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

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by freddyg12

Again, I don't think the comparison is valid. Let's distinguish between off the field or what I would call personal issues, versus behavior that is related to job performance. I'm not even considering personal behavior in this debate, I think the hall has in recent past not considered that too much. Just in terms of performance related to your teams goals, Irvin was so much greater than TO.

Michael Irvin was a winner. Although he could be a pain for his qb & OC, it was never to the point that dallas wanted to get rid of him. In the end, teams couldn't count on TO. Skip Bayless called it best - TO = "TEam obliterator."

Winning games and Super Bowls cure everything. I'm sure if Irvin was on a losing team, we would have heard some issues. I see what you say about TO, but his performance on the field is HOF worthy. They don't let players into the HOF just because they were "nice guys".

The funny thing is that you have a guy like Art Monk, who had the numbers, but probably wasn't voted into the HOF because he didn't talk to the media.