bachslunch wrote:Relatedly, the whining and complaining about TO not getting in the HoF looks to have reached epic proportions. You'd think a finalist never had to wait before or something. Makes the squawking about Cris Carter's delay seem tame by comparison. Ridiculous.
Can't imagine the voters will respond well to all this. Could become a long wait for TO, though I'm sure he'll get elected at some point.
Agree with first part. The whining is pretty epic this year and has allowed for some fun episodes. But I think Owens gets in next year, maybe not, but I think he will. No matter what he does, he won't be punished for speaking out. The voters, maybe not all, but most, don't hold that kind of grudge. Not matter what he says his overall resume will get him elected. It's got lots of great things.
The thing that kept him out is mostly the disruptive factor and also the other things. It was written about last year. The drops were in the discussion in the meeting a year ago.
The thing for us on the outside to note, is that most here seem to agree that no injustice was done for him missing a couple of times. In fact, had he gotten in first-ballot, more of a historical-type injustice could be argued to have been done, to put him on same pedestal as Hutson, Warfield, Rice and Alworth. (I leave out Largent because he, upon further review, might not stand scrutiny as a 1st ballot guy. He might, but he might not.
I would say the same type historical-type issue (injustice may not be right word) applies to Jason Taylor. Gino, Deacon, Reggie, Bruce . . . and Jason Taylor?
But, once Taylor was on the final 5, there was no reason to 86 him just because he may be in the Jackie Slater-not-1st-ballot category.
I think the good things that have happened over the last few weeks is that those who are extreme in their criticism of the HOF committee, like Florio and Adan Schein and Nick Wright, Manish Mehta have had a chance to learn some things they didn't know. Whether it sticks or not, who knows? They learned that career totals in three categories is a great thing, but when a closer look is taken, that does not complete a first-ballot resume. Other things need to be looked at, and yes, the negative things said about him by coaches and other players are part of that, just as the good things, too, are taken into account. But when the pro-1.2 ballot TO people have to use Steve Young and Bill Parcells as a couple of their "testimonials" it's pretty thin for a first-ballot resume. "In the end, yes" and "I think I would put him in the HOF". Parcells even said that T.O.'s route running sometimes caused QB headaches. That he'd run a "9-yard curl rather than 12" or something to that affect.
Then they have to look at the drops. Since most of the pro-passing NFL is covered, 1992-to present, it's pretty easy to determine that being in the top 4 eight times is a lot for any WR, especially for one who wants to be 1st ballot. Peter King showed that his drop to catch ratio was 16% or so from 2006-08 when other receivers who caught equal or more passes had a much lower ratio. TOs entire career was not that bad, but the stat shows what everyone saw, he dropped more passes than he should. Knowing how Stats has always scored those, helps, too, that it has to be an obvious drop (same for PFF) not something that there is much question. That shows in the data in that PFF and Stats were one apart from 2006 to 2008 in Owens. So, no matter how it is sliced, for outsiders (fans, us, and others in media who don't vote) the drops is a real issue. It happened we all saw it and it was recorded by people with no "anti-TO" ax to grind.
Then, for first ballot, were the awards. Owens was All-Pro plenty, and up to 1st ballot standards, but 6 Pro Bowls is light for those standards, really. If Rice has 13 and then another player came along with 8, 9 or so, then it's close. But when you are one of the top 4 on your own conference only 6 times in 16 years, it shows again, maybe not the stuff of first ballot. Over they years Jerry Rice got over 140 votes for OPOY, Owens had just 4. Moss had more, Marvin Harrison had more. Not a big deal, but part of a whole, it's another data point that argues against early induction.
Both Harrison and Moss got more votes than Owens on the 2000s All-Decade team. In a vacuum, not much, but a pattern emerges from looking at the case closely. Rice was a consensus MVP in 1987. Hutson was a 2-time MVP Alworth was a UPI POY in the AFL, their verbiage for MVP. Though rare, WRs can win MVPs.
In catch %, catches versus targets, he's at lower end of some of the great ones. Not at the bottom, and not far down as it is a tight group, 8% difference between top and bottom, but he's closer to bottom than top. There are reasons, and those of us here know that Hines didn't do the deep routes, like, say Moss. But of his peers, TO not at the top.
H. Ward--64%
J. Rice--- 62%
M. Harrison--- 62%
T. Brown --- 61%
M. Irvin--- 60%
C. Carter --- 60%
A. Reed --- 60%
L. Fitzgerald--- 60%
T. Holt --- 59%
S. Smith --- 59%
T. Owens --- 58%
I. Bruce --- 58%
R. Moss--- 56%
Does this keep him out? No, not even close. It is another data point that suggest that not getting in on the first time is hardly an injustice. In fact a small percentage of it could be the drops and the poor routes Bill Parcells talked about.
I am sure most here could look at it in a complete way and still say TO was a 1st ballot guy. But when those of us who looked at all these things, actually last year, though some have been enhanced by Peter King, it was really easy to see he was not close enough to Rice and Alworth and Hutson or even Warfield to merit immediate inclusion.
And I haven't even mentioned the lack of rings. Super Bowl rings, especially more than one, cover a multitude of sins. In Hines Ward gets in, it will be a big part of his resume. TO came close, but coming close didn't help some of those Vikings or Andre Reed or Tim Brown or Cris Carter. So, as has been mentioned relying on just receptions, touchdowns and yards and then saying "he's a no-brainer 1st ballot HOFer" does not work. Especially when you look at the per game averages and Michael Irvin had more yards/game than Owens. He didn't compile huge numbers because his career ended early.
So, I say it's a good thing that the critics who looked at the career numbers and looked no further got a chance to see some more things like the ones I detailed here. It's the kind of approach some of us have posted about plenty of times here and on old forum. Look at all the things: I call them the stats, honors, testimonials, the scouting (eye test if you will), the team success, longevity, and intangibles. Others can disagree, but from following this for a long time that's what I think matters and in the case of TO, whether the voters inended to or not, got it pretty much right on T.O.
