Flamboyant?  The guy was suspended on 3 different teams for on the field actions.

 

It is the writers responsibility to take that into account.  I think they should be transparent, but to me a 1st ballot HOFer needs not only to be a great player, but he should be the best of the best in most accounts.  The fact that teams like Philadelphia signed him, but then due to TO’s actions suspended him for 1/2 a season and cut him - is a huge sign of the type of player he was.  

 

He fought teammates, called out Jeff Garcia and insinuated he was gay, he called out McNabb on multiple occasions, got into a fist fight with Hugh Douglas, the list goes on and on.  All of that is legitimate actions that should be taken into account when deciding on his worthiness.  To me they do not exclude you, but they also make it so that if you do not want to vote for him in year 1 it is acceptable.

 

Then for him to act like a petulant child after lobbying for the honor just speaks to his character.  This is a celebration of the honor and it is a celebration of all of the HOF players - he is dishonoring the ceremony ad his classmates.  It is all about TO.

[GunnerBill]

46 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

Flamboyant?  The guy was suspended on 3 different teams for on the field actions.

 

It is the writers responsibility to take that into account.  I think they should be transparent, but to me a 1st ballot HOFer needs not only to be a great player, but he should be the best of the best in most accounts.  The fact that teams like Philadelphia signed him, but then due to TO’s actions suspended him for 1/2 a season and cut him - is a huge sign of the type of player he was.  

 

He fought teammates, called out Jeff Garcia and insinuated he was gay, he called out McNabb on multiple occasions, got into a fist fight with Hugh Douglas, the list goes on and on.  All of that is legitimate actions that should be taken into account when deciding on his worthiness.  To me they do not exclude you, but they also make it so that if you do not want to vote for him in year 1 it is acceptable.

 

Then for him to act like a petulant child after lobbying for the honor just speaks to his character.  This is a celebration of the honor and it is a celebration of all of the HOF players - he is dishonoring the ceremony ad his classmates.  It is all about TO.

 

100% correct. All of that is within scope for a hall of fame voter. 

On 6/10/2018 at 2:08 AM, SouthNYfan said:

 

I respect your side of it.

What's your take on Moss getting in first year, but TO having to wait?

If TO had to wait, then Moss should as well, but Moss is getting in 1st year.

 

 

Personally I wouldn't have voted for Moss in year 1 either. I thought his attitude to his teammates in Oakland was shocking and he basically split the locker room - me vs coach in his second spell at Minnesota. 

 

I think more of his controversy was "away from football" stuff - drugs, dv accusations etc but there was enough in his locker room conduct for me to believe he was not a 'tick all the boxes' 1st ballot guy. 

[Ridgewaycynic2013]

45 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

Then for him to act like a petulant child after lobbying for the honor just speaks to his character.  This is a celebration of the honor and it is a celebration of all of the HOF players - he is dishonoring the ceremony ad his classmates.  It is all about TO.

Given his 'talent' for objectionable behaviour, perhaps it best he keeps clear and doesn't potentially detract from the other inductees that day.  Life is full of choices, in ten years when he regrets his choice about attending it's on only his shoulders.

[Rochesterfan]

10 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

100% correct. All of that is within scope for a hall of fame voter. 

 

Personally I wouldn't have voted for Moss in year 1 either. I thought his attitude to his teammates in Oakland was shocking and he basically split the locker room - me vs coach in his second spell at Minnesota. 

 

I think more of his controversy was "away from football" stuff - drugs, dv accusations etc but there was enough in his locker room conduct for me to believe he was not a 'tick all the boxes' 1st ballot guy. 

 

 

I agree fully with with you on Moss - there was enough issues on the field - his attitude in Oakland - basically admitting that he was not trying because he was not enjoying himself and his 2nd time in Minn basically throwing the coach under the bus and adopting a him or me attitude that cost both of them their jobs.

 

Overall that attitude was still better than TO’s and with similar numbers shows that the voters rightly took that into account with TO.  I think Moss also had a lot more off the field issues than TO again showing the voters did not take that stuff into account - which is consistent with what they have said.

 

I personally do not think either of them were worthy of being 1st ballot HOFs, but Moss had less baggage on the field and in that regards was more worthy to me.

15 minutes ago, Ridgewaycynic2013 said:

Given his 'talent' for objectionable behaviour, perhaps it best he keeps clear and doesn't potentially detract from the other inductees that day.  Life is full of choices, in ten years when he regrets his choice about attending it's on only his shoulders.

 

 

Maybe it is for the best- we will see how disrespectful and disruptive he is as we approach the day.

[SouthNYfan]

20 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

100% correct. All of that is within scope for a hall of fame voter. 

 

Personally I wouldn't have voted for Moss in year 1 either. I thought his attitude to his teammates in Oakland was shocking and he basically split the locker room - me vs coach in his second spell at Minnesota. 

 

I think more of his controversy was "away from football" stuff - drugs, dv accusations etc but there was enough in his locker room conduct for me to believe he was not a 'tick all the boxes' 1st ballot guy. 

 

Thanks gunner.

See I'm okay with your take on it, since you are holding moss to the same standard of behavior as TO.

I would have gone first ballot for moss myself, just as TO

[26CornerBlitz]