Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Rupert Patrick wrote:The thing about Twitter I don't like is the 140 (or whatever it is) character limit on a post.

Ha, I have a friend that whenever someone brings up Twitter says, "anything that can be said in a 140 characters or less isn't worth saying."

One thing I do like about Twitter is that you can use it as a pseudo-search engine, and don't have to sign up to use it that way. I don't use it often but Sunday mornings if the traditional sites are being slow listing inactives I'll go to twitter and for ex. type in "Jets Dolphins Inactives" and the info will be there.

I could also see people using it as a custom news feed - similar to facebook - which I imagine would be of convenience. For me, I don't like wading through the nonsense so I just directly visit the various sites that interest me. Basically find the links on my own. Don't really need a feed to tell me what I should read.

Another thing I would never need is to know what Johnny from Utah had for lunch or what Suzy from South Carolina thinks about the divisive media-driven national story of the day, etc. Twitter allows everyone to be an 'expert' on everything.

Reaser wrote:

Rupert Patrick wrote:The thing about Twitter I don't like is the 140 (or whatever it is) character limit on a post.

Ha, I have a friend that whenever someone brings up Twitter says, "anything that can be said in a 140 characters or less isn't worth saying."

One thing I do like about Twitter is that you can use it as a pseudo-search engine, and don't have to sign up to use it that way. I don't use it often but Sunday mornings if the traditional sites are being slow listing inactives I'll go to twitter and for ex. type in "Jets Dolphins Inactives" and the info will be there.

I could also see people using it as a custom news feed - similar to facebook - which I imagine would be of convenience. For me, I don't like wading through the nonsense so I just directly visit the various sites that interest me. Basically find the links on my own. Don't really need a feed to tell me what I should read.

Another thing I would never need is to know what Johnny from Utah had for lunch or what Suzy from South Carolina thinks about the divisive media-driven national story of the day, etc. Twitter allows everyone to be an 'expert' on everything.

I think the 140 character limit is Twitter's strength. Since all good writing requires omitting needless words—the age old concept of less is more—if you can't make your point in 140 characters, do you really have one?

And what's wrong with everyone having a voice? Make no mistake, media personalities like Peter King, Mike Florio, or whoever do not have columns because of their expertise. They have columns because they produce saleable copy. Expertise and saleable copy are not the same thing. If anything, Twitter has leveled the playing field. Where once "writers" could second guess players and coaches without fear of rebuttal or rebuke, now the man on the street has the same luxury, and is often just as qualified. The end result is a peek under old school media's skirt and—surprise, surprise—nothing to see here.

well, this post has gone sideways, while the pros can cons of Twitter can be interesting, the OP was about the content of the Tweets and T.O. and the controvery around it, but hey, if folks wanna talk about Twitter, more power to them

JohnTurney wrote:Sure, all those can be explained, WRs targeted do drop some passes. But issue is not TO in HOF. It's TO not in HOF as of yet.

Drops were definitely an issue with Owens but I wouldn't use drops to keep a guy out of the Hall of Fame. They could be used to make a guy wait a little longer, though. I look at it as similar to voters making Cris Carter wait because his yards per catch figure was light and making Art Monk wait because he didn't score enough touchdowns. Owens main job was catching the ball and he was not a technical marvel in that regard. However, he made up for it in all other aspects of wide receiver play.

Also, people don't even agree on what constitutes a drop. See the Tom Brady to Wes Welker play in the second Giants-Patriots Super Bowl. Most people called it a drop by Welker. I consider it an overthrow by Brady and would not call that a drop by Welker.

JWL wrote:
Drops were definitely an issue with Owens but I wouldn't use drops to keep a guy out of the Hall of Fame. They could be used to make a guy wait a little longer, though. I look at it as similar to voters making Cris Carter wait because his yards per catch figure was light and making Art Monk wait because he didn't score enough touchdowns..

Agree with that. Drops won't keep him out. But it does show he was a notch below 1st ballot-type

Rupert Patrick wrote:The statistical standards are constantly changing at WR, more than any other position, even QB. From a statistical standpoint, taking his era into consideration, he is one of the top ten WR's of all time. He is not one of the top five. I do not put him in the inner circle with Rice and Hutson, he is on a lower notch. He did not change the game other than help usher in (along with Randy Moss) the era of the prima donna wide receivers, and they are such headaches that teams are often eager to get rid of them, and even release them outright if they can't trade them. This was, like it or not, part of TO's pro football career.

He played for eight years in San Francisco. They never released him. After voiding his contract, he went to the Eagles, and got himself ran out of town. He went to Dallas, signed a three-year contract and played three years. He went to Buffalo, signed a one year contract for $6.5 million. He played the season. He went to Cincinnati, signed a one year contract, and played out that contract. He moved on after that season, along with Carson Palmer and Chad Johnson.

This isn't the record of a guy whose teams were eager to get rid of him. It's a guy who had some major problems on one of the teams he played for.

Jeremy Crowhurst wrote:

Rupert Patrick wrote:The statistical standards are constantly changing at WR, more than any other position, even QB. From a statistical standpoint, taking his era into consideration, he is one of the top ten WR's of all time. He is not one of the top five. I do not put him in the inner circle with Rice and Hutson, he is on a lower notch. He did not change the game other than help usher in (along with Randy Moss) the era of the prima donna wide receivers, and they are such headaches that teams are often eager to get rid of them, and even release them outright if they can't trade them. This was, like it or not, part of TO's pro football career.

He played for eight years in San Francisco. They never released him. After voiding his contract, he went to the Eagles, and got himself ran out of town. He went to Dallas, signed a three-year contract and played three years. He went to Buffalo, signed a one year contract for $6.5 million. He played the season. He went to Cincinnati, signed a one year contract, and played out that contract. He moved on after that season, along with Carson Palmer and Chad Johnson.

This isn't the record of a guy whose teams were eager to get rid of him. It's a guy who had some major problems on one of the teams he played for.

You have a different recollection of events than I do. I recall T.O. making repeated comments about Jeff Garcia while in SF, even questioning his sexuality to the press. The 49ers were more than happy to wash their hands of him when he departed. In Dallas, Romo eventually tired of the constant pleas for the ball and Jones--who never met a star he didn't like--recognized his negative impact on team chemistry and cut him loose, saying it's "what's best for the Dallas Cowboys."

That said, if I were voting I'd vote him in slam dunk year one. Rules say only performance on the field should matter and if thems the rules, thems the rules. For a position overrated in impact--wide receives touch the ball six (?) times a game and rarely produce in the playoffs like they do in the regular season--he was the most dominant player on the field in most games he played. I have no stats to back this up, nor will I look for any.

jeckle_and_heckle wrote:You have a different recollection of events than I do. I recall T.O. making repeated comments about Jeff Garcia while in SF, even questioning his sexuality to the press. The 49ers were more than happy to wash their hands of him when he departed. In Dallas, Romo eventually tired of the constant pleas for the ball and Jones--who never met a star he didn't like--recognized his negative impact on team chemistry and cut him loose, saying it's "what's best for the Dallas Cowboys."

That said, if I were voting I'd vote him in slam dunk year one. Rules say only performance on the field should matter and if thems the rules, thems the rules. For a position overrated in impact--wide receives touch the ball six (?) times a game and rarely produce in the playoffs like they do in the regular season--he was the most dominant player on the field in most games he played. I have no stats to back this up, nor will I look for any.

See, this is the narrative. That's what everyone remembers, but it's not what happened. All that stuff happened after T.O. left San Fran. For example:

http://www.espn.com/nfl/news/story?id=1904844

I was wrong about Dallas -- he signed a three year contract in 2006, but then they gave him a four year, $27 million extension after 2007, and then released him in March of 2009. His clubhouse behaviour had to have played a part in that decision, though it could certainly have been justified by his age and lack of production for what they were paying him.

Oh, I don't know that the timing matters much. A former boss of mine used to say you're not a scorpion over there and and lizard over here. People are typically the same no matter where they are--or when they are. Highly doubtful T.O. turned into a knucklehead overnight as soon as he left San Francisco.

However, as mentioned earlier, don't care. Rules are rules. He'd be a slam dunk for me.

Jeremy Crowhurst wrote: See, this is the narrative. That's what everyone remembers, but it's not what happened. All that stuff happened after T.O. left San Fran. For example:

http://www.espn.com/nfl/news/story?id=1904844

I was wrong about Dallas -- he signed a three year contract in 2006, but then they gave him a four year, $27 million extension after 2007, and then released him in March of 2009. His clubhouse behaviour had to have played a part in that decision, though it could certainly have been justified by his age and lack of production for what they were paying him.

My view is still the same, his on-field performance, however it was helped or hindered by his off-field things, do not justify being a first-ballot WR. He's one of the many great players who have enough flaws to allow other players, who have been waiting, like a Marvin Harrison to go in before him.

But, his on-field performance, however it was helped or hindered by his off-field things, IS good enough to be elected, maybe as soon as next year.

I've posted Randy Moss is most talented WR I've ever seen, but, he didn't always give it his all. Had he Rice's work ethic, he could have broken Rice's records at least gotten close. So, I suspect he will have to wait a year

It is an easy fix. Owens next year, Moss the year after, then the HOF committee can work on the ones that need more scrutiny, like Ike, Holt, Hines, etc,