Terrell Owens Thread: Hall of Fame?

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by JTsBiggestFan:
The bulletproof images of Peyton Manning and Marvin Harrison are starting to make me hate the f'n Colts.

PM and MH didn't do anything to hurt their NFL teams while playing in the NFL

Neither did T.......oh nevermind. Your mind is made up.

lol, my mind ?, try the whole NFL has made up their mind. If it walks like a duck

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by JTsBiggestFan:

The bulletproof images of Peyton Manning and Marvin Harrison are starting to make me hate the f'n Colts.

PM and MH didn't do anything to hurt their NFL teams while playing in the NFL

Neither did T.......oh nevermind. Your mind is made up.

lol, my mind ?, try the whole NFL has made up their mind. If it walks like a duck

I am not the source of this sentiment but SF PHI and DAL all acquired TO during his prime and they all released him due to his behavior because they felt it was in the best interest of their teams. Ask them why, not me. It's obvious they felt he'd poisoned the lockerroom and from the outside in it seems there were fractures at all three stops IMO. Was it TO? This ain't my first hand opinion but just an observation. Nothing tangible I can point to but the teams alluded to it as a reason for parting ways with TO. Perhaps all three teams lied and scapegoated TO? To me he was HOF first ballot but I didn't see any of the teams lobbying for him like they should have. We were behind Haley all the way.

Originally posted by 4everFaithful:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by Pillbusta:

TO ultimately can be said from a team perspective to have had a negative impact on several teams as a result of his behavior.

I appreciated your post aside from this line.


What logical sense does it make to say a player had "a negative impact on several teams as a result of his behavior" when every team became better when he got there and markedly worse when he left?

Not trying to come at you, my friend. This is not an uncommon opinion. Just dont see it holding any weight whatsoever.

EXACTLY

If there was no negative impact made on a team by him, why did 4 teams get rid of him? If what you are saying is true, there would be zero reason for any team to part with him. How do you explain this?

T.O. pwned that POS Harrison. Both on the field & off it

Harrison would look better in one of these...

Than a gold jacket.



Marvin "Dead Eyes" Harrison is about as innocent as this guy...


Along with Peyton, "The Dirtiest Combo in the League." (You better sleep with one eye open, around those two)

Originally posted by Pillbusta:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by JTsBiggestFan:

The bulletproof images of Peyton Manning and Marvin Harrison are starting to make me hate the f'n Colts.

PM and MH didn't do anything to hurt their NFL teams while playing in the NFL

Neither did T.......oh nevermind. Your mind is made up.

lol, my mind ?, try the whole NFL has made up their mind. If it walks like a duck

I am not the source of this sentiment but SF PHI and DAL all acquired TO during his prime and they all released him due to his behavior because they felt it was in the best interest of their teams. Ask them why, not me. It's obvious they felt he'd poisoned the lockerroom and from the outside in it seems there were fractures at all three stops IMO. Was it TO? This ain't my first hand opinion but just an observation. Nothing tangible I can point to but the teams alluded to it as a reason for parting ways with TO. Perhaps all three teams lied and scapegoated TO? To me he was HOF first ballot but I didn't see any of the teams lobbying for him like they should have. We were behind Haley all the way.

Scapegoat ?

Three strikes you're out bud

Originally posted by StOnEy333:

Originally posted by 4everFaithful:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by Pillbusta:

TO ultimately can be said from a team perspective to have had a negative impact on several teams as a result of his behavior.

I appreciated your post aside from this line.


What logical sense does it make to say a player had "a negative impact on several teams as a result of his behavior" when every team became better when he got there and markedly worse when he left?

Not trying to come at you, my friend. This is not an uncommon opinion. Just dont see it holding any weight whatsoever.

EXACTLY

If there was no negative impact made on a team by him, why did 4 teams get rid of him? If what you are saying is true, there would be zero reason for any team to part with him. How do you explain this?

Denial or or was too young to know ?

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by StOnEy333:

Originally posted by 4everFaithful:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by Pillbusta:

TO ultimately can be said from a team perspective to have had a negative impact on several teams as a result of his behavior.

I appreciated your post aside from this line.


What logical sense does it make to say a player had "a negative impact on several teams as a result of his behavior" when every team became better when he got there and markedly worse when he left?

Not trying to come at you, my friend. This is not an uncommon opinion. Just dont see it holding any weight whatsoever.

EXACTLY

If there was no negative impact made on a team by him, why did 4 teams get rid of him? If what you are saying is true, there would be zero reason for any team to part with him. How do you explain this?

Denial or or was too young to know ?

Every team that got rid of Owens thought theyd save some cash and get rid of a distraction.. thinking they could replace him and still be as good without him.. they were all wrong.. teams that got rid of owens made the mistake of thinking that his mouth wasnt worth his skills or contract, but they all later on learned to be wrong.. owens is worth the distraction because at the end of the day he's usually the best player on his team

Originally posted by 4everFaithful:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by StOnEy333:

Originally posted by 4everFaithful:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by Pillbusta:

TO ultimately can be said from a team perspective to have had a negative impact on several teams as a result of his behavior.

I appreciated your post aside from this line.


What logical sense does it make to say a player had "a negative impact on several teams as a result of his behavior" when every team became better when he got there and markedly worse when he left?

Not trying to come at you, my friend. This is not an uncommon opinion. Just dont see it holding any weight whatsoever.

EXACTLY

If there was no negative impact made on a team by him, why did 4 teams get rid of him? If what you are saying is true, there would be zero reason for any team to part with him. How do you explain this?

Denial or or was too young to know ?

Every team that got rid of Owens thought theyd save some cash and get rid of a distraction.. thinking they could replace him and still be as good without him.. they were all wrong.. teams that got rid of owens made the mistake of thinking that his mouth wasnt worth his skills or contract, but they all later on learned to be wrong.. owens is worth the distraction because at the end of the day he's usually the best player on his team

You even said it he was a distraction, obviously he wasn't worth it

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by 4everFaithful:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by StOnEy333:

Originally posted by 4everFaithful:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by Pillbusta:

TO ultimately can be said from a team perspective to have had a negative impact on several teams as a result of his behavior.

I appreciated your post aside from this line.


What logical sense does it make to say a player had "a negative impact on several teams as a result of his behavior" when every team became better when he got there and markedly worse when he left?

Not trying to come at you, my friend. This is not an uncommon opinion. Just dont see it holding any weight whatsoever.

EXACTLY

If there was no negative impact made on a team by him, why did 4 teams get rid of him? If what you are saying is true, there would be zero reason for any team to part with him. How do you explain this?

Denial or or was too young to know ?

Every team that got rid of Owens thought theyd save some cash and get rid of a distraction.. thinking they could replace him and still be as good without him.. they were all wrong.. teams that got rid of owens made the mistake of thinking that his mouth wasnt worth his skills or contract, but they all later on learned to be wrong.. owens is worth the distraction because at the end of the day he's usually the best player on his team

You even said it he was a distraction, obviously he wasn't worth it

Some distractions are worth it.. owens and moss are examples.. but owens wasnt as bad as moss.. owens never flat out quit on his team and stopped trying.. he always gave his best.. took no plays off.. unlike moss.. owens helped more than he distracted imo.. thats whats important

Marvin should stfu. Without Peyton he wouldn't be in. Dudes a criminal too. I'd rather have Issac Bruce in there over this guy

Originally posted by CityKing415:

Marvin should stfu. Without Peyton he wouldn't be in. Dudes a criminal too. I'd rather have Issac Bruce in there over this guy

Marvin deserves it, but not more than Owens. Can you imagine T.O. with Peyton his whole career? Damnnnnn

Originally posted by 4everFaithful:

Originally posted by CityKing415:

Marvin should stfu. Without Peyton he wouldn't be in. Dudes a criminal too. I'd rather have Issac Bruce in there over this guy

Marvin deserves it, but not more than Owens. Can you imagine T.O. with Peyton his whole career? Damnnnnn

Dude if T.O had Peyton he'd be the goat.

Besides the crap about Harrison
Why is TO being referred to as an Ealge?

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by cciowa:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by cciowa:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by KajunNiner:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/03/03/marvin-harrison-on-terrell-owens-complaining-the-hell-with-him/

But TO is a swell guy ? lol

This is the kind of stuff I am talking about. Marvin Harrison has had multiple gun charges and shooting allegations, and had a career which had numbers that were not as good as TO's, yet TO is the enemy in this instance...again.

Just a shame how perception is so far off from reality here.

lol, owens is the victim,,,, again

(Player A) Better stats, did some situps on his driveway, teams always did substantially worse when he left.

vs.

(Player B) Worse stats, multiple gun charges, multiple shooting allegations

Yeah I would say that player B is being unfairly targeted or blacklisted if player A is getting into the HOF before player B. Of course you dont because you and others cant see past the narrative that the media is presenting.

haha.. i do not have to depend on the medias narrative to form my opinion on the type of "selfish, locker room dividing, taking no responsibility for his drops drama queen, selfish, self centered , putting me ahead of the team,",,,,,, person that the player was and still is. i watched him and followed him during his entire career where the player burned every bridge everywhere he went

By saying in your very first line that "I do not have to depend on the media's narrative" as well as describing TO as "locker room dividing," you have already contradicted yourself. You werent in the locker room. You have absolutely no idea what happened in there apart from articles you have read.

Thank you for proving my point.

Why cant you and others just admit you hate the guy? Would save us all so many keystrokes. I would never argue with someone who simply says he doesnt like the guy.

Haha....

Originally posted by CityKing415:

Originally posted by 4everFaithful:

Originally posted by CityKing415:
Marvin should stfu. Without Peyton he wouldn't be in. Dudes a criminal too. I'd rather have Issac Bruce in there over this guy

Marvin deserves it, but not more than Owens. Can you imagine T.O. with Peyton his whole career? Damnnnnn

Dude if T.O had Peyton he'd be the goat.

Yes but only for a few years until he starts insinuating stuff to the media after the many times Peyton couldn't get it done in the playoffs. Problem with TO is that he's the ultimate complainer. He's THAT guy that begins a complain campaign the instant something does not go the way he planned.

And guess what...

...it is always some one else's fault. I would bet the odds would be high that he eventually burns a bridge with Manning because of Manning's playoff record.

I'm with Harrison on this one. TO, stop complaining, shut the f**k up. You're just making yourself look worse every time you do it.

TO = zero class