Breaking news: #34 finalist for Canton

[The Dean]

Well if that is the case why does the "NFL" hall of fame list the background that Bud Grant and Marv Levy have in the CFL in their hall of fame bios?

 

Huh?

562169[/snapback]

 

 

It's in their bios because they did it. It isn't a criterion for admittance, I don't believe.

[OGTEleven]

i think people outside of buffalo (i.e., the rest of the world) would probably see this past season as the culmination of a 6-year string of failure, which makes the bills one of the least successful teams in recent history. i also think they'll look at the donohoe front office stuff as something that ended pretty badly. also know that guys like len p and peter king vote on this stuff, and i generally get the sense that the national media's perception is that ralph was mercurial and meddling in the situation (not what i necessarily think, by the way).  the point is that when these people vote, recent events (as well as the conventional wisdom as to how they transpired) are on their minds, and from an outside perspective, the bills are at the nadir of a pretty bad stretch.

562076[/snapback]

Do you think Ralph's up or down on the HoF is based on 2005? The last 6 years? Really?

[stuckincincy]

Well he did. One example,, July 18, 1995 Richmond Texas, the housekeeper witnesses it, the 7 year old sons 911 tape verifies it, The blood on Felicia face and neck proves it. The police photos back it up. Nothing to diffuse here.

562168[/snapback]

 

I respect you coming up with a statement. But not who started the fracas. Women do initiate things, however unpopluar that sounds.

 

If that keeps McNair out, we shall see - but McNair never, at least to date, disrespected his employer or his job. He's not up for HOF conderseration yet, and we were speaking of Reed. We can speak about McNair when the time comes.

 

Back to Reed.

 

For whatever reason, he chose to spit acid on the endeavor that gave him fame and money in exchange for performance. That was a terrible thing to do, and it cannot be painted otherwise.

 

Billfan63, I've no battle with you. My point is that some lines when crossed, are unforgivable. After years of praise - deserved - Reed turned on those that brought him there. That is just plain wrong. A man who accomplishes much, especially in an endeavor that needs the help of others, an endeavor based on loyalty and comraderie, like team sports and then turns and flashes fangs, is not a man worthy of honor.

 

That is my belief.

 

stuck.

[Just Jack]

It's in their bios because they did it.  It isn't a criterion for admittance, I don't believe.

562175[/snapback]

If I remember correctly, because I can't find the info to make sure, CFL is not considered for eligibilty, due to the differences in the game, like the size of the playing field for one. USFL experience though can be considered. There is a display in the PFHOF about the USFL.

[tennesseeboy]

Wow...tough choices. Thurman gets my vote along with Aikman, White, Madden and Greenwood. I wonder if they will favor wilson over Madden on the basis that Ralph doesn't have a lot of opportunities left to get in, and that he is almost the last of the living founders of the AFL.

[dave mcbride]

Do you think Ralph's up or down on the HoF is based on 2005?  The last 6 years?  Really?

562194[/snapback]

short answer: maybe. should it be? of course not. remember, though, that the main reason wilson became a possibility in the first place is that the bills were a great team for a number of successive years after many, many bad years. a new string of bad years tends to remind voters -- fairly or unfairly -- of the reasons they didn't want him in in the first place. again, i'm not saying that's how it should be. but don't be shocked if the voters bring a what-have-you-done-for-me-lately approach to still-active owners when it comes to voting.

 

my sense is that his best shot now depends on marv panning out as a gm and the bills winning something significant. if that happens, it'll make him look great. time will tell, and i hope it doesn't take too long.

[dave mcbride]

I respect you coming up with a statement. But not who started the fracas. Women do initiate things, however unpopluar that sounds.

 

If that keeps McNair out, we shall see - but McNair never, at least to date, disrespected his employer or his job. He's not up for HOF conderseration yet, and we were speaking of Reed. We can speak about McNair when the time comes.

 

Back to Reed.

 

For whatever reason, he chose to spit acid on the endeavor that gave him fame and money in exchange for performance.  That was a terrible thing to do, and it cannot be painted otherwise.

 

Billfan63, I've no battle with you. My point is that some lines when crossed, are unforgivable. After years of praise - deserved - Reed turned on those that brought him there. That is just plain wrong. A man who accomplishes much, especially in an endeavor that needs the help of others, an endeavor based on loyalty and comraderie, like team sports and then turns and flashes fangs, is not a man worthy of honor.

 

That is my belief.

 

stuck.

562196[/snapback]

forgive me -- what did reed actually do that was so egregious?

[Lori]

It's in their bios because they did it.  It isn't a criterion for admittance, I don't believe.

562175[/snapback]

Exactly. The CFL and NFL rules are so different, there's no valid basis for comparison. That came directly from Joe Horrigan at the HoF, when the question was raised in regards to Flutie.

Besides, the CFL has its own Hall of Fame.

 

Monk and Reed had comparable careers - great stats, but never known as "THE" stud WR of his era. Why is Monk on the lists this year, and not Reed? Seniority - Monk's already spent a good amount of time in the Canton waiting room. FYI: Steve Largent (who retired with the all-time receptions record) and Paul Warfield are the ONLY two modern-era WRs to make it on the first ballot.

 

Dug this up from the archives:

Post-WW II Hall of Fame WRs

 

One further note: if the national voters aren't worried about Irvin's rap sheet, then Andre throwing his helmet isn't going to make a difference one way or the other. As I've said previously - he doesn't have an image problem outside WNY, and he'll make it (or not) based on his stats, not his attitude.

[billfan63]

I respect you coming up with a statement. But not who started the fracas. Women do initiate things, however unpopluar that sounds.

 

If that keeps McNair out, we shall see - but McNair never, at least to date, disrespected his employer or his job. He's not up for HOF conderseration yet, and we were speaking of Reed. We can speak about McNair when the time comes.

 

Back to Reed.

 

For whatever reason, he chose to spit acid on the endeavor that gave him fame and money in exchange for performance.  That was a terrible thing to do, and it cannot be painted otherwise.

 

Billfan63, I've no battle with you. My point is that some lines when crossed, are unforgivable. After years of praise - deserved - Reed turned on those that brought him there. That is just plain wrong. A man who accomplishes much, especially in an endeavor that needs the help of others, an endeavor based on loyalty and comraderie, like team sports and then turns and flashes fangs, is not a man worthy of honor.

 

That is my belief.

 

stuck.

562196[/snapback]

I agree about Reed, McNair I don't know anything about, but were you trying to imply in the first paragraph that some women deserve to get beat?

[udonkey]

With the reported crowds of Bills fans present for Kelly's induction, can you imagine the tension if thousands of Bills AND Cowboys fans gather for what could be Thomas, Aikman, & Irvin?

 

I'LL BE THERE!

[billfan63]

With the reported crowds of Bills fans present for Kelly's induction, can you imagine the tension if thousands of Bills AND Cowboys fans gather for what could be Thomas, Aikman, & Irvin?

 

I'LL BE THERE!

562235[/snapback]

They can swap Bledsoe moments

[BillsGuyInMalta]

They can swap Bledsoe moments

562239[/snapback]

All three of them?

[stuckincincy]

I agree about Reed, McNair I don't know anything about, but were you trying to imply in the first paragraph that some women deserve to get beat?

562219[/snapback]

 

 

No!

 

But women beat men. It's not a one-way street.

[Sound_n_Fury]

What are the facts of the case?

562161[/snapback]

 

Source linky:

 

Pro-football star, Warren Moon, former quarterback of the Houston Oilers and Minnesota Vikings was charged with domestic violence assault in July 1995. The case captured national attention as his wife, the alleged victim, Felicia Moon did not want to testify or pursue charges.

 

The prosecution forced Felicia Moon to testify after the Texas Legislature amended and limited the "husband-wife" privilege. Prior to the change in the law, a spouse could elect not to be a witness for the state to testify against the other spouse.

 

"The couple said they scuffled at their home July 18 after an argument over credit cards provoked Mrs. Moon to throw a 2-pound candle holder at Moon's back. Mrs. Moon ended up with scratches and bruises around her neck and shoulders. Moon said that he was probably responsible for the injuries but that he was trying to calm his wife, not harm her.

 

Mrs. Moon likewise insisted her husband never intended o hurt her. She had pleaded with prosecutors to not press charges but was forced to take the stand under a 1995 law eliminating the right to refuse to testify against one's spouse. More than 40 states have eliminated the spousal privilege."

 

Terri Langford, Associated Press, February 23, 1996.

 

It took the jury merely 27 minutes to acquit Warren Moon of the assault.

[The Dean]

Source linky:

 

Pro-football star, Warren Moon, former quarterback of the Houston Oilers and Minnesota Vikings was charged with domestic violence assault in July 1995. The case captured national attention as his wife, the alleged victim, Felicia Moon did not want to testify or pursue charges.

 

The prosecution forced Felicia Moon to testify after the Texas Legislature amended and limited the "husband-wife" privilege. Prior to the change in the law, a spouse could elect not to be a witness for the state to testify against the other spouse.

 

"The couple said they scuffled at their home July 18 after an argument over credit cards provoked Mrs. Moon to throw a 2-pound candle holder at Moon's back. Mrs. Moon ended up with scratches and bruises around her neck and shoulders. Moon said that he was probably responsible for the injuries but that he was trying to calm his wife, not harm her.

 

Mrs. Moon likewise insisted her husband never intended o hurt her. She had pleaded with prosecutors to not press charges but was forced to take the stand under a 1995 law eliminating the right to refuse to testify against one's spouse. More than 40 states have eliminated the spousal privilege."

 

Terri Langford, Associated Press, February 23, 1996.

 

It took the jury merely 27 minutes to acquit Warren Moon of the assault.

562261[/snapback]

 

 

Oh..."Aquited"! So, not a wife-beater?

[billfan63]

Source linky:

 

Pro-football star, Warren Moon, former quarterback of the Houston Oilers and Minnesota Vikings was charged with domestic violence assault in July 1995. The case captured national attention as his wife, the alleged victim, Felicia Moon did not want to testify or pursue charges.

 

The prosecution forced Felicia Moon to testify after the Texas Legislature amended and limited the "husband-wife" privilege. Prior to the change in the law, a spouse could elect not to be a witness for the state to testify against the other spouse.

 

"The couple said they scuffled at their home July 18 after an argument over credit cards provoked Mrs. Moon to throw a 2-pound candle holder at Moon's back. Mrs. Moon ended up with scratches and bruises around her neck and shoulders. Moon said that he was probably responsible for the injuries but that he was trying to calm his wife, not harm her.

 

Mrs. Moon likewise insisted her husband never intended o hurt her. She had pleaded with prosecutors to not press charges but was forced to take the stand under a 1995 law eliminating the right to refuse to testify against one's spouse. More than 40 states have eliminated the spousal privilege."

 

Terri Langford, Associated Press, February 23, 1996.

 

It took the jury merely 27 minutes to acquit Warren Moon of the assault.

562261[/snapback]

Those aren't the facts, thats the testimony of a media savvy husband and wife fully aware of what a conviction could mean to both of them. As for the verdict imagine what Jim Kelly would have to do to get a Buffalo jury to convict him.

For the facts I'll lean toward the 911 tape, eye witness, police photos and detective testimony, things and people with nothing to lose.

[stuckincincy]

Those aren't the facts, thats the testimony of a media savvy husband and wife fully aware of what a conviction could mean to both of them.  As for the verdict imagine what Jim Kelly would have to do to get a Buffalo jury to convict him.

For the  facts I'll lean toward the 911 tape, eye witness, police photos and detective testimony,  things  and people with  nothing to lose.

562281[/snapback]

 

Well, since you say those are not the facts, and seem well up on this, how about providing us text and/or the photos you seem to have knowledge of, and let us weigh their merits.

 

'Tis fair, don't you think, having impugned the fellow...

[billfan63]

Well, since you say those are not the facts, and seem well up on this, how about providing us text and/or the photos you seem to have knowledge of, and let us weigh their merits.

 

'Tis fair, don't you think, having impugned the fellow...

562285[/snapback]

Absolutely fair, having lived in Houston since 1980, I've heard the tape and read the reports, so I will hunt them down. Wouldn't what to impugned a fine man.

[Sound_n_Fury]

Those aren't the facts, thats the testimony of a media savvy husband and wife fully aware of what a conviction could mean to both of them.  As for the verdict imagine what Jim Kelly would have to do to get a Buffalo jury to convict him.

For the  facts I'll lean toward the 911 tape, eye witness, police photos and detective testimony,  things  and people with  nothing to lose.

562281[/snapback]

 

How about this account of the trial from the Houston Press:

 

Felicia's story opened shortly after noon on Tuesday, July 18, when three of her four children were away at camp in San Antonio. She had just returned from the dentist with Jeffrey (who had gotten a shot there -- maybe another reason "is going to" didn't come through clearly) and had repaired to her back yard gazebo for the afternoon session of her two-a-day half-hour Bible studies.

 

Mr. Moon showed up shortly. He had spent the night away from home, Mrs. Moon related, and she didn't know where and didn't ask (okay, here's where the Honeymooners analogy breaks down). Anyway, without so much as a howdy-do, the Moons picked up where they had left off arguing on the previous Sunday -- subject left unspecified by Mrs. Moon. Whatever that debate was over, the issue before the heads of the Moon household on Tuesday quickly became money, and it was an issue that Mr. Moon was looking to resolve before he left the following weekend for Vikings training camp. He told Mrs. Moon she was spending too much, and he demanded all her credit cards back so he could combine all future spending-by-plastic on just a single card, a VISA Gold.

 

Mrs. Moon testified she wasn't about to give up her credit cards, at least not without a fight.

 

"You are such a jerk -- I can't stand you," she said she angrily told her skinflint husband. Ever cool, just as he remained behind the Oilers' sagging offensive line, Mr. Moon observed, "Okay, this is getting out of hand E." The dispute accelerated quickly from there, according to Mrs. Moon.

 

At some point in the quarrel, and it was unclear from her testimony at exactly which point, Felicia Moon was in fear and kept repeating, "Jesus just help me, Jesus just help me." Then her testimony turned even more confusing: what was making her afraid, she seemed to say, was the prospect of really losing her temper. She had learned in therapy to watch for those "signals." But there was another reason for her fear: "I thought that he might hit me," she said of her husband.

 

Why? asked the prosecutor.

"Because it's happened before," Felicia Moon replied.

In later testimony, however, the former English major said her husband really hadn't ever hit her -- it was more "pushing and shoving" and "brushing against" her.

 

Whatever the case, the argument on July 18 quickly moved from the back yard to the couple's bedroom. Warren Moon went to his closet and started packing to spend another night out. Felicia Moon went to a drawer where she kept what she described as her "excess" credit cards. "I said 'Here's your !@#$in' credit cards,' " she testified, "and I threw 'em at him."

 

He said, "Thank you," which so irritated Mrs. Moon that she stormed into the bathroom, grabbed a good-sized candleholder, and, proving that unerring aim runs in the family, hurled it directly into Mr. Moon's back. "He stood up and said, 'You B word, are you crazy?' " Mrs. Moon recounted. "I knew I had hit my mark."

 

Felicia Moon said she then tried to scramble out the bedroom door, but her husband ran her down and grabbed her by her dress, whereupon she wheeled around and kneed him in the groin. In doing so, she tripped and fell backward and ended up on the floor, where her husband grabbed her, told her "she was losing control" and tried to rein in her flailing arms and legs. Part of the calming process also involved Mr. Moon's raising his hand to hit her and hollering, "Stop it! Stop it!" but he didn't carry through, she said. In trying to bring her under control, Felicia Moon testified, her husband also pressed on her throat, but when she began coughing and he realized he was choking her -- she's an asthmatic -- he let off.

 

That gave Mrs. Moon another opportunity to make a break for it. She was off and running again, but once again, her husband grabbed her, once again she ended up on the floor, once again her arms and legs were flailing and once again Warren Moon was trying to bring her under control.

 

"I was reaching for him -- we both tried to grab each other," was the way Mrs. Moon described it as she got down on the floor of the courtroom with prosecutor Elliott and demonstrated.

 

But Felicia Moon was not to be brought under control. She ran to the front door and he ran to the laundry room to confiscate her car keys. From there, the argument/chase continued on the street outside, where, Mr. Moon testified, she was "not so much scared as combat-ready."

 

Somehow, then, Mrs. Moon next ended up in her Lexus on Lake Olympia Parkway and then Highway 6, with Mr. Moon following in his Lexus. Although one eyewitness estimated their speeds at close to 90 mph, Felicia Moon says her Lexus never got over 75. Finally, she lost Mr. Moon and drove to a Dairy Queen to call a friend before returning home to find that her housekeeper had summoned the police.

 

And that was pretty much her story. At no time did she say her husband had actually hit her that day. Those scratches and bruises that were clearly visible in the photos might have been self-inflicted, she said.

 

After Elliott had finished with Felicia Moon, Hardin stepped up to elicit that dramatic denouement from his client's wife.

 

It seems the district attorney had unearthed a 1986 divorce petition Felicia Moon had lodged in which she claimed that Warren Moon had physically attacked her on three occasions -- including two days before the divorce filing, when he "beat her with closed fists in the presence of the children." The suit was never pursued and was dismissed the following year. Felicia Moon told Hardin she was "outraged" when she learned the prosecution might use the suit during her husband's trial, because it would bring up "a time in my life I would rather not remember."

 

It was a time in her life, she said, when she had been "diagnosed with an illness," which she later referred to even more elliptically as "the very dark secret from my past."

 

What happened last year, she continued, "was dŽjà vu of what happened ten years before. I had already drove a car in the midst of anger, and smashed into a brick wall."

 

And so, on July 18, her husband didn't intend to hurt her, she testified.

"I'm thinking he was trying to keep me from injuring myself -- trying to keep me from smashing into another brick wall."

 

Following Felicia Moon's first day on the stand, Rusty Hardin called her the most compelling witness he'd seen in his 20 years of practicing law. Nobody could watch her performance, he added, and come away thinking that she was anything but a strong, independent woman who thinks and does for herself.

 

Inarguably, that was the impression left by Felicia Moon. She was smart, funny and self-possessed, and she consistently got the better of it with prosecutor Elliott.

 

But the story Felicia Moon told so confidently said something else entirely: that she's a fragile, perhaps unsound woman who can't control her emotions or her spending, a woman who needs her husband to keep her in line, wherever he had been the night before.

 

That's okay. Felicia Moon certainly is under no obligation to you, me or the battered women of the world to be anybody but who she wants to be. Her critics, she said, "want me to be something that I'm not, and I don't want to let them do that to me."

 

On the other hand, I must concede, the Fort Bend County district attorney was under no obligation to confirm Felicia Moon's conception of herself and her marriage. Somebody called the cops. There was evidence of an assault. The law now allows the state to force a woman a testify against her husband. The D.A.'s office used it.

 

In the end, though, the prosecution obviously was not well-served by the new law. Even though the state, as of this writing, had yet to rest its case, it's difficult to imagine any jury convicting Warren Moon on the evidence that had been presented. Hardin was so confident that he vowed to jump off of the Empire State Building if the jury found against his client.

[stuckincincy]

Absolutely fair, having lived in Houston since 1980, I've heard the tape and read the reports, so I will hunt them down. Wouldn't what to impugned a fine man.

562290[/snapback]

 

Fair enough. But you need to get the other things you alluded to onto the table, too. A 911 call is by definition, a panicky thing - emotional first, and factual perhaps, but the heat of the moment rules. I had occasion to call 911 6 years ago, as a drunk at 4 AM attempted to kick in my side door, shouting "I am going to kill you" verbage. I had a SxS 12 guage in hand and shouted the same to him, saying, "Well, then come on in, MoFo..."

 

If the authorities still have it, it's on the 911 tape - I didn't hang the telephone up...

 

But back to Reed. His football comments were made in the calm light of day.