Terrell Owens - Hall of Famer?

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

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.

Isaac Bruce is the classic case of stat compiler, on par with Monk. To call him at any point in his career "the best" is absurd and not true.

If you are inducting him into the Hall of Fame, I'll expect Jimmy's in the mail at least a year prior. Jimmy > Bruce...and Jimmy ain't getting in. From 96-05, aka, the bulk of each of their career, Jimmy out produced Bruce in both catches and yards. Jimmy even finished his career ahead of Bruce on the All-Time lists in yards.

And T.O. > Holt and it ain't debatable, IMO.

Outside of Harrison, Moss, and T.O. (and even T.O. is debatable here), I find any of the aforementioned players you mention very dubious Hall of Fame candidates, because a case can be made for Jimmy Smith to be better than them all, and Jimmy isn't getting in.

We are talking about guys that never were considered the #1 WR in the league. The transition from Rice went right to Moss and Harrison. Bruce, #1 at any time? Laughable.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Isaac Bruce is the classic case of stat compiler, on par with Monk.

Wrong.

Monk was never an elite player. Bruce was for many years.

If you are inducting him into the Hall of Fame, I'll expect Jimmy's in the mail at least a year prior. Jimmy > Bruce...and Jimmy ain't getting in.

Dude, I like Jimmy Smith. But he's no Isaac Bruce. Stop.

And T.O. > Holt.

wrong again.

TO is physically stronger. Otherwise, there is no facet of TO's game that is better than Holt's.

 

[longhornfan]

It's sad that it takes a T.O thread to bring some good arguments to VSN.. and it's full of the MM guys lol.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

And T.O. > Holt and it ain't debatable, IMO.

Holt had a run of 6 straight 1300+ yard seasons (NFL record), with two of those seasons going over 1600.

TO has four 1300+ yard seasons in his career, and never hit 1500, let alone 1600.

Holt also topped 90 catches 6 straight seasons, including two 100+ catch seasons. TO has three seasons over 90, and one season at 100.

Holt also went eight straight years with 80+ catches and 1000+ yards. Only Rice and Harrison have done that.

No crying, no temper tantrums, no getting kicked off teams every two years. Just elite level production every year. He was faster than TO, had MUCH better hands, and along with Bruce, was an elite route runner on par with anyone, ever.

TO had brutal hands, went through a period where he was unwilling to go over the middle, and never posessed the overall skill set of Holt.

You'd be hard pressed to find one GM who would have preferred TO over Holt in their primes.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for Bruce, I wont bother. You're terribly underating him, but you always have. No point debating it.

 

[longhornfan]

Holt also played in one of the most prolific offenses in the NFL, but I guess that's a whole different argument.

 

[young2rice]

Holt had a run of 6 straight 1300+ yard seasons (NFL record), with two of those seasons going over 1600.

TO has four 1300+ yard seasons in his career, and never hit 1500, let alone 1600.

Holt also topped 90 catches 6 straight seasons, including two 100+ catch seasons. TO has three seasons over 90, and one season at 100.

Holt also went eight straight years with 80+ catches and 1000+ yards. Only Rice and Harrison have done that.

No crying, no temper tantrums, no getting kicked off teams every two years. Just elite level production every year. He was faster than TO, had MUCH better hands, and along with Bruce, was an elite route runner on par with anyone, ever.

TO had brutal hands, went through a period where he was unwilling to go over the middle, and never posessed the overall skill set of Holt.

You'd be hard pressed to find one GM who would have preferred TO over Holt in their primes.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for Bruce, I wont bother. You're terribly underating him, but you always have. No point debating it.

Well therein lies the debate. Is it better to be #1-3 top receiver in the league for a shorter time-span. (Holt's examples) Or to be a #1-5 top receiver in the league for a longer time span. (Owen's examples). Imo the second option may be better in this case. I mean we're not talking Art Monk stat compiling here where another wide receiver on the same team was constantly out-playing him (Ricky Sanders/Gary Clark) and he just hung on with 8x 30-60 catch seasons.

I was originally going to put #2-3/#2-5 since Moss is the top guy but his years in Oakland stopped that.

I think it's the other way around. C.Carter = T.O. and T.Holt = J.Smith

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Holt also played in one of the most prolific offenses in the NFL, but I guess that's a whole different argument.

An offense he had alot to do with. That works in his favor. Like KOF pointed out, Holt, Harrison and Moss were able to produce and contribute to all time great offenses and great teams. TO gets kicked off teams.

Plus, TO has been the primary offensive weapon of his team nearly every year of his career, which no doubt has helped his numbers (specifically TD's). Holt was sharing touches with two other HOF caliber players, plus Steven Jackson later on. How many TD's did Holt have cannibalized by those other great players?

 

[longhornfan]

An offense he had alot to do with. That works in his favor. Like KOF pointed out, Holt, Harrison and Moss were able to produce and contribute to all time great offenses and great teams. TO gets kicked off teams.

And every QB whose thrown to TO has had career numbers when he was there. You have to look at that too.

 

[longhornfan]

An offense he had alot to do with. That works in his favor. Like KOF pointed out, Holt, Harrison and Moss were able to produce and contribute to all time great offenses and great teams. TO gets kicked off teams.

And every QB whose thrown to TO has had career numbers when he was there. You have to look at that too.

 

[longhornfan]

An offense he had alot to do with. That works in his favor. Like KOF pointed out, Holt, Harrison and Moss were able to produce and contribute to all time great offenses and great teams. TO gets kicked off teams.

And every QB whose thrown to TO has had career numbers when he was there. You have to look at that too.

 

[Liquidrob]

Owens has the worst hands of any of the elite WR's, ever

 

[Liquidrob]

Owens has the worst hands of any of the elite WR, ever

 

[longhornfan]

An offense he had alot to do with. That works in his favor. Like KOF pointed out, Holt, Harrison and Moss were able to produce and contribute to all time great offenses and great teams. TO gets kicked off teams.

And every QB whose thrown to TO has had career numbers when he was there. You have to look at that too.

Edit: fuck it looks like VSN fucked with me and robs posts.

 

[young2rice]

lmao a quadruple post longhorn? Gawd Damn haven't seen that in a long time!


BTW in the end it's what you put more value into. Catches/Yards or Touchdowns. TO averages 3 more TD's than Holt, Holt averages 13 more catches, 200 more yards than Owens.

 

[longhornfan]

lmao a quadruple post longhorn? Gawd Damn haven't seen that in a long time!


BTW in the end it's what you put more value into. Catches/Yards or Touchdowns. TO averages 3 more TD's than Holt, Holt averages 13 more catches, 200 more yards than Owens.

Yeah it was weird.

And to me at the end of the day it evens out.

 

[KINGOFOOTBALL]

It's sad that it takes a T.O thread to bring some good arguments to VSN.. and it's full of the MM guys lol.

Yeah wtf is that about.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Wrong.

Monk was never an elite player. Bruce was for many years.



Dude, I like Jimmy Smith. But he's no Isaac Bruce. Stop.



wrong again.

TO is physically stronger. Otherwise, there is no facet of TO's game that is better than Holt's.

Jimmy was better than Bruce throughout the supreme bulk of their careers. There is no debate. Statistically, subjectively, and even from a skill set POV, there is nothing that Bruce had in his game that took him above Jimmy Smith. Nada.

The only pro for Bruce is that he played in an offense that should be recognized in the Hall of Fame...however, that offense is going to defy some odds for all of these guys to get into the Hall of Fame.

They have 5 guys on the offense that people will make a claim being Hall worthy and I don't think all of them get in. Warner, Faulk, Pace, Holt and Bruce. Somebody is getting left out.

I'll continue to say it...T.O. > Holt...I won't even debate it, because its laughable.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Holt had a run of 6 straight 1300+ yard seasons (NFL record), with two of those seasons going over 1600.

TO has four 1300+ yard seasons in his career, and never hit 1500, let alone 1600.

Holt also topped 90 catches 6 straight seasons, including two 100+ catch seasons. TO has three seasons over 90, and one season at 100.

Holt also went eight straight years with 80+ catches and 1000+ yards. Only Rice and Harrison have done that.

No crying, no temper tantrums, no getting kicked off teams every two years. Just elite level production every year. He was faster than TO, had MUCH better hands, and along with Bruce, was an elite route runner on par with anyone, ever.

TO had brutal hands, went through a period where he was unwilling to go over the middle, and never posessed the overall skill set of Holt.

You'd be hard pressed to find one GM who would have preferred TO over Holt in their primes.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for Bruce, I wont bother. You're terribly underating him, but you always have. No point debating it.

I'm not underrating Bruce...I think he is a great wide receiver...but, he is the Curtis Martin of wide receivers. I think Martin is in, and Bruce will probably get in...but, I think it is a farce that Bruce is a shoe in however Jimmy Smith is where the line is drawn because Jimmy was for the greater part of their careers (96 until Jimmy retired) was a better player, he just didn't have the benefit of playing in one of the best offenses ever.

Bruce was consistently good for so long that he became great...much like Curtis Martin. Never legendary and you could tell the story of the NFL - despite those great numbers - without them (and let's be honest, those are the types of players we are splitting hairs with here. The same with Holt. Despite numbers, he was never on a Moss or Harrison level...just off the cusp of elite.

You will be hard pressed to see FIVE of that Greatest Show on Turf offense into the Hall of Fame. Senser can chime in, because I don't feel like researching it, but no singular unit in the history of the game (offense or defense) has or will have that many players in the Hall. The early 90's Cowboys will have four (Aikman, Smith, Irvin, Allen). The Steel Curtain didn't even have that many (Lambert, Ham, Greene, Blount).

Somebody from that unit is getting left out...you might even have two guys get left out, IMO.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

I'm not underrating Bruce...I think he is a great wide receiver...but, he is the Curtis Martin of wide receivers. I think Martin is in, and Bruce will probably get in...but, I think it is a farce that Bruce is a shoe in however Jimmy Smith is where the line is drawn because Jimmy was for the greater part of their careers (96 until Jimmy retired) was a better player, he just didn't have the benefit of playing in one of the best offenses ever.

Bruce was consistently good for so long that he became great...much like Curtis Martin. Never legendary and you could tell the story of the NFL - despite those great numbers - without them (and let's be honest, those are the types of players we are splitting hairs with here. The same with Holt. Despite numbers, he was never on a Moss or Harrison level...just off the cusp of elite.

You will be hard pressed to see FIVE of that Greatest Show on Turf offense into the Hall of Fame. Senser can chime in, because I don't feel like researching it, but no singular unit in the history of the game (offense or defense) has or will have that many players in the Hall. The early 90's Cowboys will have four (Aikman, Smith, Irvin, Allen). The Steel Curtain didn't even have that many (Lambert, Ham, Greene, Blount).

Somebody from that unit is getting left out...you might even have two guys get left out, IMO.

As I said, I won't debate Bruce/Smith. You have a Rams fan and Jaguars fan, both guys were great, and his will go nowhere. I still think you are missing the boat on he level of Bruce's dominance from 95-96, and from 99-01. And i'm not sure how his longevity somehow works against him--he went over 800 yards with 7 TD's last year with no QB. He's three years removed from a 70 catch, 1,000 yard season--which came long after Smith retired.

His peak years are as good as anyone, and he's still going strong. Why is that not a plus?

As for his legacy, he was the best WR on the greatest offense of all time (you act as if he was a bystandard), and made the game winning catch in a SB.

As for Holt vs. Moss, we did this on MM in the All Decade Team thread. There is no question Holt had a better decade than Moss, and Holt and Harrison were the best WR's of the decade. Not Moss, not TO. To suggest Holt > TO is laughable, and not even worthy of debate, is crazy. Especially when you can make a pretty convincing argument that Holt was better than anyone aside from Harrison.

The Greatest Show On Turf scored 500 points three years in a row, something no other team has done more than once, and went to two SB's. If they have five HOF'ers, so be it. You can't say, well, this team has four, these guys three...I mean, the Cowboys "only" have four, because they don't have a fifth that deserves it. Faulk is a lock, Holt is a lock, Warner locked it up last year, Bruce is a virtual lock but Irvin & Carter having trouble is a warning sign (irony is I think Bruce was better at his peak than Holt), and Pace is close. They've all done enough to deserve it, so why not?

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Never said it wasn't a plus, I'm actually in the boat that says that this generation of football players will be rewarded for extended periods of GOOD play even if they never were elite...like Jerome Bettis and Curtis Martin at RB, like Art Monk at WR...guys like Isaac Bruce fall under this category, IMO.

And, I have no issues with a HoF'r being a HoF'r...the Rams do have five guys deemed worthy...however, Hall voters have seen things differently and have held out guys...Jerry Kramer being left out amongst those early 60's Packer teams that has a bunch of guys inducted off of it, as an example. That is why I say that I think the Rams of the Greatest Show on Turf era are going to have trouble getting all five in. Five guys that are "worthy" but not all five will get in.

Faulk is a shoe in. I think Pace is a shoe in (he and Ogden were the two best in football post Boselli). I think Warner got in because of his season with Arizona last year, although, Warner is an odd case indeed. Then it comes down to Holt and Bruce...eh...we'll see I guess. I think it'll be a while after retirement that either gets in anyway...so...when we are 50 and posting on VirtualSportsMania with the latest group of tweens posting there we'll have to come back to this discussion.