Terrell Owens Declined His Invitation to the Pro Football Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

3 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

Agreed - I have heard the media guys talk while the Bills were getting inducted and it covered more than just the on the field stuff.  I do not remember ever hearing about things away from the game being talked about, but things like player interactions, media interactions, along with the playmaking.

 

My guess is that individual voters take each thing into consideration and some parts weigh more heavily on some voters than others.  May not be totally fair, but the voters are human and if you treat them like dirt - that colors their opinion long term.

 

...any idea RF as to why voters' votes remain anonymous?.....what's the big secret?......hell, even publish their comments/reasoning.......there would be one helluva media frenzy dissecting the entire mess which could be a cash cow tripling the sales of some of these rag publications out there......Boy Scout popcorn sales would be through the roof.....as would Bourbon...

[Rochesterfan]

Just now, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

...any idea RF as to why voters' votes remain anonymous?.....what's the big secret?......hell, even publish their comments/reasoning.......there would be one helluva media frenzy dissecting the entire mess which could be a cash cow tripling the sales of some of these rag publications out there......Boy Scout popcorn sales would be through the roof.....as would Bourbon...

 

None - other than can you imagine the backlash in today’s twitterverse.  

 

I think they they should all be required to provide the exact card they are voting from and then be asked to account for their decisions.  I believe that many of these media members that are on good terms with each other make agreements to help so and so this year and I will help your guy next year.

 

Ideally they would make it more transparent and allow scrutiny of the process, but alas they are mostly a bunch of keyboard jockeys that prefer to spew venom than answer for their decision- that is my opinion.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

Just now, Rochesterfan said:

 

None - other than can you imagine the backlash in today’s twitterverse.  

 

I think they they should all be required to provide the exact card they are voting from and then be asked to account for their decisions.  I believe that many of these media members that are on good terms with each other make agreements to help so and so this year and I will help your guy next year.

 

Ideally they would make it more transparent and allow scrutiny of the process, but alas they are mostly a bunch of keyboard jockeys that prefer to spew venom than answer for their decision- that is my opinion.

...slam dunk response from the best..........

[SouthNYfan]

15 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

Agreed - I have heard the media guys talk while the Bills were getting inducted and it covered more than just the on the field stuff.  I do not remember ever hearing about things away from the game being talked about, but things like player interactions, media interactions, along with the playmaking.

 

My guess is that individual voters take each thing into consideration and some parts weigh more heavily on some voters than others.  May not be totally fair, but the voters are human and if you treat them like dirt - that colors their opinion long term.

 

He was also suspended by multiple teams for conduct detrimental to the team.  He missed over 1/2 a season due to team initiated suspensions because of that attitude.

 

That has to say something to these guys that are making a decision - a team like Philadelphia decide after 2 years into a five year deal (with half of one of those seasons spent on the suspended list due to comments and fighting team leaders) that the team was better off without him.

 

All of those things need to and should be taken into account.

 

All fair points.

 

1 minute ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

None - other than can you imagine the backlash in today’s twitterverse.  

 

I think they they should all be required to provide the exact card they are voting from and then be asked to account for their decisions.  I believe that many of these media members that are on good terms with each other make agreements to help so and so this year and I will help your guy next year.

 

Ideally they would make it more transparent and allow scrutiny of the process, but alas they are mostly a bunch of keyboard jockeys that prefer to spew venom than answer for their decision- that is my opinion.

 

I agree with this.

If you're voting for or against somebody over somebody else, say why.

Same with MVP voting.

There was a year LeBron clearly should have had unanimous MVP, but some jagoff writer who hated him voted for somebody else, when everybody on the planet was like 'Uh seriously?'

[Rochesterfan]

15 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

All fair points.

 

 

I agree with this.

If you're voting for or against somebody over somebody else, say why.

Same with MVP voting.

There was a year LeBron clearly should have had unanimous MVP, but some jagoff writer who hated him voted for somebody else, when everybody on the planet was like 'Uh seriously?'

 

Definitely- I think Baseball is even worse than Football for these types of votes, but if you are going to be on the committee- then be open about it.  You have some writers that treat it like a joke - I believe it was Lebatard that was willing to allow a fan to fill out his Hall of Fame ballot.  That is the kind of junk that ruins the integrity of the vote.

 

 

[Golden Goat]

57 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

Your initial responses very much seemed to imply that LT was worthy first ballot and TO was not.

If that was not your intent, then it was misread by me.

TO's "big mouth and attitude" shouldn't be held against him, since the NFL HoF committee has said that they only use on field performance, and nothing else, to determine who gets in.

 

The chargers were 44-18 from 2006-2009, the first 4 years of Rivers starting, with their receivers being Antonio Gates (TE), Vincent Jackson, Keenan McCardell (aging at this point), Chris Chambers (aging but still decent), Malcolm Floyd

Tomlinson's backups were Sproles and Turner.

They were pretty stacked on offense.

This is an educated comment.

 

I'm not trying to knock LT, and I fully believe he was a first ballot HoF, which if I implied or stated otherwise was not what I meant.

 

I omitted the seasons played just because I did, I wasn't really paying much attention to those, having said that, yes Tomlinson did play less seasons than TO, and TO missed most of a season mid career due to an injury. All in all he played about 50 less games than TO, so yeah, he an omission I should have included (I was working it all out on my phone earlier while waiting for my car to get serviced)

Learning from HoF players is definitely big, and I believe TO benefited from that greatly, so you are correct there.

I never said TO was on trash teams, but you did make a notion that Tomlinson was on pretty crappy teams most of his career, which was just not true, but early on he did produce great numbers, but he also had great receivers and a pretty solid QB in Brees, with Gates, David Boston (not terrible), and a couple of other solid receivers in there as well.

He was on a pretty stacked offense his entire career in SD, although he was one of the things stacking it to be sure.

 

I initially wasn't comparing TO to players of other positions, I was merely saying that he was an all time great at his position, top #3-5, and should have been first ballot.

Somebody asked who was inducted in 2016 and 2017 who TO was more deserving than, and I was stating the players who were inducted those years.

I would say him and LT are on par with each other after a little more scrutiny about it, in terms of relation to their peers at their positions, so we can call him a wash.

Jason Taylor, Marvin Harisson are two I can say he should have been over without a doubt, plus the others I listed.

I'll give you LT as an equal in relation to his peers.

 

Very well crafted reply. Thank you for taking the time. (I mean that).

Absolutely no knock on TO (the player) whatsoever, and I don't think his attitude should have had any bearing on him being or not being a first-ballot HOFer. My comment there was more about the fact that his coaches kept getting tired of his antics and shipping him off, killing the type of long-term coaching and QB chemistry that helped define some of the other greats (Montanta/Young to Rice, Manning to Harrison, and pretty much any other elite receiver before free agency as we know it began in ’92). To his credit, Owens still put up gaudy numbers. My sense is they would have been a lot higher with more stability, and he could have been the greatest receiver ever.

 

Owens, Tomlinson and Taylor were all ridiculously talented and should have been first-ballot no-brainers. (I had told my nose while typing that about Taylor because he was a Dolphin. I find solace in the fact that for as good as Taylor was, he was not Bruce Smith).

 

<< I would say him and LT are on par with each other after a little more scrutiny about it, in terms of relation to their peers at their positions, so we can call him a wash. >>
 

Agreed. ?

 

 

Edited June 9, 2018 by Golden Goat

[SouthNYfan]

25 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

Definitely- I think Baseball is even worse than Football for these types of votes, but if you are going to be on the committee- then be open about it.  You have some writers that treat it like a joke - I believe it was Lebatard that was willing to allow a fan to fill out his Hall of Fame ballot.  That is the kind of junk that ruins the integrity of the vote.

 

 

 

Agreed 100%.

Look at baseball with the PED's.

I remember a few years back when they were making the case for testing, they had every player take the test, but the results would be held anon, and if a high enough number tested positive that would initiate the new rules, and it was quite a large # that came up positive.

Those tests were supposed to be sealed, but crazy, a couple of the names "leaked" out, even though it was a US Federal Supreme Court ruling that it remain sealed and anon.

Now those guys are going to be shunned when MLB HoF voting comes up, and while they probably should be, what about the guys who weren't leaked?

Is it fair that they get in even though they tested positive, just because some dingbat didn't want to release their name too, since maybe he was a fan?

The voting is all a crock of sh*t.

 

19 minutes ago, Golden Goat said:

 

Very well crafted reply. Thank you for taking the time. (I mean that).

Absolutely no knock on TO (the player) whatsoever, and I don't think his attitude should have had any bearing on him being or not being a first-ballot HOFer. My comment there was more about the fact that his coaches kept getting tired of his antics and shipping him off, killing the type of long-term coaching and QB chemistry that helped define some of the other greats (Montanta/Young to Rice, Manning to Harrison, and pretty much any other elite receiver before free agency as we know it began in ’92). To his credit, Owens still put up gaudy numbers. My sense is they would have been a lot higher with more stability, and he could have been the greatest receiver ever.

 

Owens, Tomlinson and Taylor were all ridiculously talented and should have been first-ballot no-brainers. (I had told my nose while typing that about Taylor because he was a Dolphin. I find solace in the fact that for as good as Taylor was, he was not Bruce Smith).

 

<< I would say him and LT are on par with each other after a little more scrutiny about it, in terms of relation to their peers at their positions, so we can call him a wash. >>
 

Agreed. ?

 

 

 

Yeah, Taylor was pretty awesome, I just wasn't sure if he was a no-brainer first ballot, but if you want to look at it the other way, if he and LT were first ballot, then I feel TO should have been also, in respect to his peers at the position.

 

Anyway, I also agree on the QB-WR connection issue.

Even in his time in SF, TO went through two QBs (aging Young into Garcia) followed by McNabb, then Romo, then Fitz/Edwards pu-pu platter ( I mean the guy had like 100+ receptions and 850+ yards with fitz and edwards throwing to him...)

I can't even imagine the #'s he would have had if he was with Montana-Young his whole career (similar to rice, who only went to oakland at the end, with gannon), or somebody like Manning or Rodgers his whole career.

The same can be said about Moss, he was with a revolving door of QB's too.

Moss was kind of a jackoff IMO as well, just not as flashy with his on the field antics, so I think that was also a bit of a double standard, with Moss not getting bopped by the HoF voters but TO being bopped by them.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

...bottom line is petty payback because he didn't get in on 1st year of eligibility.......great way to demean yourself, but if the shoe fits...................

[GunnerBill]

4 hours ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

I don't disagree with you there Gunner, but contributions as a player are mostly about on field performance.

In the words of the immortal Allen Iverson "we're talkin about practice...we aint talking about the game!"

TO showed up in the games.

I never saw him dogging it, not showing up, anything.

The guy played hard, but was a huge jagoff, and yes, that could affect the locker room, no doubt about it, but in the end, he performed.

 

All of which is an argument for him being enshrined at Canton as he will be. To my mind to be first ballot you need to check all the boxes. And TO didn't. I'd have had no problem him going in last year, but his first year of eligibility I thought he should have to wait. 

[SouthNYfan]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

All of which is an argument for him being enshrined at Canton as he will be. To my mind to be first ballot you need to check all the boxes. And TO didn't. I'd have had no problem him going in last year, but his first year of eligibility I thought he should have to wait. 

 

I respect your side of it.

What's your take on Moss getting in first year, but TO having to wait?

If TO had to wait, then Moss should as well, but Moss is getting in 1st year.

 

[Bob in STL]

Seems odd to not show up for a crowning achievement such as this but not surprising given his outspoken nature.  

 

His numbers definitely back his entry into the HOF but WR numbers are escalating as the game continues to evolve into a passing game. There are players with less stats that I liked better.  

 

I understand why he was not a first ballot entry.  If Thurman Thomas was not a first year entry then no way is Owens. 

 

 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

Tim Daniels -BR   June 9, 2018:

 

Former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Steve Young urged former Niners teammate Terrell Owens to reconsider his decision to skip the 2018 Pro Football Hall of Fame enshrinement ceremony in August.

 

On Thursday, Cam Inman of the Bay Area News Group provided comments Young, who was inducted in 2005, made on ESPN about Owens potentially burning bridges with the Hall of Fame and its members.

 

"The damage to the relationship could be permanent. You don't want that," he said. "So I beg him to reconsider because the longevity of all the people that want to respect him and that he should respect as well. Forget about, 'I'm mad at the voters, I'm mad at the system.' The damage that could be done by not going could overwhelm him over a period of time."

[Spiderweb]

On 6/7/2018 at 12:39 PM, JoPar_v2 said:

Good for TO. Never should have had to wait as long as he did for enshrinement, while dingbats like Vic Carucci found any and every excuse to not vote for him.

 

Many, MANY of the current voters need to be booted. Hopefully TO skipping will prompt the HOF to do something about that cadre of out-of-touch, lazy writers.

 

 

...and TO is blameless for all the negative opinions of him.... Strange days...strange days indeed.

[JoPar_v2]

29 minutes ago, Spiderweb said:

...and TO is blameless for all the negative opinions of him.... Strange days...strange days indeed.

Never once asserted that TO is “blameless,” in fact, I said that most of the negative opinions of his personality are probably justified. 

 

The HOF voters have a responsibility to look past that stuff however; and they put that responsibility on themselves when they adopted their criteria. I am not going to let them off the hook because TO was flamboyant.

 

 

[Rochesterfan]

15 hours ago, JoPar_v2 said:

Never once asserted that TO is “blameless,” in fact, I said that most of the negative opinions of his personality are probably justified. 

 

The HOF voters have a responsibility to look past that stuff however; and they put that responsibility on themselves when they adopted their criteria. I am not going to let them off the hook because TO was flamboyant.

 

 

 

Flamboyant?  The guy was suspended on 3 different teams for on the field actions.

 

It is the writers responsibility to take that into account.  I think they should be transparent, but to me a 1st ballot HOFer needs not only to be a great player, but he should be the best of the best in most accounts.  The fact that teams like Philadelphia signed him, but then due to TO’s actions suspended him for 1/2 a season and cut him - is a huge sign of the type of player he was.  

 

He fought teammates, called out Jeff Garcia and insinuated he was gay, he called out McNabb on multiple occasions, got into a fist fight with Hugh Douglas, the list goes on and on.  All of that is legitimate actions that should be taken into account when deciding on his worthiness.  To me they do not exclude you, but they also make it so that if you do not want to vote for him in year 1 it is acceptable.

 

Then for him to act like a petulant child after lobbying for the honor just speaks to his character.  This is a celebration of the honor and it is a celebration of all of the HOF players - he is dishonoring the ceremony ad his classmates.  It is all about TO.

[GunnerBill]

46 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

Flamboyant?  The guy was suspended on 3 different teams for on the field actions.

 

It is the writers responsibility to take that into account.  I think they should be transparent, but to me a 1st ballot HOFer needs not only to be a great player, but he should be the best of the best in most accounts.  The fact that teams like Philadelphia signed him, but then due to TO’s actions suspended him for 1/2 a season and cut him - is a huge sign of the type of player he was.  

 

He fought teammates, called out Jeff Garcia and insinuated he was gay, he called out McNabb on multiple occasions, got into a fist fight with Hugh Douglas, the list goes on and on.  All of that is legitimate actions that should be taken into account when deciding on his worthiness.  To me they do not exclude you, but they also make it so that if you do not want to vote for him in year 1 it is acceptable.

 

Then for him to act like a petulant child after lobbying for the honor just speaks to his character.  This is a celebration of the honor and it is a celebration of all of the HOF players - he is dishonoring the ceremony ad his classmates.  It is all about TO.

 

100% correct. All of that is within scope for a hall of fame voter. 

On 6/10/2018 at 2:08 AM, SouthNYfan said:

 

I respect your side of it.

What's your take on Moss getting in first year, but TO having to wait?

If TO had to wait, then Moss should as well, but Moss is getting in 1st year.

 

 

Personally I wouldn't have voted for Moss in year 1 either. I thought his attitude to his teammates in Oakland was shocking and he basically split the locker room - me vs coach in his second spell at Minnesota. 

 

I think more of his controversy was "away from football" stuff - drugs, dv accusations etc but there was enough in his locker room conduct for me to believe he was not a 'tick all the boxes' 1st ballot guy. 

[Ridgewaycynic2013]

45 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

Then for him to act like a petulant child after lobbying for the honor just speaks to his character.  This is a celebration of the honor and it is a celebration of all of the HOF players - he is dishonoring the ceremony ad his classmates.  It is all about TO.

Given his 'talent' for objectionable behaviour, perhaps it best he keeps clear and doesn't potentially detract from the other inductees that day.  Life is full of choices, in ten years when he regrets his choice about attending it's on only his shoulders.

[Rochesterfan]

10 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

100% correct. All of that is within scope for a hall of fame voter. 

 

Personally I wouldn't have voted for Moss in year 1 either. I thought his attitude to his teammates in Oakland was shocking and he basically split the locker room - me vs coach in his second spell at Minnesota. 

 

I think more of his controversy was "away from football" stuff - drugs, dv accusations etc but there was enough in his locker room conduct for me to believe he was not a 'tick all the boxes' 1st ballot guy. 

 

 

I agree fully with with you on Moss - there was enough issues on the field - his attitude in Oakland - basically admitting that he was not trying because he was not enjoying himself and his 2nd time in Minn basically throwing the coach under the bus and adopting a him or me attitude that cost both of them their jobs.

 

Overall that attitude was still better than TO’s and with similar numbers shows that the voters rightly took that into account with TO.  I think Moss also had a lot more off the field issues than TO again showing the voters did not take that stuff into account - which is consistent with what they have said.

 

I personally do not think either of them were worthy of being 1st ballot HOFs, but Moss had less baggage on the field and in that regards was more worthy to me.

15 minutes ago, Ridgewaycynic2013 said:

Given his 'talent' for objectionable behaviour, perhaps it best he keeps clear and doesn't potentially detract from the other inductees that day.  Life is full of choices, in ten years when he regrets his choice about attending it's on only his shoulders.

 

 

Maybe it is for the best- we will see how disrespectful and disruptive he is as we approach the day.

[SouthNYfan]

20 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

100% correct. All of that is within scope for a hall of fame voter. 

 

Personally I wouldn't have voted for Moss in year 1 either. I thought his attitude to his teammates in Oakland was shocking and he basically split the locker room - me vs coach in his second spell at Minnesota. 

 

I think more of his controversy was "away from football" stuff - drugs, dv accusations etc but there was enough in his locker room conduct for me to believe he was not a 'tick all the boxes' 1st ballot guy. 

 

Thanks gunner.

See I'm okay with your take on it, since you are holding moss to the same standard of behavior as TO.

I would have gone first ballot for moss myself, just as TO

[26CornerBlitz]