On football merits, T.O. belongs in Hall
Here’s what Terrell Owens and his supporters need to know about his exclusion from the Pro Football Hall of Fame: Not everyone is against him.
Let me raise my hand. I voted for Owens when we finally got around to the ballot to cut the 15 finalists to 10 during a marathon meeting in Houston on Saturday.
I would have kept checking Owens’ name had he advanced. Yet again — as was the case a few years ago when I figuratively stood on a chair pushing for Charles Haley — I was in the minority.
Owens, who epitomized the “diva receiver” for much of his brilliant but tumultuous 16-year NFL career, didn’t even make the first cut to 10. What a shame. I’ve been privileged to be a member of the Hall’s selection committee for 20 years, and never have I sensed that a candidate was blown away by a character assassination like Owens.
Sure, Owens and his alter ego, “T.O.,” could be major headaches, and the man played for five teams. Owens’ first move, from the San Francisco 49ers, came after he filed a grievance to void a trade to the Baltimore Ravens, and twice he moved as a free agent.
Owens wasn’t exactly Mr. Congeniality. But that shouldn’t be a factor.
He was simply one of the best players of his era, the threat who forced defenses to cover every blade of grass vertically, horizontally and geometrically. Ask your eyes if he was Hall of Fame great.
He came back faster than expected from an ankle injury, too, to star in Super Bowl XXXIX.
That used to carry the day for such debate. The Owens case, though, reflects changing times.
Dan Fouts, the Hall of Fame quarterback, had a vote for the first time this year. I think it was a great move to grant votes to Fouts and Hall of Fame receiver James Lofton, both of whom also work in the media, to bring their rich perspectives to the process.
But just because Fouts publicly slammed Owens’ actions “off the field, on the sidelines, in the locker room,” doesn’t mean he’s right.
Maybe Owens got on the nerves of coaches and teammates, but until age caught up with him at 37, there was always another team that wanted him.
I know I’ll still vote for him, and implore many of my fellow selectors to make the switch.
What bugs me most about Owens’ snub? The criteria seemingly is a moving target.
I was in the room when Lawrence Taylor went in on his first ballot in 1999. Taylor battled drug problems, and undoubtedly his absence during suspensions hurt the team. When we voted on Taylor, though, the mandate was to only consider what happened on the field.
It’s right there in the bylaws: “The only criteria for election to the Hall of Fame are a nominee’s achievements and contributions as a player, a coach or a contributor.”
Michael Irvin got in in 2007 in his third consecutive year as a finalist. His off-the-field issues were the elephant in the room, but the criteria didn’t cover that.
When Haley was up, though, I sensed more resistance to his candidacy because of his disruptive behavior — he has publicly revealed that he used medication to treat a bipolar disorder — and the effect on his teams as he went about winning five Super Bowl rings. Haley was finally voted in with the 2015 class.
Now there’s Owens, never arrested and never known to have failed a drug test, but known to have had a challenging upbringing that many probably can’t relate to. I’m not a psychologist, but I think it is unreasonable for the committee to reach conclusions on gray areas that involve social skills and temperament — especially when charged to consider, technically, only what happens on the field.
Besides, Owens’ performance in that Super Bowl for the Eagles underscored his commitment, even if his “disrespectful” prancing on Dallas’ star once ignited a mini-brawl. So there’s yin and yang, gray area with the principles that also contain some layers of subjectivity.
No, Owens wasn’t “entitled” to get in on the first (or even second) ballot. Michael Strahan, great as he was, didn’t even get in on the first ballot. T.O. isn’t the first flummoxed with anxiety at the intersection of the process and his Hall worthiness. That’s part of the process, too. Ask Lynn Swann or Harry Carson or Cris Carter or Paul Krause. Vote with your conscience.
That’s standard advice for the 48 selectors, and I’m good with it. Just carefully weigh all the onthe-field factors, variables, numbers, context and history.
My conscience dictated that I support Owens because the transgressions that are essential to his narrative are not enough to eliminate his production as a Hall of Fame player.
Now, if only a few dozen other selectors would see the light.