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

[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.

[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."

[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

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 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.

And that's why people in the media shouldn't vote. The people voting should be made up of former players and coaches. If that was the case Monk would've got in asap. Sports writers (like Peter King) have no business voting on the HOF. I'll never forget Peter King saying Danny Weurfel would be the next Kurt Warner. What an idiot.

[dmek25]

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."

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

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by dmek25

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.