Owens choosing not to attend his Hall of Fame induction

[Ness]

The HOF is also smart to eliminate the potential jeering and booing which would have occurred during Owens' video segment during the event. When an organization honors someone, you expect said person to do the minimum, and show up to the ceremony. It's not up to the player to decide when they get selected for the HOF, that mentality doesn't fly.

But it's up to sports writers who never played or coached lol.

[Ness]

Most of you guys sound like petulant children. It was his honor and he has a right to celebrate it how and where he likes. I know it's his way of telling the NFL @#$% You and that in itself is rather childish but that is the way he feels. Deal with it.
Sometimes traditions need something like this to improve or correct themselves because let's face it the Football HOF election process could use some tweeking.

Not really. It's fine as it is

Guys like Owens and Moss, while HOF players, were and are still unlikable jerks and all about themselves

Actually it isn't. It's deeply flawed. Which is why Krammer had to wait forever, in addition to a ton of other players. Regarding Owens, you had one writer come out and say that he wouldn't have voted for Owens if he knew he wasn't going to show up. Which is absurd. Keep your personal feelings out of it (via the bylaws) and vote strictly for his impact for the on the field product.

Meanwhile we have Lawrence Taylor, James Lofton, and Ray Lewis with some questionable character issues that go far beyond what Owens' antics were.

[Ness]

Sometimes traditions need something like this to improve or correct themselves because let's face it the Football HOF election process could use some tweeking.

I think it's pretty much fine for regular candidates as is, though it definitely needs work on the Senior side of things.

Dare I ask, what kind of tweaking did you have in mind?

Leave the voting up to an institution like Pro Football Focus or Pro Football Outsiders that actually track simply what is done on the field, and actually work with NFL coaches. You won't have the problem of a bunch of old guys' personal feelings getting in the way of giving someone they've rightfully earned.

[L.C. Greenwood]

Sometimes traditions need something like this to improve or correct themselves because let's face it the Football HOF election process could use some tweeking.

I think it's pretty much fine for regular candidates as is, though it definitely needs work on the Senior side of things.

Dare I ask, what kind of tweaking did you have in mind?

Leave the voting up to an institution like Pro Football Focus or Pro Football Outsiders that actually track simply what is done on the field, and actually work with NFL coaches. You won't have the problem of a bunch of old guys' personal feelings getting in the way of giving someone they've rightfully earned.

Owens did rightfully earn a place in the HOF, but honors can never be awarded on the timetable of the former player. It doesn't work that way, you don't tell organizations prepared to spend a considerable amount of time and money to give you an honor, when they should make the selection. And given the idiotic and team-draining activities of Owens' career, three years is a short wait for an immortal honor.

And we definitely don't want a purely statistical approach by outside organizations to determine who reaches Canton. Numbers cannot reflect the context of the era, many of the HOF receivers who played before Owens would have had a big increase in their numbers had they played under the same rules. Another issue is the devaluing of winning by the data-driven crowd. It should always matter in the HOF conversation.

[Rupert Patrick]

And we definitely don't want a purely statistical approach by outside organizations to determine who reaches Canton. Numbers cannot reflect the context of the era, many of the HOF receivers who played before Owens would have had a big increase in their numbers had they played under the same rules. Another issue is the devaluing of winning by the data-driven crowd. It should always matter in the HOF conversation.

As a number guy, I agree; the numbers don't tell the whole story. If you look strictly at TO's stats, they don't tell you why he left the 49ers after catching 81 TD's in eight seasons, or why he left Philadelphia after 1 1/2 seasons, with the full season he played in a Super Bowl where he caught 9 passes for 122 yards and the half season where he was on course to catch over100 passes for 1600 yards. Next are the three seasons in Dallas where he caught 235 passes, three 1000-yard seasons and 38 TD receptions, and then he moved on to Buffalo and Cincinnati for a season each to finish his career. Without the context to explain why San Francisco and Philadelphia no longer wanted him, you would think both organizations were stupid, or worse yet, racist, for not wanting a player who put those kinds of stats on their teams.

On the other hand, I think it is a good idea to have a stat-type guy or two amongst the 45 or so HOF voters, who can create a HOF argument in statistical terms and put a guy from another era (say, Harold Jackson, or Roger Craig) in the context of his peers from the 1970's or 80's, to demonstrate in layman's terms whether he does or does not belong in the HOF.

[bachslunch]

Most of you guys sound like petulant children. It was his honor and he has a right to celebrate it how and where he likes. I know it's his way of telling the NFL @#$% You and that in itself is rather childish but that is the way he feels. Deal with it.
Sometimes traditions need something like this to improve or correct themselves because let's face it the Football HOF election process could use some tweeking.

Not really. It's fine as it is

Guys like Owens and Moss, while HOF players, were and are still unlikable jerks and all about themselves

Actually it isn't. It's deeply flawed. Which is why Krammer had to wait forever, in addition to a ton of other players. Regarding Owens, you had one writer come out and say that he wouldn't have voted for Owens if he knew he wasn't going to show up. Which is absurd. Keep your personal feelings out of it (via the bylaws) and vote strictly for his impact for the on the field product.

Meanwhile we have Lawrence Taylor, James Lofton, and Ray Lewis with some questionable character issues that go far beyond what Owens' antics were.

Don't agree. Kramer had to wait forever for several reasons, not least because his skill set was flawed (as Ken Crippen's film study site clearly demonstrates, he was not good in pass protection). That alone puts him more along the lines of a bubble candidate, and I'm not surprised he had the wait he did given this alone. He also had some other unique baggage in addition, as I've outlined in the recent thread on him at the HoF comments section. It became a somewhat unusual perfect storm in his case.

And a number of the "ton of other players" who had to wait for the most part and are still waiting played during the 60s and before, when HoF election was in its infancy, or played a position that historically gets little respect such as safety, kicker, punter, guard, or WR. Several of those guys did not have the luxury afforded to folks like Tom Mack, Lynn Swann, Harry Carson, and similar guys of staying on the ballot for a long time, plus they did have to contend with a from-infancy full boat of candidates.

And as has been pointed out before, the view of TO was that his "antics" affected things in an on-field way, plus he did drop a lot of balls. I think he's eminently HoF worthy, though frankly 3-4 ballots doesn't seem unreasonable for him, especially if Cris Carter took six. It's probably one reason Kevin Greene, who punched out one of his assistant coaches, also waited a long time. That's not true of the character issues of Taylor, Lofton, or Lewis best as I'm aware.

[bachslunch]

Owens did rightfully earn a place in the HOF, but honors can never be awarded on the timetable of the former player. It doesn't work that way, you don't tell organizations prepared to spend a considerable amount of time and money to give you an honor, when they should make the selection. And given the idiotic and team-draining activities of Owens' career, three years is a short wait for an immortal honor.

Agreed fully. He's very deserving, but lots of great players had to wait a few years. When you can only induct a limited number of players per year, stuff happens sometimes.

And we definitely don't want a purely statistical approach by outside organizations to determine who reaches Canton. Numbers cannot reflect the context of the era, many of the HOF receivers who played before Owens would have had a big increase in their numbers had they played under the same rules. Another issue is the devaluing of winning by the data-driven crowd. It should always matter in the HOF conversation.

I'm fine with statistics being an important part of HoF consideration -- but they must be looked at in context for the time.

[bachslunch]

But it's up to sports writers who never played or coached lol.

That's like saying no one should write criticism of a violin player unless they play the violin. I don't buy that argument, either.

[bachslunch]

Sometimes traditions need something like this to improve or correct themselves because let's face it the Football HOF election process could use some tweeking.

I think it's pretty much fine for regular candidates as is, though it definitely needs work on the Senior side of things.

Dare I ask, what kind of tweaking did you have in mind?

Leave the voting up to an institution like Pro Football Focus or Pro Football Outsiders that actually track simply what is done on the field, and actually work with NFL coaches. You won't have the problem of a bunch of old guys' personal feelings getting in the way of giving someone they've rightfully earned.

Will need more convincing on that. Wouldn't surprise me if there's bias among the membership of these organizations as much as there is anywhere else.

[Rupert Patrick]

Don't agree. Kramer had to wait forever for several reasons, not least because his skill set was flawed (as Ken Crippen's film study site clearly demonstrates, he was not good in pass protection).

I'm not about to knock Ken or his website, but I wasn't aware there was enough film footage available of Jerry Kramer to make the clear determination that he was not good in pass protection. I know the 1961 NFL Championship game is available on video, along with highlights of Packer playoff games (1960, 1966 etc), but NFL/Blair Films really didn't get up and running until 1964 or so, and there is very little regular season game footage of the Packers available during the Lombardi era. Did his contemporaries make this comment about Kramer, that he wasn't good in pass protection? I'm not criticizing your comment, it is just that I have always heard the Packer line was always considered one of the half dozen finest in pro football history, and as a pro football videophile (especially with respect to 1930's thru 1960's) I wasn't aware there was enough video footage of the Packers available to reach such a solid conclusion.