Terrell Owens: Hall of Famer?

[Wet Bandit]

Quote: Originally Posted by FuzzySlippers

I'd put you in the Hall of Stupid and not just for this post. Who gives a damn about how he got along with teammates. The bottom line is he produced and produced impressively. Guy has more receptions,more yards and more touchdowns that any receiver currently in the Hall of Fame. The guy is a Hall of Famer period. Now will it be first ballot,probably not,but he will be there. Hall of very good,boy I ****in swear.

Who are you? Do we have some history? Whatever.

I was obviously being facetious when I said the Hall of Very Good.

As for how he got along with teammates and other off-field stuff, I'd agree that it usually wouldn't matter, unless it affected the on-field football team.

And considering three teams have already gotten rid of him, ultimately judging that having him makes their on-field football team worse, I think that's a considerable knock against him.

If a guy wants to go out and get wasted every night, whatever, it shouldn't matter for the HoF. If a guy is unliked, same deal.

But if it's so bad that three seperate teams have judged that it's affecting what's happening on the field, I think that should at least be part of the conversation.

But what do I know? I'm obviously stupid, and not just for this post.

[Kriech23]

Quote: Originally Posted by FuzzySlippers

I'd put you in the Hall of Stupid and not just for this post. Who gives a damn about how he got along with teammates. The bottom line is he produced and produced impressively. Guy has more receptions,more yards and more touchdowns that any receiver currently in the Hall of Fame. The guy is a Hall of Famer period. Now will it be first ballot,probably not,but he will be there. Hall of very good,boy I ****in swear.

Yep. I've got to agree with you.

[Wet Bandit]

Let me put this one more way, just to make sure I get my point across.

When I think about the TO situation and the Hall of Fame, I look it at kinda like I look at guns. Just follow me for a sec.

I don't necessarily have issues with anyone having a gun. What I have issues with is when someone has a gun and uses it to kill someone. That's obvious, though, right? There's nothing controversial about that.

The TO situation, to me, is similar.

Regarding Hall of Fame candidacy, I don't necessarily have issues with a guy being a giant prick. What I have issues with is when someone is such a giant prick that it causes the team on the field to be worse.

At least according to three teams, and who knows how many other teams that wouldn't even touch TO in free agency, he makes teams worse on the field with all his character stuff. And these are teams that willingly employ cheaters, criminals, drug users, pricks, etc., as long as it makes the team on the field better.

For that many teams to have that view of TO, despite his unquestionably great career numbers, I find it hard to put him in the Hall of Fame.

If someone disagrees, fine. It's not like I'm some all-knowing bearer-of-truth who has the one and only proper opinion.

That's all I have to say about it. I'm not sure what else I could say to get my point across, so no discussion, or argument, is going to be productive. And I don't really want to deal with any other guys that want to come at me all aggressive just because of what I happen to think about TO.

[SPTO]

Quote: Originally Posted by Wet Bandit

The TO situation, to me, is similar. Regarding Hall of Fame candidacy, I don't necessarily have issues with a guy being a giant prick. What I have issues with is when someone is such a giant prick that it causes the team on the field to be worse.

One can argue that T.O. made Philly and Dallas better. As for the Bills, well they're not even using T.O. properly so they'd suck anyways.

[canes6812]

I do think TO will potentially be a hall of famer, but like Cris Carter he is going to wait a few years when he becomes eligible .

[SoxFan01605]

Quote: Originally Posted by Wet Bandit

Regarding Hall of Fame candidacy, I don't necessarily have issues with a guy being a giant prick. What I have issues with is when someone is such a giant prick that it causes the team on the field to be worse.

I think that's the point of contention (for me at least). What team did he make worse on the field? He was one of the bright spots on a transitioning SF team. His attitude there was only so much a facvtor because they had little chance of winning with or without him. No sense dealing with it if you don't reap the benefits.

On the Eagles, he and Donovan were a hell of a problem for their opponents. In fact in his cut-short season he was one of the most dangerous guys in the league before his contract issues. They were a good offense before Owens. They were explosive with him.

In Dallas they were a near .500 team without him. They exploded to 13-3 with him and came back down to earth after, but certainly weren't worse than without him.

I think the perception is that he brings teams down. On the field, there is no evidence of that. I think the issue with T.O is that he's combative and has been so with his QBs. As I said in another thread (about Dallas), he had to go because when it comes down to a choice between perceived franchise QB and a WR, the QB will usually win.

I see your side of it (and there are, I'm sure, plenty who feel the same way), I just don't think that the teams were "worse on the field" because of his attitude.

[BunnyHardaway]

He's got the numbers to get in and had a beast of a Super Bowl on a broken leg...I'd say he's a HOFer.

[MrNFL_FanIQ]

He's a lot more deserving than Michael Irvin, who got in. And his "antics" have been insanely overblown by the media.