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

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by dmek25

and how does one "carry" ones self like a hall of famer? like LT? this shouldnt matter at all. hell, a murderer is in the hall

Maybe I should restate that more simply; he never carried himself like a professional! One carries himself like a professional by doing their job, taking responsibility for their actions & considering the orgranization they work for & its goals.

Sure, there are plenty of guys that were likely less than stellar teammates that made the hall, but most of them kept their opinions & team biz out of the media.

[Monkeydad]

Yes, the numbers don't lie.

We've had some questionable characters get into the HOF, so that's not the issue. On the field, he was a beast. Teams (including us) game-planned around him and the only man I ever saw stop him in his prime was Sean Taylor. Owens actually looked intimidated against him, cutting routes short, not stretching to make catches...for good reason.

Even at age 37, he's still a physical specimen and I think he'll be back sooner or later. He's not the player he once was, but he had matured and can still help a team. I actually would not mind seeing him here IF we needed a vet WR but we don't, our WR depth chart looks promising.

He always played for teams I hated and at times, I could not stand him as a person, but I have grown to respect him as time has gone on, as a player and in recent years as a person. He never got into real trouble (legally), he was just a nuisance and joker.

If Michael Irvin got in, Owens should.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by dmek25

and how does one "carry" ones self like a hall of famer? like LT? this shouldnt matter at all. hell, a murderer is in the hall

And

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by Monkeydad

Yes, the numbers don't lie.

We've had some questionable characters get into the HOF, so that's not the issue. On the field, he was a beast. Teams (including us) game-planned around him and the only man I ever saw stop him in his prime was Sean Taylor. Owens actually looked intimidated against him, cutting routes short, not stretching to make catches...for good reason.

Even at age 37, he's still a physical specimen and I think he'll be back sooner or later. He's not the player he once was, but he had matured and can still help a team. I actually would not mind seeing him here IF we needed a vet WR but we don't, our WR depth chart looks promising.

He always played for teams I hated and at times, I could not stand him as a person, but I have grown to respect him as time has gone on, as a player and in recent years as a person. He never got into real trouble (legally), he was just a nuisance and joker.

If Michael Irvin got in, Owens should.

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."

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by Monkeydad

And

smilin in his mug shot, great media presence!

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by freddyg12

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.

While TO is guilty of everything he has done, that doesn't cancel out his numbers and his work ethic. Listening to the Football Today podcast, they mentioned for example that TO never gave up on the field like Randy Moss did towards the end of his time in Minny and the whole time he was with the Raiders.

I still think that the Eagles in 2004 went too much out of their way (including McNabb) to say that they would be fine without TO when he got hurt. I think things would have been much different if TO had played throughout the playoffs. They were just dominant with TO in the lineup. Sure, TO shouldn't have reacted the way he did, but he made a huge impact on that team.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by freddyg12

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."

Winning games and Super Bowls cure everything. I'm sure if Irvin was on a losing team, we would have heard some issues. I see what you say about TO, but his performance on the field is HOF worthy. They don't let players into the HOF just because they were "nice guys".

The funny thing is that you have a guy like Art Monk, who had the numbers, but probably wasn't voted into the HOF because he didn't talk to the media.

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

While TO is guilty of everything he has done, that doesn't cancel out his numbers and his work ethic. Listening to the Football Today podcast, they mentioned for example that TO never gave up on the field like Randy Moss did towards the end of his time in Minny and the whole time he was with the Raiders.

I still think that the Eagles in 2004 went too much out of their way (including McNabb) to say that they would be fine without TO when he got hurt. I think things would have been much different if TO had played throughout the playoffs. They were just dominant with TO in the lineup. Sure, TO shouldn't have reacted the way he did, but he made a huge impact on that team.

Actually it did, 3 teams thought so! I won't even count Buffalo, as he was old when he left there. I'll give TO credit for what he's done & I think he should be considered for the hall, but when you analyze his career, he did as much damage to his teams as he did good. Isn't the point of the game to help the team win? By that standard, TO did negate his on-field performance because his employers decided that letting him go was 'addition by subtraction.'

If you want to say the hall is ONLY about career stats, then by that standard, yes, he's got the #s. I would hate it if the hall simply became only about that.

[Lotus]

In the HoF? Because of his numbers, for sure.

First ballot? Because of his antics, which included ripping apart the 2005 Eagles, no.

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

Winning games and Super Bowls cure everything. I'm sure if Irvin was on a losing team, we would have heard some issues. I see what you say about TO, but his performance on the field is HOF worthy. They don't let players into the HOF just because they were "nice guys".

The funny thing is that you have a guy like Art Monk, who had the numbers, but probably wasn't voted into the HOF because he didn't talk to the media.

Who said anything about being a "nice guy" or model citizen? Not arguing that, in fact based on previous hall inductees there are guys in that may have been bad citizens, but in terms of the game they were winners.

My point is that his behavior was detrimental to his teams success. He created divisions that were irreparable.

While we're talking about his on-field performance, TO wasn't flawless either - in Dallas a couple years he compounded his big mouth by dropping a no. of easy passes.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Yeah, I know all about Rice's egotistical ways. But like TO, aside from the "prostitution" incident, never any real off-field issues.

Here's a question for you guys (not to take this thread too far off topic). If you had to choose one-who goes in 1st ballot. TO or Marvin Harrison?

Let's say TO's career is over: Here are his numbers-15 years; 1,078 receptions; 15,934 yards; 156 TDs

Harrison-13 years; 1,102 receptions; 14,580 yards; 128 TDs

One a complete loner who often wouldn't even go into team huddles, the other invites the young WRs on the team to live and train with him in the off-season. One of them has thrown almost all his QBs under the bus, the other played with one of the best of all time. One of them has never had a serious issue with the law, the other....curiously involved in a fatal shooting.

TO hands down. More yardage on fewer catches and more TD's. One thing you can't deny TO is he got in the end zone better than anyone that's ever played except a couple of players.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by freddyg12

NO!
I can't believe that everyone thinks TO is a hall of famer. If the guy was that good why did 3 teams get rid of him in his prime?

I know, he's got the #s & on the field was great - at times. But to paraphrase Herm Edwards, if the point is to win the game, TO did almost as much to bring his teams down as he did to win games. Should that behavior be discounted just because he made a lot of plays? No, he ultimately was not a winner. Every time his team got close to winning big, he divided the team. His super bowl game exemplifies this; he had a great game, then throws his qb under the bus. The damage was too much to repair in the next season.

Job Performance = your behavior in any manner associated w/your employer & fellow employees.
TO's job performance was great at times, horrendos at others. Don't mistake my point for "off field" issues, different subject altogether. When you talk about your teamates & throw tantrums on the sideline, that is part of what your evaluated on as an employee. TO never carried himself like a hall of famer & will likely end his career like Allen Iverson, w/nobody wanting him.

Cause the guy's a major pain in the ass. He pisses off everyone to the point where his talent doesn't even matter.

[SmootSmack]

T.O. probably spoke the truth more often than not. Unfortunately, speaking the truth does not often make a good teammate

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by freddyg12

Actually it did, 3 teams thought so! I won't even count Buffalo, as he was old when he left there. I'll give TO credit for what he's done & I think he should be considered for the hall, but when you analyze his career, he did as much damage to his teams as he did good. Isn't the point of the game to help the team win? By that standard, TO did negate his on-field performance because his employers decided that letting him go was 'addition by subtraction.'

If you want to say the hall is ONLY about career stats, then by that standard, yes, he's got the #s. I would hate it if the hall simply became only about that.

Well some people that know a hell of a lot more football than you and I believe the HOF should focus on stats; and believe TO is a HOF'er. I'm just going by what they are saying.

Once again, I agree with some of the things that you are saying, but it is hard to ignore his numbers and how his performance on the field impacted the play of those teams. The HOF voters will make him sweat a year, but he will eventually get in.

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

Cause the guy's a major pain in the ass. He pisses off everyone to the point where his talent doesn't even matter.

Finally, a voice of reason! Second sentence sums it up - thanks!