Terrell Owens - Hall of Famer?

[Senser81]

Irvin has the big game catches , performances , games against top tier CBs/Defenses , reputation as a leader and a great teammate TO "thinks" he has.

Ill have to repeat. TO does NOT stand out statistically against this peers other than TDs. He was never a reception or yardage leader , he never had a truly dominant season in comparison.
Randy Moss , Holt , Harrison all have just as good if not better resumes than TO. Guys like Bruce , Tim Brown , Reed also have some damn good resumes in comparison.

Thats a shit ton of WRs. Noone outside of Moss IMO is particularly special or great in comparison to the others.

There's something like 20-25 WRs in the HOF...there's 7 listed above that have similar resumes. I don't see how TO is more deserving than any others above. I don't see how on earth all those guys are going to get in.




**For the record Id put almost all those guys in before worst player in the HOF Art Monk.

I knew you would respond to my Irvin comparison!

If TO doesn't statistically stand out against his peers, then I cannot even fathom how to describe Michael Irvin in relation to his peers. Irvin's statistics and credentials are wholly unimpressive. He had only two seasons that could be considered HOF worthy. And in one of those seasons, he ranked only 5th in receptions, 4th in yards, and 10th in TD receptions. Amazingly, Irvin made the pro bowl over Isaac Bruce, despite Bruce having more receptions, yards, TDs, and a higher YPC.

Owens has 141 TDs and counting...Irvin has 65.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Irvin has the big game catches , performances , games against top tier CBs/Defenses , reputation as a leader and a great teammate TO "thinks" he has.

Ill have to repeat. TO does NOT stand out statistically against this peers other than TDs. He was never a reception or yardage leader , he never had a truly dominant season in comparison.
Randy Moss , Holt , Harrison all have just as good if not better resumes than TO. Guys like Bruce , Tim Brown , Reed also have some damn good resumes in comparison.

Thats a shit ton of WRs. Noone outside of Moss IMO is particularly special or great in comparison to the others.

There's something like 20-25 WRs in the HOF...there's 7 listed above that have similar resumes. I don't see how TO is more deserving than any others above. I don't see how on earth all those guys are going to get in.




**For the record Id put almost all those guys in before worst player in the HOF Art Monk.

Similarly, is Cris Carter. Never totally stood out from his peers outside of making touchdown catches statistically, but compiled numbers by being consistently in there. Carter had one outlier year where he led the league in receptions, but then again, T.O. had a much higher ypc and will finish his career with more yards, will come close to total receptions, more touchdowns...respected as one of the top players at his position throughout his career (like Carter), not always seen in a "good light" with the media and his peers, lots of Pro Bowls and for Owens, 5-time All-Pro (More then Harrison, Randy Moss, Torry Holt, Isaac Bruce, Tim Brown, Andre Reed, and any other WR I could find in a quick look up).

It is tough to make an argument against Owens in the Hall, it really is. Outside of a Super Bowl ring, his resume is pretty rock solid Hall worthy.

 

[longhornfan]

Owens has 141 TDs and counting...Irvin has 65.

But outside of his TD's, TO doesn't stand out statistically. Get with the program Senser :rolleyes1:

 

[young2rice]

Same year.....
Harrison---- 102--1413--14tds
Rod Smith---- 100--1602-- 8tds
Moss---- 77--1437--15 tds 18.9 ypc !!
Holt---- 82--1634--6tds 19.9 ypc !!





Same year.....
Harrison---- 109 catches 1524 yards 15 tds
David Boston---- 98 catches 1598 yards 8tds
Rod Smith ----113 catches 1343 yards




Same year....
Harrison---- 143 catches 1722 yards 11tds
Ward---- 112 catches 1329 yards 12 tds
Moss---- 106 catches 1347 yards
Moulds---- 100 catches 1292 yards 10tds



Once again my statement....Outside of TDs in no way does he stand above any of his peers or had a dominant season.
Even in his best years guys like David Boston , Rod Smith and Moulds were having similar seasons and guys like Harrison/Holt/Moss were having some obscene seasons.

People are severely underestimated just how padded passing/receiving numbers are the last decade.

=\ the only person that appears in all those lists is Owens. Point for Owens in the hall. With Harrison being 2nd best at 2 times on the list.

 

[KINGOFOOTBALL]

Similarly, is Cris Carter. Never totally stood out from his peers outside of making touchdown catches statistically, but compiled numbers by being consistently in there. Carter had one outlier year where he led the league in receptions, but then again, T.O. had a much higher ypc and will finish his career with more yards, will come close to total receptions, more touchdowns...respected as one of the top players at his position throughout his career (like Carter), not always seen in a "good light" with the media and his peers, lots of Pro Bowls and for Owens, 5-time All-Pro (More then Harrison, Randy Moss, Torry Holt, Isaac Bruce, Tim Brown, Andre Reed, and any other WR I could find in a quick look up).

It is tough to make an argument against Owens in the Hall, it really is. Outside of a Super Bowl ring, his resume is pretty rock solid Hall worthy.

Rice/Irvin/Carter were pretty exclusively considered the best WRs in the league through the 90s.

Carter had a bad media attitude but nothing related to his on the field play or his value as a teammate.
Many felt he was the best WR outside of Rice.
Many felt he had the best hands ever. His career is a highlight reel of ridiculous catches.

He was better statistically than Irvin , and only second to Rice.
Broke a record , set another one.

Hes still not in the HOF.

He stands out over his peers more than TO , and he has none of the shit and baggage TO has.
You put TO in , you're saying yes to Carter, Reed , Bruce , Holt , Harrison , Brown etc.

All those guys arent getting in nor do they deserve to. TO doesnt stand above any of those guys to be anywhere on the same planet as the word shoe-in.

=\ the only person that appears in all those lists is Owens. Point for Owens in the hall. With Harrison being 2nd best at 2 times on the list.

1. Duh...it was a list of HIS 3 best years why wouldnt he be ?
2. Harrison also appears in all 3 with better numbers.




Senser--
I knew it was bait I bit anyways !!
Irvin didn't get in because of his regular season stats. I dont think anyone thinks that or can make a case he did.

The fact he got in before Carter can be debated in worthiness....but you cant debate that it CLEARLY shows TD numbers alone arent getting you in. TO didnt stand out above his peers , never had an elite season , has no rings , and accumulated stats in the easiest era of accumulating numbers.

To think TO is a HOFer is really really shortsighted. This aint the fantasy football HOF.

The only sure fire guys this decade are Moss and Harrison.
They have every aspect covered. TO is next tier.

 

[KINGOFOOTBALL]

So your going to discredit his TD's? Why?
And your proving my point. Hate T.O or whatever but he's came to play year in and year out.
Having similar numbers to guys like Moss & Harrison on a consistent basis for about a 12 year period.
Dude is going to be a 1st or 2nd ballot HOF.

He didnt have similar numbers. In HIS BEST years he still had barely equal or LESSER numbers than his peers.
Harrison and Moss were better PERIOD.Guys like Holt have similar resumes with Yards being emphasized instead of TDs.
Thats before you touch already eligibles Reed, Carter and a bunch of soon to be eligibles.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Rice/Irvin/Carter were pretty exclusively considered the best WRs in the league through the 90s.

Carter had a bad media attitude but nothing related to his on the field play or his value as a teammate.
Many felt he was the best WR outside of Rice.
Many felt he had the best hands ever. His career is a highlight reel of ridiculous catches.

He was better statistically than Irvin , and only second to Rice.
Broke a record , set another one.

Hes still not in the HOF.

He stands out over his peers more than TO , and he has none of the shit and baggage TO has.
You put TO in , you're saying yes to Carter, Reed , Bruce , Holt , Harrison , Brown etc.

All those guys arent getting in nor do they deserve to. TO doesnt stand above any of those guys to be anywhere on the same planet as the word shoe-in.

Owens has widely been considered right there with Moss and Harrison as the game's best. I am unsure of the planet you are on, where he hasn't been.

The homer in me says Jimmy Smith is there, too...but he isn't and he won't be. Holt is behind him, and Bruce is behind both of them and the only consideration he has for the Hall is with the Art Monk treatment. I can't recall when Bruce was better than any of the above, but alas, that is a different discussion.

As for Owens, he was there and has been considered a premier WR in the game for quite some time.

In Owens' generation, top three in yards right now (will surpass Isaac Bruce as early as this year to be #2 in all-time yardage). He is currently top three in receptions (by the end of his career, he may very well be #2 all-time). He is right now #2 all-time in touchdown catches.

By the time he is done, he'll be, statistically, the best WR of his generation (barring Moss going bonkers, of course). Not only that, but statistically, he'll be second, only to Rice as the most prolific of all time.

Not only that, but in that subjective "did he ever dominate"..."where was he ranked by his peers" it is nearly universal that T.O. was of the best to play his position...More all-pros then any of his peers is indicative of that.

His resume is actually better than Carter's and yes, Carter isn't in, but he will be. As will be T.O.

 

[Wildcard]

Terrell Owens should be a shoe in for the Hall of Fame.

His numbers are ridiculous.

If Kurt Warner makes the HoF but not Terrell Owens I'm slitting Warners throat.

 

[KINGOFOOTBALL]

Owens has widely been considered right there with Moss and Harrison as the game's best. I am unsure of the planet you are on, where he hasn't been.

The homer in me says Jimmy Smith is there, too...but he isn't and he won't be. Holt is behind him, and Bruce is behind both of them and the only consideration he has for the Hall is with the Art Monk treatment. I can't recall when Bruce was better than any of the above, but alas, that is a different discussion.

As for Owens, he was there and has been considered a premier WR in the game for quite some time.

In Owens' generation, top three in yards right now (will surpass Isaac Bruce as early as this year to be #2 in all-time yardage). He is currently top three in receptions (by the end of his career, he may very well be #2 all-time). He is right now #2 all-time in touchdown catches.

By the time he is done, he'll be, statistically, the best WR of his generation (barring Moss going bonkers, of course). Not only that, but statistically, he'll be second, only to Rice as the most prolific of all time.

Not only that, but in that subjective "did he ever dominate"..."where was he ranked by his peers" it is nearly universal that T.O. was of the best to play his position...More all-pros then any of his peers is indicative of that.

His resume is actually better than Carter's and yes, Carter isn't in, but he will be. As will be T.O.

Youre playing fantasy football again. The people who thought TO were the best were TO fans and people who listened to his mouth. Self publicizing yourself as the best doesnt make you that.
If Tory Holt had that mouth we'd be having the discussion about him.

Bottom line TO is not better than Carter/Moss/Harrison...hes only in the same league as Brown/Reed/Holt etc. How you put all those guys in the HOF knowing theres only 20 or so as it stands , knowing EVERYONE this decade had insanely padded stats , knowing TO was booted off 3 teams is beyond me.

it is nearly universal that T.O. was of the best to play his position...More all-pros then any of his peers is indicative of that.

Its universal that hes NOT.
I dont know a single person that would or has ever made a case for TO being better than Moss or Harrison. Those 2 are clearly the best of this gen period. Ive never read or heard a single person with credibility in publication or on TV say TO is the best of this gen.

 

[mcstl25]

Can anyone remember another hall of fame caliber player that was run off by three different teams in any sport? (Not related to salary or on-the-field performance issues)

Owens undoubtedly has the statistics to get into the hall. However, in NFL there is more to getting into the hall than numbers alone.

Both Philadelphia and Dallas felt that they were a better team without Owens, despite his great numbers. He is a distraction on and off the field and has ruined the team chemistry in every organization that he's played for. The NFL is the ultimate team sport, and in my opinion his "baggage" supersedes his numbers because teams seem to be better off without him.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Youre playing fantasy football again. The people who thought TO were the best were TO fans and people who listened to his mouth. Self publicizing yourself as the best doesnt make you that.
If Tory Holt had that mouth we'd be having the discussion about him.

Bottom line TO is not better than Carter/Moss/Harrison...hes only in the same league as Brown/Reed/Holt etc. How you put all those guys in the HOF knowing theres only 20 or so as it stands , knowing EVERYONE this decade had insanely padded stats , knowing TO was booted off 3 teams is beyond me.



Its universal that hes NOT.
I dont know a single person that would or has ever made a case for TO being better than Moss or Harrison. Those 2 are clearly the best of this gen period. Ive never read or heard a single person with credibility in publication or on TV say TO is the best of this gen.

I'm not saying Owens is better than either, I'm saying that he is unanimously in the Top 3...after Moss and Harrison, in his generation, its Owens. If you disagree, I think you are wrong.

There is no "fantasy football" being played, get out of here with that argument. My argument is that not only was he statistically on par with a Hall of Fame resume, his perceived value and rank is there too...at #3 of his generation. How you can deny otherwise baffles me. He is better than Holt, better than Brown and much better than Andre Reed.

I'm a T.O. fan? Show me where? I can't stand the guy and wouldn't want him close to my team...but facts are facts, statistically, he's a Hall of Famer, he is the 3rd best WR of his generation from any subjective POV.

As far as Carter...they'd be of equal value to me...they both are Hall of Fame receivers.

You and I both know the Hall's idea of a Hall of Fame WR has changed with the induction of Monk...just like the 50's and 60's saw 20+ RBs make the Hall while you wouldn't reach that number from the 70's to current combined. The criteria has changed.

At the end of his career, Owens will place #1 in his generation statistically (plus, more All-Pro teams than any of his peers, if that isn't indicative of their subjective rank amongst their peers...) and no worse than third subjectively.

If that isn't a Hall of Famer, what is?

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

And, as of right now, the only guys not in the Hall, that I think should be in the Hall are...

Rice
Tim Brown
Harrison
Carter
Owens
Moss
Holt
Bruce probably gets in on the Art Monk treatment, despite not being better throughout his generation as Jimmy Smith, who won't get in.

Andre Reed is right there with Jimmy as the "last guys out" type of deal, although Reed has a place in Canton...the Buffalo triplets get overlooked with Dallas' being so prominent.

 

[Senser81]

Can anyone remember another hall of fame caliber player that was run off by three different teams in any sport? (Not related to salary or on-the-field performance issues)

Yeah, thats kinda where I get stuck with TO's HOF candidacy...if he was truly a HOF WR, then why is it every team he's on can't wait to unload him?

Fran Tarkenton changed teams twice in the prime of his career...going from the Vikings to the Giants, then from the Giants back to the Vikings. The first trade was because Norm Van Brocklin (the coach) hated Tarkenton's scrambling, the second trade was because the Giants were fools (and wanted a drop-back passer named Norm Snead). Not really the same situation as TO.

The only WR I can think of like TO was a guy named Roy Jefferson. He played in the late-60's to late 70's, and he was the same type of WR as TO. A mouthy, physical guy who had good enough hands and could make big plays after the catch. He went from the Steelers (where he was a top WR), to the Colts (where he won a SB in 1970), to the Redskins (where he went to the SB in 1972) all in the prime of his career.

 

[KINGOFOOTBALL]

I'm not saying Owens is better than either, I'm saying that he is unanimously in the Top 3...after Moss and Harrison, in his generation, its Owens. If you disagree, I think you are wrong.

There is no "fantasy football" being played, get out of here with that argument. My argument is that not only was he statistically on par with a Hall of Fame resume, his perceived value and rank is there too...at #3 of his generation. How you can deny otherwise baffles me. He is better than Holt, better than Brown and much better than Andre Reed.

I'm a T.O. fan? Show me where? I can't stand the guy and wouldn't want him close to my team...but facts are facts, statistically, he's a Hall of Famer, he is the 3rd best WR of his generation from any subjective POV.

As far as Carter...they'd be of equal value to me...they both are Hall of Fame receivers.

You and I both know the Hall's idea of a Hall of Fame WR has changed with the induction of Monk...just like the 50's and 60's saw 20+ RBs make the Hall while you wouldn't reach that number from the 70's to current combined. The criteria has changed.

At the end of his career, Owens will place #1 in his generation statistically (plus, more All-Pro teams than any of his peers, if that isn't indicative of their subjective rank amongst their peers...) and no worse than third subjectively.

If that isn't a Hall of Famer, what is?

"where was he ranked by his peers" it is nearly universal that T.O. was of the best to play his position...More all-pros then any of his peers is indicative of that.

I guess I dont know if you mean "best to play" or "one of the best" to play.

I assumed best to play with the All pro that you threw in afterwards.


Yes he was "among" the best. But never the best. Moss has direct correlation to the greatest offenses and offensive seasons ever. Harrison has a ring.Moss/Harrison both have some all world records to there credit.
Theres a gap between them and TO. Holt has a ring , part of an all time team , far better hands/routes than TO . TO has the tds yr in yr out Holt has the Yardage yr in yr out. I dont think hes better. He will have the longevity edge so perhaps you can bump him above.

Art Monk took ages to get in , Reed , Carter still arent in.Monks selection may have changed things but I dont see the floodgates open.

A guy who was barely the 3rd best of his gen , no postseason success to speak of , booted off 3 teams in his prime , playing a position where stats were ridiculously padded, will weigh in heavy on voters.

 

[Derrville]

Tim Brown should be a lock

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

And, as of right now, the only guys not in the Hall, that I think should be in the Hall are...

Rice
Tim Brown
Harrison
Carter
Owens
Moss
Holt
Bruce probably gets in on the Art Monk treatment, despite not being better throughout his generation as Jimmy Smith, who won't get in.

Andre Reed is right there with Jimmy as the "last guys out" type of deal, although Reed has a place in Canton...the Buffalo triplets get overlooked with Dallas' being so prominent.

Every single guy on that list was a better player than Owens, except Tim Brown.

Owens was never a better player than Harrison, Moss, or Holt, his direct contemporaries. Statistically you can split hairs if you want, and make a case for whoever you like better. But if you throw out the stats and watch them all play in their primes, it's almost laughable to say TO is as good as those three guys.

Moss was freak of nature who did things nobody else could ever do.

Harrison and Holt were complete players who ran ultra precision routes, had hands of glue, and were consistant producers for an entire decade.

Harrison and Holt were the two best WR's of the decade, with Moss a notch below due to a bad 3 or 4 year stretch. TO lags way behind all three.

And Larry, you never give Isaac Bruce his due. Any Rams fan will tell you, he was better at his peak than Holt, and Holt is an all time great. Comparing Bruce to Art Monk is insulting. Bruce was the second best WR in football (behind Rice) for a stretch of the 90's. The longer he keeps playing, the farther removed we are from his dominance, which hurts the way he is precieved. He was the second best WR in 95 & 96, and the best WR in 99. Had he not had all those hamstring problems in 97 & 98, you are talking about a guy who would be considered one of the two or three best ever. He's still an all time great as it is.

TO was never the best WR in the league. Ever.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Yes he was "among" the best. But never the best. Moss has direct correlation to the greatest offenses and offensive seasons ever. Harrison has a ring.Moss/Harrison both have some all world records to there credit.
Theres a gap between them and TO. Holt has a ring , part of an all time team , far better hands/routes than TO . TO has the tds yr in yr out Holt has the Yardage yr in yr out. I dont think hes better. He will have the longevity edge so perhaps you can bump him above.

Holt, Moss, Harrison, and Bruce were vital cogs and contributed on all time legendary offenses at various points in their careers. All sacrificed statistics to other great players--Holt & Bruce to each other and Faulk, Moss to Carter & Reed, Harrison to Wayne & Edge, etc...yet they still have better and/or similar numbers as TO, who was the clear cut #1 offensive weapon an every team he ever played on, post a couple years with Rice.

TO was a selfish player who bitched his way off of three teams, to the point only Buffalo would take him.

How people can look past that is mind boggling.

Forget numbers--does anyone honestly think TO is a better player than those guys? Would you rather have him on your team? I don't see how anyone can say yes.

 

[young2rice]

All-Time Touchdown List
1. Jerry Rice - 208 - Future HOF
2. Emmitt Smith - 175 - Future HOF
3. Marcus Allen - 145 - HOF
4. LaDanian Tomlinson - 142 - Future HOF
5. Terrell Owens - 141 - Future HOF
6. Marshall Faulk - 136 - Future HOF
7. Randy Moss - 136 - Future HOF
8. Cris Carter - 131 - Future HOF
9. Marvin Harrison - 128 - Future HOF
10. Jim Brown - 126 - HOF
11. Walter Payton - 125 - HOF
12. John Riggins - 116 - HOF
13. Lenny Moore - 113 - HOF
14. Shaun Alexander - 112 - NOPE
15. Barry Sanders - 109 - HOF
16. Tim Brown - 105 - Ehh
17. Don Hutson - 105 - HOF
18. Steve Largent - 101 - HOF
19. Franco Harris - 100 - HOF
20. Curtis Martin - 100 - Ehh

is the way I see it.



with my other points from earlier

There's no way I see him not getting it at some point.

He will finish at least Top 3 in every single receiving category all-time.

Teams with him on their side have a 60.6% chance of winning (128-80).

54 catches 751 yds 5 touchdowns in playoff games.

47 100+ yard games.

104 games where he had at least a touchdown

6x Pro Bowls, 5x All-Pro

 

[mcstl25]

Numbers are overrated in the NFL. Bottom line - teams are better off without TO. You can't induct someone in the hall of fame that does more harm than good to their team.

 

[young2rice]

SF went from 7-9 to 2-14 after he left.
Phi did go from 6-10 to 10-6.
Dal will go from 9-7 to whatever they do this year. (Which i'm not sure will be much better.)
Buf is 7-9 we'll see what they do this season.


So we have yet to see where they are without him. One team does horrible without, another does better, the third will probably break even, and the last will probably break even as well. I still think my 60.6% win %'ge with T.O. on their team is a solid statistic