Has Randy Moss Secured His Place in Canton? (1 Viewer)

[TommyGilmore]

Frank Cooney's point: "Moss should lose votes for the Hall of Fame if he actually rebounds and plays hard and well in New England. Why? Because that proves that he purposely disgraced the game of football by dogging it and quitting in Oakland when he did indeed have the physical ability to play. He was on a team that was hurting and needed help and he quit!

I guess it also proves that Aaron Brooks and Art Shell are equal to Tom Brady and Bill Belichick.

 

[B-Deep]

Here's another Hall of Fame voter, Peter King, quoting another Hall of Fame voter:

You have flooded my email box with Randy Moss thoughts, from every angle. Even one of my fellow Hall of Fame voters, Frank Cooney, who lives in the Bay Area and runs a draft and scouting site called NFLDraftScout.com, had some good thoughts, which I'll share later.

But before I get to your letters and his thoughts, let me just say that some of you have mistaken my criticism of the trade. I think Moss will play well for the Patriots -- very well. His career's on the line with this scaled-down, no-guaranteed-money, one-year contract, and he'll respond by being a good deep threat for Tom Brady, and I don't even think he'll make a single wave in the locker room all year.

But here's my point: This guy dogged his way out of Oakland, and the Patriots rewarded him by giving him a starting job on a three-time Super Bowl champion. Over the last few years, the Patriots have turned their backs on the vast majority of talented players who had some dog in them, or major problems off the field, preferring to go with character guys who played hard and shut their mouths. Though I believe Moss will play hard now, this trade breaks that Patriot mold.

Frank Cooney's point: "Moss should lose votes for the Hall of Fame if he actually rebounds and plays hard and well in New England. Why? Because that proves that he purposely disgraced the game of football by dogging it and quitting in Oakland when he did indeed have the physical ability to play. He was on a team that was hurting and needed help and he quit!

"Oddly, if he falls on his pratt in New England, he should probably be given more consideration for the Hall. Because maybe he just hit his career wall in Oakland after all, which isn't likely, but it's fair to give him the benefit of the doubt. And let's be clear that Randy Moss was indeed a Hall of Fame-caliber player before suiting up for Oakland. HOF voters are supposed to judge these guys ONLY by what they do on the field. Moss was an embarrassment to the sport on the field in Oakland. I was embarrassed when my grandsons watched him.''

So at least three current Hall of Fame voters, Dr. Z, Peter King, and Frank Cooney, don't appear to be on board with the "you know nothing about the NFL if you don't think Moss is a Hall of Famer" crowd.

Or maybe the entire offensive team and coaching staff in Oakland was just plain lousy.

again I askdo they get a vote?

people are ignoring remarks of ACTUAL VOTERS because it does not gel with what THEY think SHOULD happen.

I think Ray Guy should be in, I think bob hayes should be in, I think that what i think doesn't matter if the question is who WILL get in.

 

[B-Deep]

Frank Cooney's point: "Moss should lose votes for the Hall of Fame if he actually rebounds and plays hard and well in New England. Why? Because that proves that he purposely disgraced the game of football by dogging it and quitting in Oakland when he did indeed have the physical ability to play. He was on a team that was hurting and needed help and he quit!

I guess it also proves that Aaron Brooks and Art Shell are equal to Tom Brady and Bill Belichick.

You are free to think that Conney, King, and dr Z are all morons.But those morons are the ones who decide who gets in.

 

[massraider]

Here's Moss at 30 years old: 716 11,310 109 That's 5th in receptions, 6th in yards, and 1st in TD's among all hall of fame receivers. If this guy is not a first ballot HOF'er, then that title means nothing.

And if most of those receivers had those numbers today, they wouldn't sniff the Hall. Jimmy SmithIsaac BruceKeenan McCardellRod SmithTorry HoltAre these guys all locks? They're all top 20 in receiving yardage. Irving Fryar is #10.Numbers that got you in the Hall in 1962 don't cut it anymore. You can't compare Moss to Tom freakin' Fears.

 

[ceo3west]

Here's Moss at 30 years old: 716 11,310 109 That's 5th in receptions, 6th in yards, and 1st in TD's among all hall of fame receivers. If this guy is not a first ballot HOF'er, then that title means nothing.

And if most of those receivers had those numbers today, they wouldn't sniff the Hall. Jimmy SmithIsaac BruceKeenan McCardellRod SmithTorry HoltAre these guys all locks? They're all top 20 in receiving yardage. Irving Fryar is #10.Numbers that got you in the Hall in 1962 don't cut it anymore. You can't compare Moss to Tom freakin' Fears.

The TD's alone get him in first ballot. The only way he's not a first ballot HOF'er is if voters have a grudge against the guy for "slacking". His numbers say he's a shoe-in year 1.

 

[redman]

Here's Moss at 30 years old: 716 11,310 109

That's 5th in receptions, 6th in yards, and 1st in TD's among all hall of fame receivers. If this guy is not a first ballot HOF'er, then that title means nothing.

And if most of those receivers had those numbers today, they wouldn't sniff the Hall. Jimmy Smith

Isaac Bruce

Keenan McCardell

Rod Smith

Torry Holt

Are these guys all locks? They're all top 20 in receiving yardage. Irving Fryar is #10.

Numbers that got you in the Hall in 1962 don't cut it anymore. You can't compare Moss to Tom freakin' Fears.

The TD's alone get him in first ballot. The only way he's not a first ballot HOF'er is if voters have a grudge against the guy for "slacking". His numbers say he's a shoe-in year 1.

Aren't we constantly lectured that it's not the numbers but the "fame" (as in "Hall of Fame") that gets you in? Moss is as infamous as he is famous, and not for good reasons. Also, unlike a guy like LT, his infamy is from stuff that occurred on the field, not off. I have big problems with giving a guy a free ride when he gave no effort on the field for long stretches at a time.

 

[B-Deep]

Here's Moss at 30 years old: 716 11,310 109 That's 5th in receptions, 6th in yards, and 1st in TD's among all hall of fame receivers. If this guy is not a first ballot HOF'er, then that title means nothing.

And if most of those receivers had those numbers today, they wouldn't sniff the Hall. Jimmy SmithIsaac BruceKeenan McCardellRod SmithTorry HoltAre these guys all locks? They're all top 20 in receiving yardage. Irving Fryar is #10.Numbers that got you in the Hall in 1962 don't cut it anymore. You can't compare Moss to Tom freakin' Fears.

The TD's alone get him in first ballot. The only way he's not a first ballot HOF'er is if voters have a grudge against the guy for "slacking". His numbers say he's a shoe-in year 1.

even you acknowledge that you believe he SHOULD be a first balloter, but there is a chance the voters snub him.if talking about will and won;t as opposed to should and shouldn't, we cannot ignore who is making these choices

 

[Andy Hicks]

It's 5 years after he retires that it will be decided if he goes into Hall of Fame.

That 5 years allows plenty of time for perspective and to be truly judged among his peers. Bitterness and the negative side of a player tends not to be as big an issue as it is now. Michael Irvin is in the hall for example.

In his peer group only Harrison and Owens can be compared, if we count Jerry Rice, Cris Carter and Tim Brown as a different era.

Is there any player who has not got into the hall, that would otherwise be a shoo-in, based purely on his reputation/problems outside the playing field?

This will be the 10th year Randy Moss has been in the NFL, 7 or 8 of them have been at a Pro Bowl level.

People will forgive the Oakland years with perspective as it was one of the worst sides in modern history.

He needs to add a ring to be a cast iron certainty, but I think he's that now.

 

[Tau837]

I am also pretty sure that a poll asking if TD was a lock for the hall of fame after the 1998 season would have been pretty heavy in favor of TD. Yet, he'll likely never get in.

The difference being, if in 98 the question was "if TD ever played another down would he be a HOFer," I'm sure even then many people would have said NO.I'm not sure what the intent of THIS POLL is, because if the same question were to be asked and Moss never played another down I would think Moss has had a long enough career to merit induction into the HOF.

My point was simply, no one knows what tomorrow will bring. Would you think if he has played his last down he was a lock?

Yes, without question he would be a lock if he retired today. First ballot, maybe, maybe not, but a lock to make it.

 

[Tau837]

Moss is a first ballot hall of famer. Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.

an absolutely ridiculous statement. You have no idea who else will be up for consideration when moss is.If Marvin Harrison and moss are eligible the same year it is likely moss does not get in on the first ballot. If Marvin Harison and Tory Holt both become eligible the same year there is no chance he is a first ballot.Perhaps he SHOULD be, but that's not the way the hall of fame selection works.

Hey, I'm as big a fan of Torry Holt as anyone, but to suggest that given their careers to date if both he and Moss were to become first eligible in the same year that Holt would bump Moss is silly.I agree as of now that Harrison would go in ahead of Moss, though I think it is quite possible that Moss will play longer than Harrison, which means both that (a) he could surpass Harrison statistically and (b) they wouldn't become eligible at the same time. Regardless, Harrison is arguably one of the top few WRs of all time, so being ranked just below him is not a negative.

 

[Tau837]

Perhaps he SHOULD be, but that's not the way the hall of fame selection works.

This is getting ignored. There are other things that affect the voting. Who knows who else is eligible when Moss is? Who knows what his public perception is? Who knows how many other WRs have been voted in (There's already too many)?Right or wrong, this stuff all matters.

It may matter if the question is whether or not he will be a first ballot HOFer, but not if the question is merely whether he will be a HOFer. Yes, he might have to wait a year or two given who else is eligible and/or to punish him for his misconduct, but there is no way they keep him out. Compare his numbers to any WR in the HOF, and it's not close. Like him or not, you cannot ignore his amazing performance. And particularly hard to ignore is the fact that he has been arguably right at the top of the league for his position in several individual seasons.

 

[Tau837]

It's 5 years after he retires that it will be decided if he goes into Hall of Fame.That 5 years allows plenty of time for perspective and to be truly judged among his peers. Bitterness and the negative side of a player tends not to be as big an issue as it is now. Michael Irvin is in the hall for example. In his peer group only Harrison and Owens can be compared, if we count Jerry Rice, Cris Carter and Tim Brown as a different era.Is there any player who has not got into the hall, that would otherwise be a shoo-in, based purely on his reputation/problems outside the playing field?This will be the 10th year Randy Moss has been in the NFL, 7 or 8 of them have been at a Pro Bowl level.People will forgive the Oakland years with perspective as it was one of the worst sides in modern history.

 

[Pipes]

Here's Moss at 30 years old: 716 11,310 109 That's 5th in receptions, 6th in yards, and 1st in TD's among all hall of fame receivers. If this guy is not a first ballot HOF'er, then that title means nothing.

And if most of those receivers had those numbers today, they wouldn't sniff the Hall. Jimmy SmithIsaac BruceKeenan McCardellRod SmithTorry HoltAre these guys all locks? They're all top 20 in receiving yardage. Irving Fryar is #10.Numbers that got you in the Hall in 1962 don't cut it anymore. You can't compare Moss to Tom freakin' Fears.

Were those guys a top 5 WR for any length of time during their careers? Torry Holt maybe but other than that no. Moss was the most dominant WR for a 5 to 6 year stretch.

 

[MarshallRob]

Perhaps he SHOULD be, but that's not the way the hall of fame selection works.

This is getting ignored. There are other things that affect the voting. Who knows who else is eligible when Moss is? Who knows what his public perception is? Who knows how many other WRs have been voted in (There's already too many)?Right or wrong, this stuff all matters.

It may matter if the question is whether or not he will be a first ballot HOFer, but not if the question is merely whether he will be a HOFer. Yes, he might have to wait a year or two given who else is eligible and/or to punish him for his misconduct, but there is no way they keep him out. Compare his numbers to any WR in the HOF, and it's not close. Like him or not, you cannot ignore his amazing performance. And particularly hard to ignore is the fact that he has been arguably right at the top of the league for his position in several individual seasons.

See, people keep putting Moss' quitting/dogging it/playing when he wants to play into the category of misconduct or character, something to be forgiven or forgotten after a few years have elapsed. If you take the time to read the thoughts of the actual Hall of Fame voters I already posted, you have to see this is not something they take lightly. Not giving his best effort is part of Moss' game, just as much as all those TD's are. The original question was "Has Randy Moss Secured His Place in Canton?". So you have to figure out what the voters are going to do. There's no definition of what a Hall of Famer is, and every voter probably has their own approach to figuring out who is or isn't a Hall of Famer. A lot of posters here just look at Moss' stats and say Hall of Famer, end of story. But not every voter stops there. And I don't think they should. Some might not want to honor someone as a football immortal if they consider him to have disgraced the game of football, not through some off-the-field stupidity, but on the field, by not treating the sport with the utmost seriousness and letting down his teammates. Would an old-school football writer really want to put Moss in alongside guys like Butkus and Nitschke? Could Moss have suceeded if he'd had to play in an earlier, less passing friendly era with DB's bumping him all down the field? Some voters might ask if a team would want Moss as their go-to receiver in a must-win game. I think a lot of people could definitely answer no to that type of question. Maybe Moss is a Hall of Famer but it's not the slam-dunk so many seem to think it is. Has the heart of any other great NFL receiver ever been questioned like this? I can't think of one.

 

[David Yudkin]

Perhaps he SHOULD be, but that's not the way the hall of fame selection works.

This is getting ignored. There are other things that affect the voting. Who knows who else is eligible when Moss is? Who knows what his public perception is? Who knows how many other WRs have been voted in (There's already too many)?Right or wrong, this stuff all matters.

It may matter if the question is whether or not he will be a first ballot HOFer, but not if the question is merely whether he will be a HOFer. Yes, he might have to wait a year or two given who else is eligible and/or to punish him for his misconduct, but there is no way they keep him out. Compare his numbers to any WR in the HOF, and it's not close. Like him or not, you cannot ignore his amazing performance. And particularly hard to ignore is the fact that he has been arguably right at the top of the league for his position in several individual seasons.

See, people keep putting Moss' quitting/dogging it/playing when he wants to play into the category of misconduct or character, something to be forgiven or forgotten after a few years have elapsed. If you take the time to read the thoughts of the actual Hall of Fame voters I already posted, you have to see this is not something they take lightly. Not giving his best effort is part of Moss' game, just as much as all those TD's are. The original question was "Has Randy Moss Secured His Place in Canton?". So you have to figure out what the voters are going to do. There's no definition of what a Hall of Famer is, and every voter probably has their own approach to figuring out who is or isn't a Hall of Famer. A lot of posters here just look at Moss' stats and say Hall of Famer, end of story. But not every voter stops there. And I don't think they should. Some might not want to honor someone as a football immortal if they consider him to have disgraced the game of football, not through some off-the-field stupidity, but on the field, by not treating the sport with the utmost seriousness and letting down his teammates. Would an old-school football writer really want to put Moss in alongside guys like Butkus and Nitschke? Could Moss have suceeded if he'd had to play in an earlier, less passing friendly era with DB's bumping him all down the field? Some voters might ask if a team would want Moss as their go-to receiver in a must-win game. I think a lot of people could definitely answer no to that type of question. Maybe Moss is a Hall of Famer but it's not the slam-dunk so many seem to think it is. Has the heart of any other great NFL receiver ever been questioned like this? I can't think of one.

So which is better . . . a guy that tried like heck for years and got 50 TD or a guy that took every other play off and had 100+?Moss took a lot of plays off--when the play did not go anywhere near him. I suspect plenty of other players do this (and some have openly admitted to it).You've pointed to the thoughts of a couple of HOF voters, but that does not mean they have a majority opinion. And I would also think the same guys you referenced would have the same opinion on Owens as Moss.

 

[Tau837]

Perhaps he SHOULD be, but that's not the way the hall of fame selection works.

This is getting ignored. There are other things that affect the voting. Who knows who else is eligible when Moss is? Who knows what his public perception is? Who knows how many other WRs have been voted in (There's already too many)?Right or wrong, this stuff all matters.

It may matter if the question is whether or not he will be a first ballot HOFer, but not if the question is merely whether he will be a HOFer. Yes, he might have to wait a year or two given who else is eligible and/or to punish him for his misconduct, but there is no way they keep him out. Compare his numbers to any WR in the HOF, and it's not close. Like him or not, you cannot ignore his amazing performance. And particularly hard to ignore is the fact that he has been arguably right at the top of the league for his position in several individual seasons.

See, people keep putting Moss' quitting/dogging it/playing when he wants to play into the category of misconduct or character, something to be forgiven or forgotten after a few years have elapsed. If you take the time to read the thoughts of the actual Hall of Fame voters I already posted, you have to see this is not something they take lightly. Not giving his best effort is part of Moss' game, just as much as all those TD's are. The original question was "Has Randy Moss Secured His Place in Canton?". So you have to figure out what the voters are going to do. There's no definition of what a Hall of Famer is, and every voter probably has their own approach to figuring out who is or isn't a Hall of Famer. A lot of posters here just look at Moss' stats and say Hall of Famer, end of story. But not every voter stops there. And I don't think they should. Some might not want to honor someone as a football immortal if they consider him to have disgraced the game of football, not through some off-the-field stupidity, but on the field, by not treating the sport with the utmost seriousness and letting down his teammates. Would an old-school football writer really want to put Moss in alongside guys like Butkus and Nitschke? Could Moss have suceeded if he'd had to play in an earlier, less passing friendly era with DB's bumping him all down the field? Some voters might ask if a team would want Moss as their go-to receiver in a must-win game. I think a lot of people could definitely answer no to that type of question. Maybe Moss is a Hall of Famer but it's not the slam-dunk so many seem to think it is. Has the heart of any other great NFL receiver ever been questioned like this? I can't think of one.

So which is better . . . a guy that tried like heck for years and got 50 TD or a guy that took every other play off and had 100+?Moss took a lot of plays off--when the play did not go anywhere near him. I suspect plenty of other players do this (and some have openly admitted to it).You've pointed to the thoughts of a couple of HOF voters, but that does not mean they have a majority opinion. And I would also think the same guys you referenced would have the same opinion on Owens as Moss.

Agree. Moss's problems are well documented, but I also think they are overblown at times.I personally think that it is likely that Peter King will vote for him. I could see Dr. Z making a stand on principle and not voting for him. I personally think the other guy's comment quoted by King was silly - if he performs well for New England it diminishes his value, completely ignoring the fact that the offense he played in last year was one of the worst ever in NFL history, run by a bed and breakfast guy.Does it excuse Moss not giving full effort? Nothing really excuses that, but his overall body of work is so good that it supercedes the issue of him taking plays off at times. I don't know much about that third voter, so I'm not sure if I believe he will stick by his comment and not vote for Moss. I doubt it.People in this thread have dismissed the fact that Moss's teammates are generally supportive of him, because they don't get to vote for HOF induction. But you can't tell me that the media will not be influenced by the opinions of his teammates and coaches if they speak positively about him during the rest of his career and during his five year waiting period. Do you think it will carry no influence if media darling Tom Brady campaigns for him like Troy Aikman campaigned for Irvin? What if Cris Carter, who is a member of the sports media, does so?As someone posted above, the waiting period helps people like Moss, because as time passes the negatives tend to fade and the positives tend to remain. Just my opinion, but I think he is a slam dunk as of today.

 

[WinstonOBoogie]

Again, Moss's team mates have never stated he was a bad team mate. Here's an example of Randy Moss that many of you don't know. I watched all the Minnesota games in 2004 and went to an away game in DC. During the season after scoring a TD, he on several occasions gave the ball to a disabled kid in the stands. At the DC game, during warm ups and just before he goes off into the locker for pre-game, he jogs over to a disabled girl and hands her the ball. He doesn't do this for publicity or to get peple to like him, he simply does not care if you like him or not. He speaks his mind and he wants to win badly.Lastly, remember that Moss took a tremendous paycut to play for the Patriots. He could have made the Raiders pay through the nose (he was under contract), but he let them off the hook and the Patriots got the deal of the century. He won't be a distraction to the Patriots and he's exactly what they needed to get past Indy (yes, Indy had won the last 3 meetings).

Thank you. Most people are not aware of the good things Moss does off the field because he chooses not to make them public. The guy does a lot for kids in the local community. He did a lot for the kids in the twin cities when he was here.