The HOF Voting Process is a Sham...The Terrell Owens Omission is Insane

[onedrop]

On paper Owen's deserves to be in but I'm glad he didn't make it. He was a loud mouth, me first and second and third type of douche that deserves what he gets. His dumb ass never realized or saw it coming that the money, fame and accolades wouldn't last forever and then.....suddenly.....it's all gone.....

 

Good, shouldn't have been a jerk off to absolutely everyone. Suffer and live with it. You know what they say....

 

Be careful whose heads you step on going up because  you might be kissing their same asses on the way back down.

[Fergasun]

WR is hard to judge... I trust Football Outsiders and the rankings, statistical, fluctuate from year to year.  Advanced stats actually.  

 

When I look at the same years, Rice, Irvin, Moss are the 3 that pop out to me... Owens is up there too.  

 

One WR overlooked is Henry Ellard, also Keenan McCardell.

 

Recently it has been Megatron as consistent.  But one name that jumped out too was Colston... 

[Vilandil Tasardur]

Owens is probably a top 5 receiver to ever play the game.

 

There was a stretch there where he, Randy Moss, and Marvin Harrison were doing unprecedented things (though Harrison doing it with Manning, but I don't hold that against him). 

 

And unlike today's NFL, where Chris Hogan can go off for a 150 yard game in the AFCCG, in the late 90s and early 2000s it still meant something to put up those stats. It's the same argument I have when comparing Manning's stats to Favre's stats. Manning is mildly better, but Manning played in an era where you through 40 times again. Favre played half of his career in an era where you hoped not to throw more than 30.

 

Owens belongs in, without any sort of question. Now, he'll get in eventually, but it was still a dirty move.

 

And that's not even getting into the crime that is "Hall of Very Good" players like Warner and Taylor getting into the HOF. Next thing we know McNabb will be in the Hall. Gross. My brother tried to tell me that Warner gets in because those "greatest show on turf" teams "changed the game". By that logic, Doug Williams should be in (and I don't think he should be).

 

For me, it's simple. Were you no worse than top 3-5 at your position for the majority of the years you played. If not, move on. Hall of very good...

[GhostofSparta]

2 hours ago, Vilandil Tasardur said:

By that logic, Doug Williams should be in (and I don't think he should be).

Here's where I'd disagree with you. I think there should be 2 reasons a player gets into the HOF:

1. They were, without question, one of the best players of their era.

2. Those players who, while maybe not the best, are famous (Hall of FAME, after all) for making an outstanding contribution to changing the game.

 

Group #1 can be the stats guys. The GOAT arguments. The one you break down by stats, awards, peer opinion, etc. "Who's better, Owen or Ocho? How does Brees stack up to Favre and Manning?" And these are often the guys that you have to look at in their particular era. Of course Sid Luckman never came close to Brady's numbers, they played 70 years apart. But Luckman was by far a top 3 QB of his era.

 

Group #2 is where you make the argument for people that we love to argue don't deserve to be in the Hall because of raw numbers, but you can make a legitimate case they belong for other reasons. For all the hate over Namath being in the Hall, he's one of the biggest reasons for the NFL-AFL merger, which was a huge moment in league history. Doug Williams doesn't have the numbers that other Hall QBs have, but I still think his SB performance against the Broncos gives him a reason to be in. 1st black QB to win, 1st time overcoming a 10 pt deficit to win the SB, 35 pts in a quarter (not in the game, 35 points in 15 minutes!), etc.

 

I think the HoF needs that kind of balance. You need a way to honor both the unquestionable greats, as well as the important figures who deserve recognition for changing the game, even if they were never the best of their era.

 

As for the current discussion, I think TO will get in eventually because of his inclusion in group #1. He was, statistically, a great WR for his era. Not the best, but near the top.

[RonArtest15]

Out of the WRs I've seen in my life time, my top-3 goes:

 

Rice

Moss

Owens

 

If we're going strictly on talent, then Moss tops that list...but off of production, it's crazy how Owens has to wait, and we'll probably be doing the same for Randy Moss.  It's unreal. 

 

[Vilandil Tasardur]

56 minutes ago, GhostofSparta said:

Here's where I'd disagree with you. I think there should be 2 reasons a player gets into the HOF:

1. They were, without question, one of the best players of their era.

2. Those players who, while maybe not the best, are famous (Hall of FAME, after all) for making an outstanding contribution to changing the game.

 

Group #1 can be the stats guys. The GOAT arguments. The one you break down by stats, awards, peer opinion, etc. "Who's better, Owen or Ocho? How does Brees stack up to Favre and Manning?" And these are often the guys that you have to look at in their particular era. Of course Sid Luckman never came close to Brady's numbers, they played 70 years apart. But Luckman was by far a top 3 QB of his era.

 

Group #2 is where you make the argument for people that we love to argue don't deserve to be in the Hall because of raw numbers, but you can make a legitimate case they belong for other reasons. For all the hate over Namath being in the Hall, he's one of the biggest reasons for the NFL-AFL merger, which was a huge moment in league history. Doug Williams doesn't have the numbers that other Hall QBs have, but I still think his SB performance against the Broncos gives him a reason to be in. 1st black QB to win, 1st time overcoming a 10 pt deficit to win the SB, 35 pts in a quarter (not in the game, 35 points in 15 minutes!), etc.

 

I think the HoF needs that kind of balance. You need a way to honor both the unquestionable greats, as well as the important figures who deserve recognition for changing the game, even if they were never the best of their era.

 

As for the current discussion, I think TO will get in eventually because of his inclusion in group #1. He was, statistically, a great WR for his era. Not the best, but near the top.

I can get behind this kind of thing in theory. I'm not a HUGE fan of group number 2 only because I think that's how you get guys like Swann in. But I'm at least open to the idea. I don't think Williams is a hall of famer, but I'd have the conversation. Personally, I think the argument is better made about how he brought those Tampa teams into relevance. I don't much care what he did statistically in the super bowl, Redskins fans know better than any that you can have a flukey awesome super bowl (though I of course recognize the significance of being the first black QB to go and win).

 

But I think my overall point is that, we can debate about whether guys from category 2 are worthy or not. But category 1 really ought to just be shoe-ins. TO was top 3 at his position for a decade. Warner was not. If Marvin Harrison is in, TO should be in. It's just that simple. 

 

The harder question comes to guys like Curtis Martin, who basically did nothing their entire careers except unspectacularly accumulate stats during the regular season. Wasn't he like 6 on the all time list when he retired? Hard to keep him out, but was he a top 3 back in the league for large stretches of time? I'd probably put him in but that's a tough one for me. He rather feels like a Matt Stafford of running backs. 

[ncr2h]

5 hours ago, Vilandil Tasardur said:

And unlike today's NFL, where Chris Hogan can go off for a 150 yard game in the AFCCG, in the late 90s and early 2000s it still meant something to put up those stats. It's the same argument I have when comparing Manning's stats to Favre's stats. Manning is mildly better, but Manning played in an era where you through 40 times again. Favre played half of his career in an era where you hoped not to throw more than 30.

 

Owens belongs in, without any sort of question. Now, he'll get in eventually, but it was still a dirty move.

 

You can adjust players' numbers for the eras they played in.  Basically, figure out the average stat line across all QBs in a given year, and see how much a given QB deviated from the average in either direction each given year.  Profootballreference has this in a readily available format called "Advanced Passing" (I don't think they have an equivalent for rushing/receiving/defense, but you can get a good sense of that via where the player ranked in a given year in terms of yards, TDs, INTs, etc.).

 

I was looking at Favre's stats today, and they're actually fairly pedestrian for a guy with his reputation.  For simplicity, let's focus solely on the Adjusted Net Yards per Attempt stat ("ANY/A+"), which rewards QBs for high Y/A and TDs, but punishes for sacks and interceptions.  In short, a higher ANY/A generally means a more efficient QB.  In general, an ANY/A+ of 100 indicates average NFL QB play, 110+ indicates above average, 120+ indicates Pro Bowl level, and 130+ is generally All Pro / MVP caliber.

 

Here are Favre's seasons ranked by ANY/A+ (* indicates that he was selected to the Pro Bowl):

1.  1995 - 130*

2.  2001 - 125*

3.  2009 - 123*

4.  1996 - 121*

5.  2007 - 121*

6.  1997 - 120*

7.  2004 - 119

8.  1994 - 111

9.  1998 - 110

10. 2002 - 107*

11. 2003 - 107*

12. 1992 - 106*

13. 2000 - 102

14. 1999 - 100

15. 2006 - 97

16. 2008 - 92*

17. 1993 - 90*

18. 2005 - 88

19. 2010 - 86

 

In summary, of Favre's 19 seasons, approximately 9 were Pro Bowl worthy performances, 4 were pretty bad, and the other 7 were above average.  He had 1 year where he played at an MVP level.  For reference, Kirk "should we extend him?" Cousins already has 2 seasons that would place in the top 7 Favre seasons by ANY/A+.  Kirk's interception-laden 2014 campaign would grade out as a top 10 Favre season by this metric.  At least 5 of Favre's 11 Pro Bowl selections were likely undeserved, including 2 different seasons (2008 and 1993) where he somehow made the Pro Bowl while simultaneously had at least as many INTs as TDs and led the league in INTs.

 

By contrast, here are Peyton Manning's top 5 seasons:

 

1. 2004 - 153

2. 2013 - 139

3. 2006 - 131

4. 2005 - 130

5. 2000 - 127

 

Just 6 of Manning's 17 seasons had a lower ANY/A+ than 120, whereas Favre was below 120 in all but 6 of his seasons.

 

Obviously, this is just one stat, it's regular season only, etc. but I think it's pretty clear that Manning's numbers weren't just incomparable to Favre's because they played in two different eras, but also because Manning was in another league than Favre.  Manning was an all-time great, potentially the greatest of all time.  Favre is not in that conversation - he was sort of like Art Monk in that he had a few elite years but his HOF credentials are based mainly on his longevity.

[Vilandil Tasardur]

1 hour ago, ncr2h said:

 

 

Obviously, this is just one stat, it's regular season only, etc. but I think it's pretty clear that Manning's numbers weren't just incomparable to Favre's because they played in two different eras, but also because Manning was in another league than Favre.  Manning was an all-time great, potentially the greatest of all time.  Favre is not in that conversation - he was sort of like Art Monk in that he had a few elite years but his HOF credentials are based mainly on his longevity.

That's a lot of cool data (I'm a data guy). I'm going to be honest in that I only kind of understand how your formula adjusts for era though. I get that by making everything based on attempts you are correcting for the fact that teams throw much more than they used to. But I think that leaves out that passing touchdowns are a MUCH higher percentage of total team touchdowns.

 

In 2016, the top 5 teams in terms of total touchdowns looks like this:

Rk	Team	G	Pts/G	TotPts	Total	Rsh	Rec	Ret	Def
1	Atlanta Falcons	16	33.8	540	63	20	38	0	5
2	New Orleans Saints	16	29.3	469	55	17	38	0	0
3	Arizona Cardinals	16	26.1	418	51	20	28	0	3
3	Green Bay Packers	16	27	432	51	11	40	0	0
3	New England Patriots	16	27.6	441	51	19	32	0	0

 

 

Total, of those top 5, 33% of the ofensive touchdowns scored were running touchdowns. 

 

20 years ago, that looks like this:

1	Denver Broncos	16	29.5	472	55	18	27	3	7
2	Green Bay Packers	16	26.4	422	50	9	35	0	6
3	Cincinnati Bengals	16	22.2	355	46	23	21	1	1
4	Pittsburgh Steelers	16	23.2	372	44	19	22	1	2
5	Detroit Lions	16	23.7	379	43	19	19	0	5

 

Here, that is 41% (though will observe that the year before, 1996, the number was the same at 33%, and the difference is probably Terrell Davis). 

 

None of this is meant to diminish Peyton (though I think he's overrated, he's obviously a top 5-7 all time). But Peyton played 18 seasons (17 if you count only when he was healthy) and Favre played 20 (19 if you don't count Atlanta). In that time, they have essentially identical yards and touchdowns, despite Manning having 3 seasons in Denver in an era where throwing 35+ touchdowns was looked at as "meh". When Favre threw 38 touchdowns in 1995 it was Marino-esque. 

[ncr2h]

That would all wash out because Peyton Manning in year X is being compared to other QBs in year X, and Brett Favre in year Y is being compared to other QBs in year Y.  So the stats show that Manning outperformed his peers to a much larger degree than Favre did.  Favre was an above average QB for most of his career and an elite QB for several years.  Manning was an elite QB for most of his career and an above average QB for several years.  Perhaps you could try arguing that Favre's peer group was better than Manning's, but I think the opposite is probably true - Manning outperformed other NFL QBs in an era with all-time greats like Brady and Brees as well as a handful of potential HOFers (and near HOFers) like Favre, Warner, Rivers, Roethlisberger, McNabb, Romo, etc. who are all significantly better than the mid-level QBs of the mid-to-late 90s.

 

Also, I think TD numbers didn't really start going off the charts until 2009.  For example, in 2004, Manning led the league with 49 TDs (on less than 500 attempts!).  In 2004, just 15 QBs passed for 20+ TDs, compared to 12 QBs in 1995.  That's not very significant inflation.  In 2005, just 1 QB surpassed 30 TDs, and only 11 had at least 20.  It was even worse in 2006.  So the TD bonanza phenomenon happened only in the later portion of Manning's career.  Manning's 49 TDs in 2004 was more impressive than Favre's 38 and 39 in the mid-90s.  Manning's TD percentage that year was 9.9% - no QB in the modern era has come even close to that.

[Rufus T Firefly]

3 hours ago, Vilandil Tasardur said:

When Favre threw 38 touchdowns in 1995 it was Marino-esque. 

That's, at best, a huge stretch. Favre had 38 TDs and the second placed passer had 33. When Marino threw 48, the second placed passer had 32. When he had 44, second place was 25.

 

Manning having 55 when second best was 39 is magnitudes more impressive (in this category) than anything Favre ever did.

[Vilandil Tasardur]

I think you both make fair points. And really, I think you're both arguing what I think has been my stance all along (but poorly articulated). That, at face value, they have similar stats and similar longevity, despite the "eye test" telling you that Manning is a top 3 QB and Favre was just a top 10 QB. I think you guys are starting to tease out why that is. 

 

I still think though, that if you retire as the best statistical player at the position, you are a sure fire first ballot HOFer regardless. The eye test tells us that Favre wasn't the best QB to ever play the game. That's fine. But he retired as the most accomplished passer (rings not withstanding). Which is why he gets in first ballot. Like Ghost's categories above. The "stats" guys have to get in. You can't be left out if you are top 3-5 in every major category when you retire, even if the "eye test" tells you something different. It's why the Monk wait is such a travesty. 

 

It's the category 2 guys that I think are up for debate. And no one will ever convince me that Kurt Warner was any different from say Phillip Rivers or Carson Palmer with more HOFers around him. 

[Rufus T Firefly]

Is someone saying Favre isn't a first ballot HOFer? Because if so, I'm on your side for sure. 

 

But there are several QBs who outclass Favre and so he doesn't get in my conversation for best ever.

[jphilly]

people complaining how a kicker gets in over Owens   nice little stats . TO will get in he just has to wait . With not a lot of Post seasons it hurts him big time .  Hell  Dawkins did not get in ...... Dawk  should of been fo sho  

 

Morton Anderson:

7x Pro Bowl
6x First Team All Pro
All Decade team for the 1980's
All Decade team for the 1990's
.797 FG percentage (565/709)
.988 PAT percentage (849/859)

Terrell Owens:

6x Pro Bowl
5x First Team All Pro
All Decade second team 2000's

 

 

[Mr. Sinister]

Definitely a a first ballot HOF talent. One of my top 3 wr all time. Never was arrested or anything. Not a bad guy off the field.

 

But the HOF doesn't exclude bad guys off the field. The HOF is the ultimate separation of church and state, if you will.

 

TO, I'm sorry, was a pariah of the highest order, on the field, and in the locker room. Being a diva WR is one thing. Being tough to deal with is one thing. Even being even a little unhinged is one thing.

 

He took it to another level, though. Whiny **** team destroyer. Teammate of the ABSOLUTE worst kind. In that vein, he disrespected the game of football

 

But because his talent was undeniable, he always had his followers, who were willing to look past his crap, which made him Ultra divisive, being ultimately a net negative on every team he played for, and it's the same with people in the media defending him. Amazing how many of them do not get it. It's not difficult at all to fathom why he's not in

 

I'm glad the HOF is finally taking a stand. And I I totally did not know that his was his second year. I thought it was his first. Years ago I felt that he was not going to be inducted first ballot, but would be the second time.

 

But I totally get it, when this petulant loser criticizes OTHER players who get in, going so far as to basically call Marvin Harrison a murderer, and, even in retirement, continuing to be a prick and disrespectful to the game and the HOF itself (seriously, wtf), I hope he NEVER gets in

 

There are more deserving players (cough, Jacoby) who have been waiting for DECADES, and this fool is whining after just his second year.  Clearly this does define him, because in his victim warped mind, it's someone else who said or did a bad thing to him.

 

Here's a tip. Stop being a jackass. Show some ****ing respect for the game, the HOF, and it's enshrined (who are the ones that welcome you into that sacred told). That's all you have to do.  But he CAN'T do it, because of all the things the HOF stands for outside of stats, it's all a foreign concept to him.

 

Congrats to the HOF. Despite my disdain at how they've handled things before (most notably the ridiculous exclusion of Art Monk, just because he didn't talk to the media)... They got this one right.

[ncr2h]

He's the anti Calvin Johnson.

 

Johnson had once in a lifetime physical attributes, but padded his stats on awful teams that were constantly playing from behind and despite all that, still has a relatively weak HOF resume (just 3x All Pro, 5x Pro Bowl).  But he was a nice guy.  He'll probably get in (maybe first ballot?  that would be funny).  Oh, and he had a great playoff performance in a blowout loss to the Saints.

 

Terrell Owens had 3rd round talent, but worked his way up into the NFL's elite, and then spent the bulk of his career as the best offensive player on a bunch of winning teams, and has a HOF resume (5x All Pro, 6x Pro Bowl) that is arguably better than any current HOFer's except Jerry Rice.  But he was a meanie.  And let's also punish him for not blowing our socks off in the playoff games that he was constantly in, but not punish Johnson for never being in the playoffs.

 

He was a bad teammate.  And Calvin Johnson was a good teammate.  But Owens being a bad teammate never seemed to result in 0-16 seasons.  In fact, Owens was such a bad teammate that he had fewer losing seasons than Johnson despite playing an additional 6 years in the league, and one of those losing seasons (Philly 2005) has a huge asterisk (the Eagles were 4-3 with TO and 2-7 without, and he was on pace for 1750 yards and 13 TDs).

[onedrop]

1 hour ago, ncr2h said:

He's the anti Calvin Johnson.

 

Johnson had once in a lifetime physical attributes, but padded his stats on awful teams that were constantly playing from behind and despite all that, still has a relatively weak HOF resume (just 3x All Pro, 5x Pro Bowl).  But he was a nice guy.  He'll probably get in (maybe first ballot?  that would be funny).  Oh, and he had a great playoff performance in a blowout loss to the Saints.

 

Terrell Owens had 3rd round talent, but worked his way up into the NFL's elite, and then spent the bulk of his career as the best offensive player on a bunch of winning teams, and has a HOF resume (5x All Pro, 6x Pro Bowl) that is arguably better than any current HOFer's except Jerry Rice.  But he was a meanie.  And let's also punish him for not blowing our socks off in the playoff games that he was constantly in, but not punish Johnson for never being in the playoffs.

 

He was a bad teammate.  And Calvin Johnson was a good teammate.  But Owens being a bad teammate never seemed to result in 0-16 seasons.  In fact, Owens was such a bad teammate that he had fewer losing seasons than Johnson despite playing an additional 6 years in the league, and one of those losing seasons (Philly 2005) has a huge asterisk (the Eagles were 4-3 with TO and 2-7 without, and he was on pace for 1750 yards and 13 TDs).

exactly what does calvin johnson have to do with owens not making into the HOF and some of us enjoying that fact? 

[Wildbunny]

On 06/02/2017 at 1:55 PM, RonArtest15 said:

156 TDs, 1078 catches, 15934 yards....but not HOF worthy.  LOL.  What a joke. 

Well if he had those 1078 catches out of 4532 targets. I would say not HoF worthy yeah...

 

Honestly, don't care much about him not being in the HoF, as Sinister said, he used to killed a few teams where he went. Which is bad when it comes to enshrinment to me.

 

Now, I do have a problem when they decide to put some guys out like Jacoby or Owens, to enshrine someone like Taylor as a 1st ballot HoF... That's what gets me mad...

[Taylor 36]

I get that some people believe that actions off the field shouldn't be used to determine HOF eligibility; however, his treatment of coaches and teammates on the sidelines, in the locker rooms, and in the media have a direct correlation on him as a player.  Were not talking off the field issues that have nothing to do with football.  His antics and actions and choices to tear teams apart in several stops most certainly are valid points for the voters to consider, because they are football related.  If guys are going to get votes due to how much they helped their team and made teammates better, a guy like TO should fairly lose votes by the way he hurt a few of his teams and tore down and divided his teammates. 

[Bozo the kKklown]

On 2/6/2017 at 6:37 PM, SkinsGuy said:

 

Yes, but "PrimeTime" never insinuated in a national magazine that a one-time teammate of his was gay the way Owens did with a one-time QB on the 49ers (Jeff Garcia):

 

http://www.espn.com/nfl/news/story?id=1856715

 

That could've been really damaging to Garcia, especially with all the machismo that flows in NFL locker rooms. That was a ****ly thing to do.

 

Owens belongs in the HoF, but I won't cry any tears for him while he plays the waiting game. The guy can be a world-class jerk.

Jeff Garcia is a millionaire because of Terrell Owens.

 

Owens should be in the hall of fame. One, we don't know if TO was really bad locker room guy. We also don't know if the guys in the hall of fame were good locker room guys.

 

The Hall of Fame seems to dislike WRs too. It's disgusting. You have actual bad people in the hall of fame. TO wasn't a media favorite or a guy old time football players liked and he not in. Absolute joke and makes the pro football hall of fame look even more invalid.

[onedrop]

7 hours ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Jeff Garcia is a millionaire because of Terrell Owens.

 

Owens should be in the hall of fame. One, we don't know if TO was really bad locker room guy. We also don't know if the guys in the hall of fame were good locker room guys.

 

The Hall of Fame seems to dislike WRs too. It's disgusting. You have actual bad people in the hall of fame. TO wasn't a media favorite or a guy old time football players liked and he not in. Absolute joke and makes the pro football hall of fame look even more invalid.

Yes, we do. Anyone old enough to remember his career knows it, it's a fact like the sky is blue and water is wet. It's exactly why TO wasn't immediately/more prominently featured in broadcasting and also why he didn't make it into the hall yet. 

[SkinsGuy]

11 hours ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Jeff Garcia is a millionaire because of Terrell Owens.

 

 

Garcia is a millionaire (or however much money he has now) because of his own hard work. Not because of Owens and his big mouth.

 

Owens will probably make it to the Hall of Fame........ someday.

 

And I really couldn't care less.

[Bozo the kKklown]

5 hours ago, onedrop said:

Yes, we do. Anyone old enough to remember his career knows it, it's a fact like the sky is blue and water is wet. It's exactly why TO wasn't immediately/more prominently featured in broadcasting and also why he didn't make it into the hall yet. 

no we dont.

 

I say that because many more people have come out over the years to defend TO. 

 

Even Donovan McNabb says he should be in the HOF. 

 

We also don't know if the guys in the HOF were all pristine locker room guys.

 

TO not being in broadcasting has nothing to do with his playing career and everything to do with the media being the media, so miss me with that.

29 minutes ago, SkinsGuy said:

 

Garcia is a millionaire (or however much money he has now) because of his own hard work. Not because of Owens and his big mouth.

 

Owens will probably make it to the Hall of Fame........ someday.

 

And I really couldn't care less.

Garcia is a millionaire because of Terrell Eldorado Owens.  He worked hard in getting the ball into Owens' hands and teams having to gameplan around Owens.

 

When you start making posts that makes it seem like Garcia's success was independent of Owens, then this is the portion where people have lost complete grip with reality.

[onedrop]

24 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

no we dont.

 

I say that because many more people have come out over the years to defend TO. 

 

Even Donovan McNabb says he should be in the HOF. 

 

We also don't know if the guys in the HOF were all pristine locker room guys.

 

TO not being in broadcasting has nothing to do with his playing career and everything to do with the media being the media, so miss me with that.

Garcia is a millionaire because of Terrell Eldorado Owens.  He worked hard in getting the ball into Owens' hands and teams having to gameplan around Owens.

 

When you start making posts that makes it seem like Garcia's success was independent of Owens, then this is the portion where people have lost complete grip with reality.

i was talking about TO, not people actually IN the HOF, deserved or not. what people have done after the fact has nothing to do with the actual fact. and that fact is that TO was a pain in the ass, diva WR with immense skill known during his tenure in the NFL for being a cancer.

 

i also do not care what mcnugget said. i myself said TO's stats are good enough, his behavior is what has kept him out thus far.

 

beloved superstars with million watt smiles are generally given an immediate chance to go into some form of broadcasting upon retirement. TO wasnt afforded as many chances earlier because of his attitude and proclivity for not just burning bridges but straight up bombing the **** out of them. remember, during his career his behavior at times was so erratic is was suggested he had mental health issues. not making light of this just pointing out what happened and why it effects the now.

[SkinsGuy]

48 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Garcia is a millionaire because of Terrell Eldorado Owens.  He worked hard in getting the ball into Owens' hands and teams having to gameplan around Owens.

 

When you start making posts that makes it seem like Garcia's success was independent of Owens, then this is the portion where people have lost complete grip with reality.

 

No Garcia got where he was because he worked hard as a QB.

 

What point are you trying to make here with your posts? That because Garcia's success was because of Owens, Garcia shouldn't have a problem with Owens going around telling people he was gay?

 

What the hell kind of reasoning is that? You sound ridiculous.

[Taylor 36]

13 hours ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Jeff Garcia is a millionaire because of Terrell Owens.

 

Actually, Garcia has a couple of great years, including a Pro Bowl season, after he and TO parted ways.  He had his best completion percentage seasons in 2007 and 2008 (He and Owens both left SF after 2003).  As a matter of fact, not counting his last season as a pro, when he didn't have a single start the entire season and only entered one game late, all of his seasons without TO were comparable stats wise to his five seasons with him.  The TD's aren't as high, but he didn't play a full 16 game season after 2002, but his TD percentages were still on par with his San Fran days, and he played on some bad teams during that stretch (Cleveland, Detroit, and Tampa Bay) which makes it even more impressive.

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/G/GarcJe00.htm 

 

TO, on the other hand, had four of his top five receptions and yard seasons with Garcia as his QB, and three of his top six TD reception seasons were with Garcia as his QB.  Owens also ranks in the top 10 of most dropped passes by a WR, so there is that stat to keep in mind.

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/O/OwenTe00.htm