Owens declines HoF Ceremony Invitation

[lancerman]

Just now, NFLExpert49 said:

Carter was an unexplosive possession receiver.

Career touchdowns of 40 yards or more: Owens 40, Carter 13. 

Sooooo.... 

Carter easily could have made the case he was the 2nd best WR of all time when he retired. That doesn't nullify the point at all. He was better in other ways. He probably had the best hands of any WR ever and made some of the most amazing catches. TO was a better athlete overall and I'd rank him ahead of Carter. But when Carter retired there was a legit argument he was 2nd only to Rice.

[AlexGreen#20]

2 minutes ago, lancerman said:

That and years later Cris Carter basically said that he told Moss that he was going to have to take some plays off to keep fresh because they were always going to put their best on him. Which is another big part of it. 

Overall it is an incredibly out of context quote that people have used to mean Moss didn't care to play hard unless he felt like it. Which was so far from the truth

While I think it's an incredibly out of context quote, acting like Moss didn't have motor issues is just as absurd as saying TO didn't have team chemistry issues. 

[Soko]

18 minutes ago, Ragnarok said:

Now I do think your second point has a lot of validity.  How many guys with questionable legal issues and off-field behavior can you let in before it becomes obvious that you are just sticking it to Owens?

I don’t think you have to look at Lewis or Moss for that point to have merit. There have already been a litany of players that had issues to get in to the hall. Pretty clear the voters had a vendetta IYAM. 

[lancerman]

Just now, AlexGreen#20 said:

Chris Carter played in the league for 16 seasons. I won't call him an accumulator because he did have an awesome peak, but it wasn't to the caliber of Owens'.

Again not the point. When Carter retired you easily could say he was the 2nd best ever if you wanted and you had the statistical case to make it. He was first team all decade along with Rice, behind only Rice in two major receiving stats and 4th all time in most, had led the league in TD's plenty of time, had some of the top seasons in TD's and receptions ever at the time. So the idea that it was unprecedented for someone who ranked as highly as TO to wait is just not true. 

That's before even getting into the fact that 5 WR's since 1970 got in first ballot

[lancerman]

2 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

While I think it's an incredibly out of context quote, acting like Moss didn't have motor issues is just as absurd as saying TO didn't have team chemistry issues. 

He definitely did,  but I don't think he was doing it out of malicous. He was just a naturally spotty player.

[Kiwibrown]

Love TO as a player.

He is probably a nice guy.

But TO sucks. 

[AlexGreen#20]

1 minute ago, lancerman said:

Sooooo.... 

Carter easily could have made the case he was the 2nd best WR of all time when he retired. That doesn't nullify the point at all. He was better in other ways. He probably had the best hands of any WR ever and made some of the most amazing catches. TO was a better athlete overall and I'd rank him ahead of Carter. But when Carter retired there was a legit argument he was 2nd only to Rice.

Owens 2000-2002 was significantly better than any stretch of Carter's career. I really don't see how that argument could be made.

Moss' first 5 seasons in the league from 98-02 blow any five year stretch of Carter's career completely out of the water.

Chris Carter should never have every been considered a top 2 WR of all time by anyone ever.  

[NFLExpert49]

4 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

While I think it's an incredibly out of context quote, acting like Moss didn't have motor issues is just as absurd as saying TO didn't have team chemistry issues. 

Owens didn't have chemistry issues. He had media image issues thanks to his controversial touchdown celebrations. The revisionist historians have made you forget all about the original reason the media went after him. 

[lancerman]

Just now, AlexGreen#20 said:

Owens 2000-2002 was significantly better than any stretch of Carter's career. I really don't see how that argument could be made.

Moss' first 5 seasons in the league from 98-02 blow any five year stretch of Carter's career completely out of the water.

Chris Carter should never have every been considered a top 2 WR of all time by anyone ever.  

That's fine but you can't just extrapolate on two players that still went on to play for 10 years that they would have maintained that level. If so we could talk about Terrell Davis all day because he might have had the best two year peak of anyone. At the time Cris Carter easily had the claim to any player to being the best WR not named Jerry Rice. We all knew Moss and TO could catch him, but they still needed to do it. It's like saying Peyton Manning should wait because he's 2nd to Brady and Rodgers is already having an incredible peak. 

[sp6488]

12 minutes ago, JustAnotherFan said:

He was a HoFer and he deserved to be there. No question asked.

If TO didn't get in, sooner rather later, that would have been a huge mistake on the part of voters. It would've sent the wrong message because TO was only being vilified for his ON-FIELD antics and not OFF-FIELD issues such as others. 

 If TO didn't get in, that would've meant that the NFL cares more about how a player acts on the field than it does off-the-field. And that';s not a good look.

To push back a bit, PR aside, why is this necessarily the wrong outlook?  

I am a financial professional.  If the organization that confers my license looks more harshly on financial malfeasance than a DUI or domestic issue, is that necessarily wrong?  That;s their purview, whereas the other items fall under the justice system.

Not saying they shouldn't care about it (the NFL, broadly), but I'm not necessarily bothered by the concept of the HoF holding on-field issues against a player, particularly if they potentially hindered their team's chances of winning.

[JAF-N72EX]

6 minutes ago, sp6488 said:

To push back a bit, PR aside, why is this necessarily the wrong outlook?  

I am a financial professional.  If the organization that confers my license looks more harshly on financial malfeasance than a DUI or domestic issue, is that necessarily wrong?  That;s their purview, whereas the other items fall under the justice system.

Not saying they shouldn't care about it (the NFL, broadly), but I'm not necessarily bothered by the concept of the HoF holding on-field issues against a player, particularly if they potentially hindered their team's chances of winning.

I said it backwards by mistake.

My point was, that they have let other players into the HoF who had OFF-THE-FIELD issues and by holding back a player such as TO, who was only known for his ON-THE-FIELD antics, would set a bad precedent. 

[sp6488]

6 minutes ago, JustAnotherFan said:

I said it backwards by mistake.

My point was, that they have let other players into the HoF who had OFF-THE-FIELD issues and by holding back a player such as TO, who was only known for his ON-THE-FIELD antics, would set a bad precedent. 

My response is to your clarified point.

[Small Town Values]

Good for him. He was clearly held out due to politics. I'm not surprised attending the ceremony has lost its lustre. 

When we make sport about things other than sport, it ruins the appeal. 

[JAF-N72EX]

2 minutes ago, sp6488 said:

My response is to your clarified point.

So you think that a player with assault/battery or shooting another individual in his own personal life--OUTSIDE OF THE TEAM-- should be treated equally the same as a player who publicly criticizes his QB's ON-THE-FIELD? 

That don't make any sense. At all.

[JAF-N72EX]

10 minutes ago, Marc MacGyver said:

When we make sport about things other than sport, it ruins the appeal. 

Exactly. And aside from certain instances, this is exactly what the HoF should only be about. Football. But they have ruined part already, so now it's a lotto draw on who comes and who goes.