Big TO blowup on Twitter and PFT

[JohnTurney]

One of the things that I thought was interesting is that two people, Michael David Smith and Bill Barnwell, both supposedly big noises, didn't know about Stats, LLC keeping dropped passes since the early 1990s. Barnwell tweeted something like "where have the drops statistics been hiding" and MDS Tweeted he'd looked and never found them.

A sharp member of the PFWA set them both straight. Amazing that an editor of Pro Football Talk and a writer for ESPN and former writer for Grantland were so clueless.

[BD Sullivan]

One of the things that I thought was interesting is that two people, Michael David Smith and Bill Barnwell, both supposedly big noises, didn't know about Stats, LLC keeping dropped passes since the early 1990s. Barnwell tweeted something like "where have the drops statistics been hiding" and MDS Tweeted he'd looked and never found them.

A sharp member of the PFWA set them both straight. Amazing that an editor of Pro Football Talk and a writer for ESPN and former writer for Grantland were so clueless.

Well, that's why Mike Florio is such a brilliant guy...

[JohnTurney]

Well, that's why Mike Florio is such a brilliant guy...

Florio is getting crushed and he doesn't even know it. Been sitting back, watching. Peter King analyzed he drops issue today, again same theme, the drops not not the main thing, but they ARE something. Something like 16% of droppd passes from 2007-09, and so on...Borges brought it up. Gosselin, today, put in this

"Pearson was a first-team all-decade selection. Owens was not. He was a second-team choice for the 2000 decade. Pearson led a conference in receiving once. Owens never did. Pearson led the NFL in receiving yards once. Owens never did. Pearson won an NFL championship. Owens never did.
And Pearson's accomplishments came in a dead-ball era when the game of football was played on the ground by offenses in the 1970s"

[bachslunch]

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.

[Rupert Patrick]

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.

From my earlier post, if I didn't make it clear, I do think TO should be enshrined, but he is not and should not have been considered first ballot material. And looking at the historical parallels of the past, that it took several years for others who were not slam dunk first ballot guys like Jerry Rice to get in, we should expect that it might take 4-5 tries for him. I feel comfortable with Owens as one of the ten best WR of all time, but I don't think he was in the top 2-3 all time.

[Reaser]

This continues to be funny to me.

Ron "Copy/Paste" Borges, who has spent years and years trying to discredit Belichick and make him and Carroll out to be terrible coaches -you know, the HC's who have won 3 of the last 4 SB's- fighting (well Borges only sucker punches disabled old men so this isn't really his type of "fight") against the "Clueless Duo" of Michael David Smith and Bill Barnwell who couldn't even manage to find the largely irrelevant, subjectively tallied and almost always used without context stat of "dropped passes".

Predictably it led to media and their sycophants choosing a side and shamelessly defending their guy. Both sides bringing a huge serving of cognitive dissonance to the table. Hilariously you will see one side blog about how you can't just use one stat while at the same time they'll champion another using only one stat to make their point if/when it falls on their side of the debate. Brilliant.

Less about T.O. at this point than it is about media who has HOF votes v. media who doesn't. The former filled with admitted bias and judging by their 'genius' (nod to the sarcastic way Borges has referred to the obviously overrated Belichick) who are unqualified to vote on anything football related and the latter filled with the jealous who think they would do better but would end up as nothing more than an interchangeable part. Since they are no different from the writers they complain about as they share in their lack of knowledge.

That's why I prefer discussing football at forums like this where you have conace who can give specific examples because unlike the writers in question he actually watches football, you have JWL use logic and common sense about "drops" in general which basic football knowledge does not apply to the writers in question and then you have jeckle_and_heckle who probably put it best with, "[t]his is much ado about nothing, akin to reporting a certain automobile burns through tires like Carter through liver pills but not reporting that said car also logged the most miles."

[JohnTurney]

[Reaser]

You complained about a handful of minimally off-topic posts about the positives/negatives of twitter but then you post this giant .jpg? Interesting, indeed.

The thread title literally contains "Twitter and PFT" while the original post literally is about the debate between the various writers/media involved. So my previous post is directly on point and I summed up the 'debate' well, in my opinion.

[JohnTurney]

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.

[JohnTurney]

my previous post is directly on point and I summed up the 'debate' well, in my opinion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGVy8QkM-ak