Jump to content

Owens declines HoF Ceremony Invitation


WizardHawk

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, showtime said:

You think the Hall of Fame voters care about Terrell Owens?  I don't think so.  The people that he's 'screwing' is his family, friends, coaches, teammates, fans and everyone else who helped him along the way and/or supported him.

how is he screwing his friend and family?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, lancerman said:

And only one guy post Jerry is in first ballot and he’s largely viewed as number 2

And those who don't think he's number two, tend to have T.O. in that position. 

 You can almost guarantee Larry Fitzgerald, & Antonio Brown walk in first ballot. I'd say there is a strong possibility Calvin gets in first try too.

Now, I'm not saying I have a problem with any of the above getting in in their first year. But, if they go in first try, it'll make this whole WR hierarchy argument redundant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Marc MacGyver said:

And those who don't think he's number two, tend to have T.O. in that position. 

 You can almost guarantee Larry Fitzgerald, & Antonio Brown walk in first ballot. I'd say there is a strong possibility Calvin gets in first try too.

Now, I'm not saying I have a problem with any of the above getting in in their first year. But, if they go in first try, it'll make this whole WR hierarchy argument redundant. 

It's generally the majority opinion that Moss was ahead of TO. 

Also that has yet to be seen. 

I think longevity will prevent Calvin from going 1st ballot, I think Fitz will probably wait too, but if he doesn't he's still going to finish ahead of TO in receptions and will pass him in yards this year. Brown maybe but we should note that Brown's the only guy whose even on pace with Rice's stats so if he keeps up, he would be more deserving than TO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are all you idiots even posting about this slug, his whole career was a waste because he is a waste. Too bad a guy with so much talent is more remembered for getting clobbered on the 50 yard line by George Teague, my favorite Cowboys moment ever. Thank you Cowboys for that one. This will make the voters think next time a questionable character comes up. It's how you portray yourself in the game and not just about numbers. He quit on two of his teams in midseason, I don't think he should have gotten in in the first place, so ha ha hof voters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, cooters22 said:

Why are all you idiots even posting about this slug, his whole career was a waste because he is a waste. Too bad a guy with so much talent is more remembered for getting clobbered on the 50 yard line by George Teague, my favorite Cowboys moment ever. Thank you Cowboys for that one. This will make the voters think next time a questionable character comes up. It's how you portray yourself in the game and not just about numbers. He quit on two of his teams in midseason, I don't think he should have gotten in in the first place, so ha ha hof voters.

Do not call posters idiots @cooters22

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, lancerman said:

Again I will maintain that based off his play and the high standards for what a HOF WR getting in first ballot is, he did not belong in the same class. Again Berry could have called himself the GOAT when he retired. Warfield was the best of the first decade of the Super Bowl era. Largent could have called himself the GOAT. Rice put all stats out of contention for at least a couple of generations. Moss is largely seen as the best of his era and the best ever athlete at the position. 

Id honestly put TO a step below them. 

I’m not of the belief that past mistakes constitute making the same mistakes in the future. Taking missteps doesn’t then give you an excuse to continue to make them. 

There is a fine minority that has TO outside their top 5 as you do. Most accept that his 2018 enshrinement has to do with his antics/personality, which is damn wrong. If that was the standard for professionalism, then Moss should’ve waited too. If anything the standard that was set was that players with off field issues often had those issue overlooked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

I’m not of the belief that past mistakes constitute making the same mistakes in the future. Taking missteps doesn’t then give you an excuse to continue to make them. 

There is a fine minority that has TO outside their top 5 as you do. Most accept that his 2018 enshrinement has to do with his antics/personality, which is damn wrong. If that was the standard for professionalism, then Moss should’ve waited too. If anything the standard that was set was that players with off field issues often had those issue overlooked.

I don't have TO outside the top 5. I'm saying that historically the HOF has only put #1 or #2 of all time WR's in the HOF on the first ballot. If TO made it first ballot, he'd have the weakest case of any 1st ballot HOF'er at his position upon induction. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cooters22 said:

Why are all you idiots even posting about this slug, his whole career was a waste because he is a waste. Too bad a guy with so much talent is more remembered for getting clobbered on the 50 yard line by George Teague, my favorite Cowboys moment ever. Thank you Cowboys for that one. This will make the voters think next time a questionable character comes up. It's how you portray yourself in the game and not just about numbers. He quit on two of his teams in midseason, I don't think he should have gotten in in the first place, so ha ha hof voters.

It's hilarious when fans actually think this stuff matters. 

Also, which teams did he quit on? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lancerman said:

I don't have TO outside the top 5.

You mentioned Rice, Moss, Largent, Berry, and Warfield - saying “I’d honestly put TO a step below them”. That’s #6 at best, if you use the math that I’m familiar with. 

1 hour ago, lancerman said:

I'm saying that historically the HOF has only put #1 or #2 of all time WR's in the HOF on the first ballot.

Then with this astounding logic, there won’t ever be a 1st ballot HOF wide receiver until they topple Randy Moss. Makes sense. 

Most people don’t even believe that TO’s wait has anything to do with some standard or his lack of quality as a player. It focuses on his antics, not his play. 

1 hour ago, lancerman said:

If TO made it first ballot, he'd have the weakest case of any 1st ballot HOF'er at his position upon induction. 

Pretty worthless comment, honestly. I can easily say right now that “Randy Moss has the weakest case of any 1st ballot HOFer at his position upon induction” to try to discredit him, but people would see through that. 

You’re arguing a moot point about his resume not being 1st ballot worthy when the reason he had been kept out is that the voters didn’t like his off the field attitude. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

You mentioned Rice, Moss, Largent, Berry, and Warfield - saying “I’d honestly put TO a step below them”. That’s #6 at best, if you use the math that I’m familiar with. 

Then with this astounding logic, there won’t ever be a 1st ballot HOF wide receiver until they topple Randy Moss. Makes sense. 

Most people don’t even believe that TO’s wait has anything to do with some standard or his lack of quality as a player. It focuses on his antics, not his play. 

Pretty worthless comment, honestly. I can easily say right now that “Randy Moss has the weakest case of any 1st ballot HOFer at his position upon induction” to try to discredit him, but people would see through that. 

You’re arguing a moot point about his resume not being 1st ballot worthy when the reason he had been kept out is that the voters didn’t like his off the field attitude. 

1. Yeah for when they retired.. Rice/Moss/Largent/Berry all retired 1 or 2 all time and 1 overall for the era they played in. TO is largely at best considered 3 and 2 for his era. Ala he's a step below them. When they voted on Berry they didn't there would be a Jerry Rice who would smash everything he ever did. You can't retroactively vote that way. 

2. No that's sound logic. It has nothing to do with Rice. All 5 of them have this in common

a) they were the consensus best QB of their era 

b) they owned either all time statistics or single season records

c) they were voted first team All Pro by the same voters who do the Hall (which shows where they viewed them for that decade)

TO is not the consensus best of his era. TO has no All Time Stat records or any single season records to his name. The voters didn't give him First Team All Decade for any of the periods he played in. 

Ala when TO retired, he was not regarded as highly in the pantheon of great receivers as when those 5 did. When Largent retired for instance, he owned 6 of the All Time statistical receiving records. So when the voters were deciding to put him in the Hall they were looking at someone who had a real claim to being GOAT. 

 

3. Randy Moss right now does have the weakest case. But TO has a weaker one. So you're splitting hairs. There's always going to be a weakest guy. The difference was that Randy Moss can say that he has significant statistical records and was largely viewed as the best of his era by a general consensus, and has a claim to being at worst 3 of all time. TO is below that. 

And yeah I agree that his offield had more to do with it, but the fact is if you are comparing TO to the people that you are arguing he should be among, he shouldn't be the absolute weakest. Like If TO had the single season yards and TD record, was considered ahead of Moss by virtually everyone and was widely viewed as the most talented of his era, then you could say he cuts the mustard compared to others. But he doesn't. He was just a super elite WR who was probably the third best of the era he played in with Rice and Moss playing during that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, showtime said:

You think the Hall of Fame voters care about Terrell Owens?  I don't think so.  The people that he's 'screwing' is his family, friends, coaches, teammates, fans and everyone else who helped him along the way and/or supported him.

Yes, the Hall of Fame voters are definitely going to get cranked into a tizzy come enshrinement time and write a thousand sanctimonious hot takes about TO not being there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, lancerman said:

1. Yeah for when they retired.. Rice/Moss/Largent/Berry all retired 1 or 2 all time and 1 overall for the era they played in. TO is largely at best considered 3 and 2 for his era. Ala he's a step below them. When they voted on Berry they didn't there would be a Jerry Rice who would smash everything he ever did. You can't retroactively vote that way. 

2. No that's sound logic. It has nothing to do with Rice. All 5 of them have this in common

a) they were the consensus best QB of their era 

b) they owned either all time statistics or single season records

c) they were voted first team All Pro by the same voters who do the Hall (which shows where they viewed them for that decade)

TO is not the consensus best of his era. TO has no All Time Stat records or any single season records to his name. The voters didn't give him First Team All Decade for any of the periods he played in. 

Ala when TO retired, he was not regarded as highly in the pantheon of great receivers as when those 5 did. When Largent retired for instance, he owned 6 of the All Time statistical receiving records. So when the voters were deciding to put him in the Hall they were looking at someone who had a real claim to being GOAT. 

 

3. Randy Moss right now does have the weakest case. But TO has a weaker one. So you're splitting hairs. There's always going to be a weakest guy. The difference was that Randy Moss can say that he has significant statistical records and was largely viewed as the best of his era by a general consensus, and has a claim to being at worst 3 of all time. TO is below that. 

And yeah I agree that his offield had more to do with it, but the fact is if you are comparing TO to the people that you are arguing he should be among, he shouldn't be the absolute weakest. Like If TO had the single season yards and TD record, was considered ahead of Moss by virtually everyone and was widely viewed as the most talented of his era, then you could say he cuts the mustard compared to others. But he doesn't. He was just a super elite WR who was probably the third best of the era he played in with Rice and Moss playing during that time.

So you're of the position that no WR should get into the HOF who isn't better than Randy Moss? Just want to verify that point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

5 hours ago, lancerman said:

2. No that's sound logic.

It’s bad logic that doesn’t get applied to other positions. The voters are picking and choosing when to use certain criteria. Nowhere does it say “you need to be the GOAT or 2nd to be 1st ballot”. It’s arbitrary and flawed.

5 hours ago, lancerman said:

It has nothing to do with Rice. All 5 of them have this in common

a) they were the consensus best QB of their era 

Warfield, Berry, and Alworth all played in the same era. 

5 hours ago, lancerman said:

b) they owned either all time statistics or single season records

So now there’s stat standards that we’re not written down too? 

5 hours ago, lancerman said:

c) they were voted first team All Pro by the same voters who do the Hall (which shows where they viewed them for that decade)

You realize all this proves is that the voters stay consistent with their opinions, right? 

5 hours ago, lancerman said:

TO is not the consensus best of his era.

Neither was Largent.

5 hours ago, lancerman said:

TO has no All Time Stat records or any single season records to his name.

Again, arbitrarily looking at this.

5 hours ago, lancerman said:

The voters didn't give him First Team All Decade for any of the periods he played in. 

“The voters previously didn’t vote him for stuff, so it justifies them not voting him for the Hall”...

5 hours ago, lancerman said:

Ala when TO retired, he was not regarded as highly in the pantheon of great receivers as when those 5 did. When Largent retired for instance, he owned 6 of the All Time statistical receiving records. So when the voters were deciding to put him in the Hall they were looking at someone who had a real claim to being GOAT. 

Moss isn’t the GOAT. But that’s okay, since he’s got stat records, I guess. So the criteria changes with stats.

5 hours ago, lancerman said:

3. Randy Moss right now does have the weakest case. But TO has a weaker one. So you're splitting hairs.

I’m not splitting hairs. Merely pointing out that “having the weakest case” doesn’t mean it’s a bad case. 

5 hours ago, lancerman said:

There's always going to be a weakest guy. The difference was that Randy Moss can say that he has significant statistical records and was largely viewed as the best of his era by a general consensus, and has a claim to being at worst 3 of all time. TO is below that.

Your opinion=/=fact. I think it was pretty debated between he and TO, and Moss has as many character flaws as TO did.

5 hours ago, lancerman said:

 

And yeah I agree that his offield had more to do with it, but the fact is if you are comparing TO to the people that you are arguing he should be among, he shouldn't be the absolute weakest. Like If TO had the single season yards and TD record, was considered ahead of Moss by virtually everyone and was widely viewed as the most talented of his era, then you could say he cuts the mustard compared to others. But he doesn't. He was just a super elite WR who was probably the third best of the era he played in with Rice and Moss playing during that time.

It is what it is, man. You’re arguing a point that doesn’t exist. The very reason the opinions range on this so widely is because there is no set criteria. 

I’m not interested in continuing the back and forth because I don’t even care about Owens. It’s just nuts to me that character gets brought into the equation for TO and not others. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...