Thread: Terrell Owens reacts to HoF "Snub"

Lots of greats have to wait a year because of who was in the class with them. There others more deserving. TO will get his but have patience.

Part of the problem is there are so many WRs it's hard to stand out from the crowd. Another part is that passing has been steadily increasing since the NFLs birth, so production impressive a decade or two ago is merely respectable now. That's led to more and more 4 and 5WR sets, making it that much harder to stand out from an even larger crowd. It also means more and more of the most talented and disciplined athletes are becoming WRs instead of RBs.

Owens is a textbook case of a guy who'd have been a first balloter 20 or 30 years ago, but can get lost in the shuffle now. Longevity largely works in favor of Canton candidacy, but in TOs case it also exacerbates his real problem:

He was NEVER the top player at his position DESPITE playing a long time. The first THIRD of his career he wasn't even the best WR on HIS TEAM: The guy with 3 Rings was. After his second season, Moss came along, a guy pretty much everyone acknowledged as far better when he bothered to try. Along the way there was other competition only relatively lesser in the form of Larry Fitzgerald, Marvin Harrison and Andre Johnson.

Terrell Owens was a great WR, but in all his long years he never ONCE led the league in receiving yards: The closest he came was 3rd, and only once. One year he finished behind TWO guys from ONE team (Isaac Bruce and Torry Holt) and that was in his prime. It's hard to argue someone who was never better than 3rd best at any point in his CAREER is among the best EVER.

That said, he was among the best nearly every year he played, and that was for a long time. And, again, a third of it he was splitting catches with Jerry freakin' Rice; if I had 4th and long, down 4 with <1:00 to go, I'd throw it to Rice every time. It's always dangerous to play the "well, he was better than these guys who got in" game, because a dozen wrongs don't make a right, and if the Halls already diluted the solution's not to FURTHER dilute it.

On balance, I'd put him in, just not on the first ballot. I can't say a guy's automatic when there were (at least) THREE better all but ONE year he played, and citing his longevity just makes that argument that much stronger. Unfortunately, the longer he waits, the more guys like Megatron and Antonio Brown will make his production seem even weaker. But I doubt he'll have to wait long enough for that to be a serious issue.

TO had years where he was better than Randy Moss. He also had years where he was arguably better than Harrison. That is an interpretation you're making. While it's not unfair, it's not etched in stone, either. The fact is that for years the debate raged on as to whom was the better WR, or, in other words, TO was on part quite often with Randy Moss.

Originally Posted by Von Kinger

TO had years where he was better than Randy Moss. He also had years where he was arguably better than Harrison. That is an interpretation you're making. While it's not unfair, it's not etched in stone, either.

You're the one who kept saying, "Look. At. His. NUMBERS!!!" Well, when we actually do that (at least) three guys had BETTER "numbers" all but ONE year he played.

That's not an "interpretation," it's basic objective math, as indelibly recorded as anything in the NFL can be.

Originally Posted by Von Kinger

The fact is that for years the debate raged on as to whom was the better WR, or, in other words, TO was on part quite often with Randy Moss.

I can't speak for everyone everywhere and everywhen, but recall no such debates. The first half of his career, no one debated whether EITHER of them was the best, because EVERYONE acknowledged Jerry Rice was, indisputably. Yet even if we ignore everyone else, Moss was a TD MACHINE who finished with slightly more than TO and only slightly fewer yards despite playing a 100 fewer receptions in one fewer season.

The question is whether TOs candidacy should be penalized because he shared the field with all-time greats (in Rices case, literally,) Steve Youngs successors were no comparison to Manning or Brady, and the NFL passed more during his career than any other time. The answer is "no, it shouldn't, because TO put up elite production for a long time even when we account for those other factors." But the reality is it does, and that TO was NEVER better than SECOND best (and only occasionally that) when he played. He probably belongs in the Hall—but not on his first ballot.

Originally Posted by Joel

You're the one who kept saying, "Look. At. His. NUMBERS!!!" Well, when we actually do that (at least) three guys had BETTER "numbers" all but ONE year he played.

That's not an "interpretation," it's basic objective math, as indelibly recorded as anything in the NFL can be.


I can't speak for everyone everywhere and everywhen, but recall no such debates. The first half of his career, no one debated whether EITHER of them was the best, because EVERYONE acknowledged Jerry Rice was, indisputably. Yet even if we ignore everyone else, Moss was a TD MACHINE who finished with slightly more than TO and only slightly fewer yards despite playing a 100 fewer receptions in one fewer season.

The question is whether TOs candidacy should be penalized because he shared the field with all-time greats (in Rices case, literally,) Steve Youngs successors were no comparison to Manning or Brady, and the NFL passed more during his career than any other time. The answer is "no, it shouldn't, because TO put up elite production for a long time even when we account for those other factors." But the reality is it does, and that TO was NEVER better than SECOND best (and only occasionally that) when he played. He probably belongs in the Hall—but not on his first ballot.

Who has better numbers? Who exactly is getting more yards than him? Who is getting more TD's than him? Almost no one.

As far as the debate, that was one that was debated each time one of those guys ended up on MNF. I remember them well because Moss was one of my favorite players to watch growing up. I knew he was an *******, but on the field he was just poetry in motion.

A first Ballot guy should be a guy whose statistical impact -if it's a position that produces stats- at a staggering level. Top five yards and TDs all time meets that criteria.

Originally Posted by Von Kinger

Who has better numbers? Who exactly is getting more yards than him? Who is getting more TD's than him? Almost no one.

So he's a first ballot Horseshoes, Hand Grenades & Tiddlywinks HoFer: NOT the Pro Football HoF. One of his teammates owns ALL career receiving records, but

Career Receptions

Gonzalez (a TIGHT END) and Harrison have more; Fitzgerald and Witten (ANOTHER TE) have more by a GROWING margin.

Career TDs

Moss has more in FEWER SEASONS, but it's unlikely anyone else surpasses TOs 3rd place total soon.

Career Yards

Slightly ahead of Moss despite playing a full SEASON longer; Fitzgerald will pass him in a year or two if he stays healthy, as will Steve Smith and Andre Johnson if they don't retire. Brandon Marshall probably will too, but it'll take longer.

As far as the debate, that was one that was debated each time one of those guys ended up on MNF. I remember them well because Moss was one of my favorite players to watch growing up. I knew he was an *******, but on the field he was just poetry in motion.

Originally Posted by Von Kinger

A first Ballot guy should be a guy whose statistical impact -if it's a position that produces stats- at a staggering level. Top five yards and TDs all time meets that criteria.

You can't just compare career marks, ESPECIALLY for WRs and ESPECIALLY for RECENT ones, because that's not apples and oranges. You must compensate for nearly a CENTURY of lengthening seasons, and both passes/game and restrictions on DB steadily growing.

When the NFL began an imcomplete was a TURNOVER; think that may have affected how many times receivers were targeted? Sammy Baugh once lost instead of WON an NFL Championship by a single point because a pass from his end zone hit the goalposts; that wasn't even POSSIBLE before 1932, nor since 1974. Four years earlier, Baugh not only led the NFL in passing, but in punting and interceptions (as a defender,) but how many QBs could now? MAYBE Cam?

I'm not even talking about pre/post-substitution football though; even comparing modern receiver production to receivers when passing took over for good in the '80s is a grossly uneven playing field. When Deion and Irvin played, Kevin Smith went from a great to merely adequate CB in a SINGLE SEASON when the NFL banned downfield handchecks, an integral part of his game. Prior to that, all but the most egregious violations of the Illegal Contact rule introduced in the '70s was ignored as "incidental," but ever since Illegal Contact calls have been notoriously frequent.

Terell Owens and ALL his contemporaries benefit from ALL of that, and even guys as recent as Rice and Irvin played most of their careers without it. Simply pointing to career totals doesn't—CAN'T—reflect that. If we used that standard for most positions, but ESPECIALLY receivers, MOST "HoFers" WOULDN'T be. "Jim Brown, big deal: He's barely in the top ten for career rushing yards!" Of course, he never played >14 gms/yr, and his first few years were 12-game seasons, but Frank Gore ALREADY has nearly 1000 yds more, and Curtis Martin nearly 2000 more, so they "must" be better.

That's an obvious point for any position, but WORST for WRs. I'm aware of the all-time yardage leader board; I'm also aware that Rice and Tim Brown are the only ones in the top 10 who played before 1990, and Largent and Lofton are the only ones in the top 20 who played before 1980. Go through the top FIFTY and you'll only find TWO guys who played before the SB era: Maynard and Alworth, and even they played a good portion of their careers post-SB.

The top HUNDRED only has TWO guys who didn't: Hutson and Billy Howton, a great WR on AWFUL Packers teams: So bad even drafting Paul Hornung, Jim Taylor and Bart Starr couldn't win them >4gm/yr (and that only once) until Lombardi took over and made them respectable again. The irony is that subsequent Packer teams were SO successful and had SO many great players an aging Howton was pedestrian by comparison, so never had a shot at the joining the flood of teammates into Canton, even though he had four Pro Bowl and two All Pro seasons on a team where he was far and away the best player most of his career. Jim Ringo joined the team only a year after him, but stuck around for the whole Lombardi dynasty, while Howton made the mistake of leaving for Cleveland the year Lombardi arrived, then for the expansion Cowboys a year later. So Ringo's in the Hall and Howton never sniffed it. Yet while they were teammates, Howton had TWICE as many Pro Bowl and All Pro seasons; he just didn't have Lombardi.

Again, not saying TO doesn't belong in the Hall, I'm just saying he's not the greatest thing since sliced bread and the Halls "failure" to induct him on his VERY FIRST BALLOT isn't some unconscionable miscarriage of justice: It's EXACTLY justice, especially since douchebaggery DOES (usually) make a difference in Canton.

He played in multiple rules eras, though. You want to do adjustments? Adjust for how there are more freakish athletes now that play against their peers than there were back in the day. That's why no one really cares how great Jim Brown was. No one cares how awesome Hutson is. Sure, they played in eras where they stood out. They were -especially in Brown's case- so freakish and the league lacked their equivalent to stop them. Would Jim Brown be better than AP today? I dunno. I'd like to see it. Could Deion Sanders hack it back then when every defender had to tackle just to get onto the field? I dunno. But I know he's one of the best coverage guys ever, was lightening in a bottle when he had the ball in his hands, could play WR, could be a great return man, and showed he could tackle when he had to.




The deal is this - He was a top flight producer in an incredibly competitive time for WR stats. He produced well enough to be on par with Moss, and whether that's because Moss could be a lazy bum and TO ran on pure narcissism is besides the point. He retired with a career of incredible longevity and elite production, which is rare.


He had eight seasons with ten or more TD's. Eight. Eight seasons. He had six seasons with 1,200 yards or more. He had Young -beastly QB- and Garcia in SF. Garcia was a solid QB. He then had McNabb, another good QB but not an elite passer. He then had Tony Romo, a guy who I think is an excellent player, but some people think absolutely sucks. Then he was in Buffalo and Cincinnati. At the time, Palmer was playng just alright.

With the exception of Young, he made all of those QB's. Better. Especially Romo. You usually offer some arguments that I think are interesting, or even persuasive.

I forgive you, Joelio Jones.

TO was not a bum as a player, its ridiculous to even assert that. He most certainly belongs in the Hall when it comes to his actual playing career. I just don like the man because his attitude in my opinion sucks, but while he played he was one of the best in the game.

Originally Posted by Northman

TO was not a bum as a player, its ridiculous to even assert that. He most certainly belongs in the Hall when it comes to his actual playing career. I just don like the man because his attitude in my opinion sucks, but while he played he was one of the best in the game.

Word.

There's actually a connection there: The reason I always remember it was a Tuesday is that I remember watching us play Monday night.

Originally Posted by Von Kinger

He played in multiple rules eras, though. You want to do adjustments? Adjust for how there are more freakish athletes now that play against their peers than there were back in the day. That's why no one really cares how great Jim Brown was. No one cares how awesome Hutson is. Sure, they played in eras where they stood out. They were -especially in Brown's case- so freakish and the league lacked their equivalent to stop them. Would Jim Brown be better than AP today? I dunno. I'd like to see it. Could Deion Sanders hack it back then when every defender had to tackle just to get onto the field? I dunno. But I know he's one of the best coverage guys ever, was lightening in a bottle when he had the ball in his hands, could play WR, could be a great return man, and showed he could tackle when he had to.

Yeah, no; he started in the (mid) 1990s, not the 1890s. Let's not pretend that's some ancient utterly foreign era; rules change virtually every league year, but the SB era (itself epochal) can basically be dividing into B.C. (i.e. Before Cap and FA) and A.C. Guess which one TO played in his WHOLE CAREER. The difference between the pre/post-defenseless player rules is comparable to the difference between the difference between the post/pre-PI rules in the '70s, except less extreme.

People who care about the games HISTORY—which is what HoF immortality is ABOUT—still care about Jim Brown. People even care enough about guys "way back" when Peyton Manning was drafted that Montee Ball grew up idolizing Terrell Davis. I mean Hell, if TO played in such a distant radically different era, why's he any more relevant than guys from the distant radically different eras of Jim Brown or Don Hutson?

Because I GUARANTEE he didn't fundamentally and permanently CHANGE THE NATURE OF THE GAME ITSELF as they did.

Originally Posted by Von Kinger

The deal is this - He was a top flight producer in an incredibly competitive time for WR stats. He produced well enough to be on par with Moss, and whether that's because Moss could be a lazy bum and TO ran on pure narcissism is besides the point. He retired with a career of incredible longevity and elite production, which is rare.

I'm sorry, did the conversation shift back to Jerry Rice when I wasn't looking? Even WITHIN his era he was NEVER better than top THREE in ANY category, and only THAT much in a SINGLE category ONCE. Just as importantly, his career marks are as much a part of playing in that incredibly PRODUCTIVE time for WRs as anything he did, and the prove is that the rest of SEVERAL of those "incredibly competitive" WRs outdid him EVERY SINGLE YEAR. One year TWO guys on the SAME TEAM did.

You're seriously saying someone NEVER better than THIRD best when he played belongs in the same company as a guy who was TWICE as good as everyone else EVERY year he played? No way. When TO invents half the routes in the league and whole defenses are designed to stop him I'll believe he was that "dominant."

Originally Posted by Von Kinger

He had eight seasons with ten or more TD's. Eight. Eight seasons.

Fine: So'd Rice, Moss and Harrison—in fact, each had NINE 10+ TD seasons; that makes TO 4th best just within his ERA.

ALL-TIME, Hutson had three, as many with 9, and never <6; since he played 10-game seasons, it's a safe bet averaging a TD/gm for 60% more games nearly HIS WHOLE CAREER would produce 10+ TDs (at least) 8 times. Alworth did it 5 times in 14-game seasons and had one with 9; Maynard only did it thrice in 14-game seasons but had 4 more with 8+, so same deal. A skeptic would say Alworth & Maynard played in the pass-happy infant AFL, but that supposedly doesn't matter.

Like I said, TOs huge career numbers are as much a product of his ERA as his talent and durability, and the proof is MULTIPLE contemporaries have BETTER totals.

Originally Posted by Von Kinger

He had six seasons with 1,200 yards or more.

Want a list of who ELSE did? It's, um... kinda long.... Rice did it NINE years STRAIGHT, and it would've been ELEVEN if not for the '87 strike (he still had 1078 in just 12 games.) Harrison did, and came close both years between Year 5 and 6. Torry Holt did it six years STRAIGHT, and came within 12 yds BOTH of the next two. Moss BEGAN HIS CAREER doing it, then did a couple more times later.

Not only that: Megatron had 1200+ 5X in HALF as many seasons, as did Alworth playing 2 gms/season less, and Irvin came with 20 yds (in '97) of doing it 6X. Antonio Brown has already had 4 1200 yd seasons, and they're not even 30.

Originally Posted by Von Kinger

He had Young -beastly QB- and Garcia in SF. Garcia was a solid QB. He then had McNabb, another good QB but not an elite passer. He then had Tony Romo, a guy who I think is an excellent player, but some people think absolutely sucks. Then he was in Buffalo and Cincinnati. At the time, Palmer was playng just alright.

He was in Buffalo and Cincy a SINGLE year each out of FIFTEEN; let's stick with Young, McNabb and Romo, all perennial Pro Bowlers. Largent would've KILLED for even ONE season with a QB like those. Seahawks fans rave about his loyalty, but if he'd entered the league in '87 instead of retiring then there's no way he'd have stuck around for that crap when there were guys like Elway, Marino, Kelly, Montana and Moon.

The best pro TO argument there is that the first third of his career he didn't just have Young, he had Rice splitting targets with him. His yds/rec and catch percentage actually went DOWN nearly every year after that, but no one in their right mind makes TO their first choice when they've got Rice.

Which highlights the real problem: He wasn't even the best nor even SECOND best when he PLAYED, so how's he among the best EVER?

Originally Posted by Von Kinger

With the exception of Young, he made all of those QB's. Better. Especially Romo. You usually offer some arguments that I think are interesting, or even persuasive.

Right, because McNabb and Romo never did ANYTHING without TO....

You realize McNabbs career passer rating is 9th all-time among retired players (i.e. 32nd overall, but it's not like playing in the CURRENT era boosted TOs career totals, right? ) And that he made his first Pro Bowl TOs and the playoffs with Chad Lewis as his leading WR while TO was still in SF? And his last one in 2009 with DeSean Jackson as his leading WR? I've offered plenty of arguments and copious objective evidence, but can't make anyone accept the record.

YOUR arguments mainly persuade me HoF committees should be limited to folks who've been around too long to think 15 years ago a different "era."

Originally Posted by Northman

TO was not a bum as a player, its ridiculous to even assert that.

Agreed; has ANYONE asserted that?

Originally Posted by Northman

He most certainly belongs in the Hall when it comes to his actual playing career. I just don like the man because his attitude in my opinion sucks, but while he played he was one of the best in the game.

Again, on balance, I'd put him in the Hall: But not on the first ballot. There's a HUGE gradation between "first ballot HoFer" and "bum." I'd wager MOST of the Hall didn't get there on the first ballot, but NONE would be there if they were bums. It might've been easier when there were a 14 teams (and thus rosters) instead of 32, but then again maybe it wasn't, because the competition was EVERYONE who'd ever played, since the Hall didn't exist before 1963.

TO has a strong argument for a top five spot as a WR.

That should make you a first ballot, especially in a competitive position whose merit and importance is increasing.

It's retarded to say someone is a hall of famer, but not a "first ballot hall of famer". There is absolutely no distinction in the HoF based on which ballot they made it in on. It's just something created by the media to punish certain players. Don't fall for that shit, Joel.

Joel, I never said that DM or TR never did anything without him. I'm saying that TO made them better, and he did. Look at DM before TO, and then took at him after. Look at TR before TR, and then look at him after. TR is my guy. I love TR. He's a warrior, a class act, a damned good passer, mobile, a leader, and a good person. But you can't convince anyone that TO didn't do more for TR than vice versa.

So continue to blather on about old guys that no one cares about. Of course they changed the game, they were the first people playing it. Tell you what, go take TO and put him back in that era. He'd be a WR bigger than DL, the fastest guy on the field, one of the strongest guys on the field, and the most durable guy on the field. I wonder how impactful that would be? He'd be so godly that they'd do nothing but throw to him.

Megatron is a beast. I wonder if his body would have held up? Because it sure didn't look that way. Antonio Brown is on a historic path, let's see if he maintains it. All kids of guys are on historic paths. Most of them don't finish walking it. That's neither here nor there.

I also have no idea why you bring up Jerry Rice when I never said he was better than him. SO sure, maybe, just maybe I misspoke and said he was top three all time, although the all time achievements put him there for yards and TDs. So let's say he's worse than Moss and Rice. I could quite easily take the route that those are the two best WR's ever.

Who ******* cares?

Who ******* cares about Alworth? Who had his last relevant season before the 70's. FFS, the only people who dredge up relics of the past are football purists. In 14 miserable games, shit awful games, that I had to endure because God hated me before John Elway delivered me, I watched that miserable sack of shit score just under ten TDs and 1k hards. In fourteen games. Opposite Chad '**** Von Kinger staying sane in this season' Ochojohnsoncincomfgshootme and a flailing Carson Palmer. Which trumps most seasons that most 'great' WR's had back then.

For reference, Alworth played in an era where there was no combine, no WCO, and I'm not even sure the 3-4 defense existed.

Also, Megatron retired before his decline occurred. TO's decline occurred and he was still a good player. Would I rather have Megatron? Yeah, just for the fact that my mental health wouldn't explode into a sea of pom-poms, popcorn, and press conferences. Yet, if I had to take the production of both of them, I'm going to get elite production at a longer time frame from TO. WHich, in the context of an individual career...

Ugh.

As far as eras go, well I'm sorry that you disagree with me. However, with the rules as they are now, as opposed to even in the mid-90's, it's a completely different game. So yeah, I'm on fair ground to call it a different era.

But sure, let's just use time measurements instead.

**** Lance Alworth!