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

T.O. should be a first-ballot Hall of Famer, but . . . . | ProFootballTalk (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/29/t-o-should-be-a-first-ballot-hall-of-famer-but/)

I think he should be without a doubt, his numbers are undeniable, what do you think?

He's a free agent ...... should we sign him?

lol, I mean .... look at his numbers. lol.

I would say yes but others will argue about his character which supposedly has nothing to do with or can be considered in picking HOF.

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

Beat me to it.

In the history of the NFL, ranking for WRs are:

1. Rice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
V
2. Largent
3. Everyone else




Rice is the GOAT and it is not even close.

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.

Maybe the part in parentheses is confusing you, here try this:

"few receivers I can think of that almost single handily won his team a Super Bowl"

Granted it's still poorly worded.

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?

If I was a team that was close and needed a big time WR to get over the top, I'd take him for a one year rental only.

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?

Thats the question. And I have to say no.

TO has HOF numbers.
But because of his character I wouldn't vote him into the Freddy Froodle Football Farm of Fame.

YES Not even a Q.. 2nd best WR I've ever seen.


Just curious, who's the best?

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

No, that's not my "logic" at all. I'm calling Irvin a winner by the way he played & his ability to share the spotlight w/other good players, which TO couldn't do. I'd say Irvin was a winner even if Dallas didn't win any super bowls w/him. I'd have the same opinion of TO if he'd won a SB. I'm saying TO was not necessarily a "loser" but he proved over & over that he was more about himself than the team, and his teams paid for it.

On the 2nd bolded point about stats; we just disagree over that, and I would bet there's quite a no. of hall voters, coaches & players that will disagree over it too.

But while we're on stats, here's the most important one to me: No. of times player was traded or released: 3.
The stat in itself isn't that bad, but knowing why says it all about TO.
btw, regardless of what you think of Bayless, quoting one phrase he coined does not mean I accept all his views & hardly see how I lose all credibility w/that.

Just curious, who's the best?

Uh oh...is that the sound of Don Hutson bandwagon revving up?

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

I think I agree with you. If given the choice and I can't have both..... I'll take Rice over Monk everyday and twice on Sunday. Monks my boy but Rice is to WR's what D.Green (Skins) was to CB's.