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

[freddyg12]

Let me pose a question:

Would you want TO in his prime on your team, knowing that he will cause major problems at some point?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by freddyg12

Let me pose a question:

Would you want TO in his prime on your team, knowing that he will cause major problems at some point?

If I was a team that was close and needed a big time WR to get over the top, I'd take him for a one year rental only.

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

If I was a team that was close and needed a big time WR to get over the top, I'd take him for a one year rental only.

Matty, you think he should be a hall of famer, yet you'd only take him for a "one year rental" & that's only if the team is close to winning it all.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by freddyg12

Matty, you think he should be a hall of famer, yet you'd only take him for a "one year rental" & that's only if the team is close to winning it all.

You're talking about two different things.

Based on his production, he's a clear cut HOF'er.

Based on what we know about his behavior, I would only want him as a rented gun on an established team with strong leadership.

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

You're talking about two different things.

Based on his production, he's a clear cut HOF'er.

Based on what we know about his behavior, I would only want him as a rented gun on an established team with strong leadership.

I don't think so, and that's my point, he should be judged by his impact on his teams, which includes both great plays & shenanigans on & off the field. You can't separate his production from his behavior. While some here have said the hall is not based on "character" I agree, but it can be based on something simple like helping your team win. I would argue he countered all of his positives equally or more so w/negatives in that area.

This will be an interesting one for Hall voters. They've shown that a player's personal problems off the field have not kept them out of the hall, but have they ever dealt w/a player who's conduct on & off field was so detrimental to his team?

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by freddyg12

Let me pose a question:

Would you want TO in his prime on your team, knowing that he will cause major problems at some point?

Thats the question. And I have to say no.

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by freddyg12

Let me pose a question:

Would you want TO in his prime on your team, knowing that he will cause major problems at some point?

his issue with the eagles was money. could have easily been handled by the eagle front office. but they chose to play hard ball. so i guess my answer to your question is yes. the redskins have NEVER had a receiver the caliber of Owens in his prime. closest thing was Taylor

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by dmek25

his issue with the eagles was money. could have easily been handled by the eagle front office. but they chose to play hard ball. so i guess my answer to your question is yes. the redskins have NEVER had a receiver the caliber of Owens in his prime. closest thing was Taylor

That was part of it, but that's no excuse for throwing your qb under the bus. McNabb didn't sign his checks. Seems like you're finding excuses for his behavior.

My answer would be no, TO would bring short term success & long-term stress.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by freddyg12

That was part of it, but that's no excuse for throwing your qb under the bus. McNabb didn't sign his checks. Seems like you're finding excuses for his behavior.

My answer would be no, TO would bring short term success & long-term stress.

But McNabb also made it a point to say that they didn't need TO. Now, I don't think a QB should say "we're screwed" or something along those lines. But TO was the reason they were so dominant that year, and they shouldn't have been so dismissive about him being hurt.

Also, had the Eagles paid TO what he wanted, they could have easily made another trip to the SB the next season (and prob win the whole thing).

As SS said:

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

T.O. probably spoke the truth more often than not. Unfortunately, speaking the truth does not often make a good teammate

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

But McNabb also made it a point to say that they didn't need TO. Now, I don't think a QB should say "we're screwed" or something along those lines. But TO was the reason they were so dominant that year, and they shouldn't have been so dismissive about him being hurt.

Also, had the Eagles paid TO what he wanted, they could have easily made another trip to the SB the next season (and prob win the whole thing).

As SS said:

He was signed to a 7-year deal & only played 1 year before complaining & asking for a new deal. When he didn't get what he wanted, he began the childish antics, working out in his driveway, dissing McNabb & others, etc. Sure the Eagles got him for less than he could've gotten elsewhere, but remember that he & Drew R. orchestrated the trade after he was initially sent to Baltimore.

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by freddyg12

That was part of it, but that's no excuse for throwing your qb under the bus. McNabb didn't sign his checks.seems like you're finding excuses for his behavior.

My answer would be no, TO would bring short term success & long-term stress.

i have always believed that Owens is a first class ass. all im saying is that if the eagles front office would have handled him a little different, Owens and Mcnabb would have been a force to be dealt with for many seasons. he has been blessed with superior talent, and can out work almost anyone on the practice field. is he a cancer? most of the time. but remember this, players win games

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

T.O. should be a first-ballot Hall of Famer, but . . . . | ProFootballTalk

I think he should be without a doubt, his numbers are undeniable, what do you think?

He's a free agent ...... should we sign him?

lol, I mean .... look at his numbers. lol.

I would say yes but others will argue about his character which supposedly has nothing to do with or can be considered in picking HOF.

[Alvin Walton]

TO has HOF numbers.
But because of his character I wouldn't vote him into the Freddy Froodle Football Farm of Fame.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

TO has HOF numbers.
But because of his character I wouldn't vote him into the Freddy Froodle Football Farm of Fame.

Well, Character is not supposed to be counted in the decision making. Thats why Monk was not voted in for so long. Supposedly. If it was about character just about everyone said Monk would have been in a long time ago.

[Defensewins]

I agree with many of the post on this thread:

1) Media should not be the ones determining who gets in. Current player, former players, current and former coaches and GM's should be the one.

2) TO is a great WR but since he was at times a selfish and disruptive teammate he should go in on his second or third ballot. Not first.

3) Rule Changes - I am tired of hearing some current player is statistically the best ever. Beginning in the 80's through today the rules have been changed to INCREASE offense and TV RATINGS.
TO and other recent WR's and QB's have benefitted statistically from these rule changes.
Back in the day, if the ball was not in the air the WR was going to get hit, held, disrupted from his pass route and timing with the QB. It was legal. Todays WR get a free pass once they are 3 yard off the line of scrimmage compared to past players.