Twitter: Darren Woodson Snubbed for HOF Again

[Future]

Lol at this thread.

Darren Woodson is maybe my favorite Cowboy ever. Charles Woodson is 50x more deserving to be in the HoF.

 

[Motorola]

Charles Woodson was a lot better than Darren Woodson and it’s not even close. Charles Woodson had 62 career INT’s with 11 TDs compared to 23 INT’s and 2 TDs for Darren Woodson. Some of you need to take off your homer caps.

And came close to playing two decades (as longtime Cowboys nemesis Darrell Green did...1983-2002).

 

[maryquality]

I'm happy that Drew Pearson is a senior's finalist!! If I remember correctly, it's just a formality at this point to vote him in. Can someone correct me if I'm wrong?

 

[Kevinicus]

Ummmm.. I love Darren to but Charles Woodson is deserving of being a finalist as a first timer. He is one of the greatest CBs to ever play the game.

Yup.

There are several guys on that list to have a problem with over Darren, but CW is not one of them. Very odd choice to bring to the argument, but considering the source, not surprising.

 

[stilltheguru]

Charles Woodson was a lot better than Darren Woodson and it’s not even close. Charles Woodson had 62 career INT’s with 11 TDs compared to 23 INT’s and 2 TDs for Darren Woodson. Some of you need to take off your homer caps.

Ive been saying for years Darren is overrated on here.

 

[tyke1doe]

You honestly believe Charles Woodson was better of a player than Darren Woodson?

Yes.

As much as I like DW, I don't recall him being considered one of the best safeties during his era. He was very, very, very good. A little underrated, if you ask me. But ... he wasn't flashy and didn't get the hype like Lynch or even Charles Woodson. CW was very good. he was considered one of the best corners of his era.

I think, however, DW will get in, just not now. I think, personally, once players join the ranks of the media, they get a few sympathy votes. I think that's how it's going to be with Romo, and I think that's why Jimmy Johnson went in as early as he did. He didn't have the number of victories. But he absolutely deserved to be in the HoF because of his dynasty-building efforts. But I think being a Fox commentator helped.

 

[tyke1doe]

So what Steeler got in this year....Bobby Walden?

 

[KJJ]

Terrell Owens totally schooled Charles Woodson. No contest.



Charles Woodson couldn't cover the 12 year veteran, Reggie Wayne. Notice how Woodson had to constantly grab and hold Wayne.



Charles Woodson struggled late against Marvin Harrison.



Charles Woodson was great many times. Just seemed liked he struggled covering the very best WRs. Lots of hugging and holding on his part.

You claimed Charles Woodson was not better than Darren Woodson and you’re wrong!

 

[OmerV]

It's because it's so obvious...the idiots who vote for this event are nothing but a bunch of Cowboys haters!

They vote Charles Woodson a finalist and as a first timer, instead of Darren Woodson???

There is your proof!

Charles Woodson is a worthy candidate. That's not to say Darren Woodson isn't, but I don't think it takes talking one down to promote the other.

 

[OmerV]

Charles Woodson was a lot better than Darren Woodson and it’s not even close. Charles Woodson had 62 career INT’s with 11 TDs compared to 23 INT’s and 2 TDs for Darren Woodson. Some of you need to take off your homer caps.

I'm not arguing that Darren was the better player, but you aren't comparing apples to apples. Charles was a CB most of his career, and played 18 years, so naturally he would have bigger career INT stats than Darren, who was a SS and played 12 years.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

Sucks for Woodson. One of my all-time favorite Cowboys. Hopefully he eventually gets in.

 

[OmerV]

the Cowboys are VERY well represented in the hall. There are definitely some Boys I think should be in who are not but all said and done I am very pleased with our totals there and every once in a while we get another in that I wasnt expecting like when Rayfield Wright made it, and more recently Cliff Harris

Agreed. Every fan base has players they feel aren't getting a fair deal, and maybe some aren't, but some Cowboy fans like to imagine that only applies to the Cowboys.

The reality is Cowboy fans simply pay more attention to what happens with the Cowboys and Cowboy players than they do with what happens with other teams and players - just as fans of other teams do - and they have emotional responses to what happens with the Cowboys and Cowboy players - just as fans of other things do - and because of that they often make the mistake of thinking that what happens with the Cowboys is unique. In short, because they are less aware and invest less emotion in other teams, they think other teams don't have similar issues.

 

[KJJ]

I'm not arguing that Darren was the better player, but you aren't comparing apples to apples. Charles was a CB most of his career, and played 18 years, so naturally he would have bigger career INT stats than Darren, who was a SS and played 12 years.

Others brought up Charles Woodson comparing him to Darren Woodson. The facts are Charles Woodson was a better player than Darren Woodson. It really doesn’t matter that Charles Woodson was a CB most of his career. He was able to play two positions at a high level.

 

[quickccc]

Woodson deserves to get in one day, but when you look at that list who would you actually take off for Woodson? So it's hard to say he was screwed. There are some very good players on the list. It's not like there are any Terrell Davis types which I have no idea how he got in or so soon.

Probably could make a case in place of Sam Mills and Clay Matthews, but I would be surprised if either is selected this year. Its tough to get in to the hall of fame.(Mostly)

I could make an argument with Woody vs John Lynch, .as you have a guy that could athletically match up with the more athletic pass catching TEs and slot WRs
vs Lynch who had to be protected in a exclusively zone area scheme (Tampa Cover 2) as he could not physically single cover those type of guys all over the field,
-.but i wonder what may keep Woody out the HOF finalists is how does his INT numbers compare to the small list of HOF safeties. ..

 

[Plankton]

I've said it once, and I'll say it again. Darren Woodson will not get in the Hall of Fame due to his being left off of the 90's All Decade team in place of the very washed up Ronnie Lott, who only played for half of the decade at a very diminished level. The people who select the All Decade teams are also the HOF selectors.

 

[CowboyRoy]

Woodson robbed again. One of the best safeties to ever play. Ever. Robbed again. At this rate, D Ware will get in before him.

Lets be honest here, Woodson doesnt deserve to be in the HOF. He was a great safety for the Cowboys and certainly one of our best. But he didnt make enough big plays for my money to be considered HOF material. And he played on a great defense.

 

[OmerV]

Others brought up Charles Woodson comparing him to Darren Woodson. The facts are Charles Woodson was a better player than Darren Woodson. It really doesn’t matter that Charles Woodson was a CB most of his career. He was able to play two positions at a high level.

Again, I wasn't commenting about who was the better player, I was just saying the statistical argument you used about INTs didn't really fit.

 

[SportsGuru80]

 

[KJJ]

Again, I wasn't commenting about who was the better player, I was just saying the statistical argument you used about INTs didn't really fit.

The statistical argument about INT’s fits when talking about DBs being voted into the Hall of Fame. It’s the number one stat. Roy Williams had only 3 fewer INT’s than Darren Woodson. He also had one more career TD.

 

[OmerV]

The statistical argument about INT’s fits when talking about DBs being voted into the Hall of Fame. It’s the number one stat. Roy Williams had only 3 fewer INT’s than Darren Woodson. He also had one more career TD.

The argument I responded to was about who was the better player …

And the argument was based on cumulative career INT stats without regard for the fact the two played different positions and one played 6 more seasons. Accordingly, the argument was not based on an apples to apples comparison.

Regardless of who is the better player, career cumulative INT stats are naturally skewed toward CBs over Strong Safeties, and toward an 18 year player over a 12 year player.

As for INT's being the #1 stat for DB's, that's a little like saying sacks is the #1 stat for O-Linemen. The reality is sacks is a standard for DE's more than with DT's, and INT's is a standard for CB's more than SS's.

Again, I'm not arguing that Charles Woodson was not the better player - I would say he was. But merely using cumulative stats doesn't make the argument, especially given the different positions and length of service in the NFL.