Should T.O. be a first ballot Hall of Famer?

first doesnt read well. he said almost. and if you are implying winning a superbowl is a criteria for the HOF, then they really made a big mistake enrolling marino.

He said almost won them a SB.

That's not how I read it.

"few receivers I can think of that almost single handily (or as close to single handily one can be in football) won his team a Super Bowl"

Sounds like he was saying that TO almost won the game single handily like they won the SB.

I think yours is debatable at best. Did TO help them get there - yes. But TO was hurt all through the playoffs & they won w/out him. So that has to be considered.

The 2nd point - "haven't been back since he left" actually reinforces my point. If TO could've kept his mouth shut & been a good teammate, that team might've been able to come back strong the next year. What happened after that was him tearing the team apart to the point that Philly got rid of him while he was still in his prime.

And that was a bad thing? LOL

Was Art Monk a first ballot guy? While he should have been, sadly, the answer is no.

More than the numbers play into the HOF voting. If I was picking a team of rookies with a crystal ball, I certainly would take Art Monk way head of T.O.

I second that and for that matter, I would take Monk over Rice any day.

He said almost won them a SB.

On a broken leg!

That's when I began to respect him...even though I was rooting for his team to lose that game. :D

No he shouldn't, Cris Carters IMO was better and less of a headcase as Owens (voters will take that into account when voting for him) and he still hasn't gotten in.

Can be easily argued TO is the 2nd greatest WR after Rice ever. Me, I prefer to give that title to Randy Moss, NO ONE was as dominating at WR in their prime IMO. Moss is the greatest deep ball reciever ever by an enormous margin.

Back to the question, TO is a first ballot HOF NO question. Go ahead and a give him biggest Douchebag title as well though.

Again, I don't think the comparison is valid. Let's distinguish between off the field or what I would call personal issues, versus behavior that is related to job performance. I'm not even considering personal behavior in this debate, I think the hall has in recent past not considered that too much. Just in terms of performance related to your teams goals, Irvin was so much greater than TO.

Michael Irvin was a winner. Although he could be a pain for his qb & OC, it was never to the point that dallas wanted to get rid of him. In the end, teams couldn't count on TO. Skip Bayless called it best - TO = "TEam obliterator."
so by your logic, if TO had won at least 1 super bowl all would be forgotten, and he gets in easily? and by you quoting that idiot Bayless, your losing any credibilty in this arguement. i cant stand Owens, but your damn right he is hall of fame worthy. contrary to you, it should be all about the stats

Let me pose a question:

Would you want TO in his prime on your team, knowing that he will cause major problems at some point?

I second that and for that matter, I would take Monk over Rice any day.

Over Rice? I love Monk but let's come back down to reality.