Twitter: Darren Woodson Snubbed for HOF Again

[perrykemp]

Maybe it was the games I saw, but I never thought Charles Woodson was that great.

go check out his 2009 DPOY highlights.

 

[KJJ]

So, it's your contention that Everson Walls was a better player than Cliff Harris, Troy Polamalu, Steve Atwater and Brian Dawkins.

The 57 career INTs are the only reason Everson Walls keeps being brought up for the Hall of Fame and why he keeps touting himself for the Hall of Fame. INT’s may be the number one stat the Hall of Fame voters look at when judging DBs but it’s not the only stat. Corners are going to get more INT’s than safeties. Despite all the INT’s Walls only returned one for a TD. He had a lot of INT’s but he also got burned a lot. The one play that hurt his career more than any was the Dwight Clark catch in the 1981 NFC title game. He got fooled on the play and that’s the play fans remember most about him. It made the cover of Sports Illustrated and has haunted him since. When he arrived in Dallas the Cowboys were losing title games every year. The team was on the decline. During his prime years with the team the Cowboys weren’t good. If you want to keep going on feel free!

 

[KJJ]

Which means the HOF does not share your opinion that a DB with more INTs is automatically a better player than one with fewer INT's.

I never said a DB with more INT’s is automatically a better player than one with fewer INTs. You’re twisting my comments to create arguments. Lol That’s like saying a QB with the most career TD passes is better than those who had fewer. Get real!

 

[OmerV]

The 57 career INTs are the only reason Everson Walls keeps being brought up for the Hall of Fame and why he keeps touting himself for the Hall of Fame. INT’s may be the number one stat the Hall of Fame voters look at when judging DBs but it’s not the only stat. Corners are going to get more INT’s than safeties. Despite all the INT’s Walls only returned one for a TD. He had a lot of INT’s but he also got burned a lot. The one play that hurt his career more than any was the Dwight Clark catch in the 1981 NFC title game. He got fooled on the play and that’s the play fans remember most about him. It made the cover of Sports Illustrated and has haunted him since. When he arrived in Dallas the Cowboys were losing title games every year. The team was on the decline. During his prime years with the team the Cowboys weren’t good. If you want to keep going on feel free!

Yes, he gets brought up, but not voted in despite the fact he has more carreer INTs than most DBs that are in, and despite the fact you keep arguing as if INTs are a stand alone standard for getting into the HOF and for judging who is a better player.

But now it appears you are agreeing that it is not a stand alone stat, which is all I have been saying all along.

 

[OmerV]

I never said a DB with more INT’s is automatically a better player than one with fewer INTs. You’re twisting my comments to create arguments. Lol That’s like saying a QB with the most career TD passes is better than those who had fewer. Get real!

lol - all I have said all along was that having more career INT's doesn't necessarily mean a DB is better than another DB, especially when one is a CB and one is a safety. You jumped into this by disputing that. Now you are saying you don't dispute it? Then what the hell were you arguing about? lol

 

[atlantacowboy]

He was too quiet as a player. If he had pranced around and done more of the "look at me and what I just did" antics, he would be in the HOF. Great player overshadowed by other great players on his own team.

 

[KJJ]

Yes, he gets brought up, but not voted in despite the fact he has more carreer INTs than most DBs that are in, and despite the fact you keep arguing as if INTs are a stand alone standard for getting into the HOF and for judging who is a better player.

But now it appears you are agreeing that it is not a stand alone stat, which is all I have been saying all along.

I never said INTs are a stand alone standard. You continue to twist my comments. With the Cowboys season done you’re obviously bored.

 

[KJJ]

lol - all I have said all along was that having more career INT's doesn't necessarily mean a DB is better than another DB, especially when one is a CB and one is a safety. You jumped into this by disputing that. Now you are saying you don't dispute it? Then what the hell were you arguing about? lol

I never disputed any of that you’re the one arguing! lol

 

[OmerV]

I never said INTs are a stand alone standard. You continue to twist my comments. With the Cowboys season done you’re obviously bored.

I never disputed any of that you’re the one arguing! lol

Then tell me what you disputed.

The only point I ever made was that having more career INT's doesn't necessarily mean a person is/was a better player than one with fewer INT's.

Since that's all I was saying, how could you dispute what I was saying and still claim you weren't disputing that?

 

[KJJ]

Then tell me what you disputed.

I disputed that Darren Woodson was better than Charles Woodson. You decided to enter the discussion with an agenda to twist my comments because you were looking for an argument. You’re bored!

 

[OmerV]

I disputed that Darren Woodson was better than Charles Woodson. You decided to enter the discussion with an agenda to twist my comments because you were looking for an argument. You’re bored!

That's a nonsensical response because I never said Darren Woodson was better than Charles Woodson.

In fact, I specifically said I thought Charles Woodson was the better player.

Try again …

 

[KJJ]

That's a nonsensical response because I never said Darren Woodson was better than Charles Woodson.

In fact, I specifically said I thought Charles Woodson was the better player.

Try again …

I never accused you of saying Darren Woodson was better than Charles Woodson. Another poster did and you joined the discussion and twisted my comments. You were looking for an argument.

 

[OmerV]

I never accused you of saying Darren Woodson was better than Charles Woodson. Another poster did and you decided to enter the discussion and twist my comments.

lol - wow, that's hilarious. You are a bizarre guy

In your previous post you said you disputed me because you were disputing that Darren Woodson was better than Charles Woodson …

then in this post a few short minutes later you said you never accused me of saying Darren was better than Charles, despite having just admitted that was the basis of your dispute with me.

That makes absolutely no sense at all.


Yes, I entered into a conversation with another poster, and then you inserted yourself into that conversation.

And since that time you have argued in post after post after post that what I said was wrong.

And now you are claiming you never disputed what I said?

 

[KJJ]

lol - wow, that's hilarious. You are a bizarre guy

Look who’s talking. You’ve been following me around for 2 days twisting my comments because you obviously have nothing else better to do. Do you see anyone else following me around making up things just to keep this going? lol

 

[KJJ]

Yes, I entered into a conversation with another poster, and then you inserted yourself into that conversation.

You inserted yourself into a discussion I was in. You can’t get anything straight. Lol You took exception to some of my comments and decided to twist them.

 

[OmerV]

You inserted yourself into a discussion I was in. You can’t get anything straight. Lol You took exception to some of my comments and decided to twist them.

I responded to that poster's comment - that established a dialogue between he and I. Then you responded to me, and quoted me, and disputed what I said.

And now you are oddly claiming you never disputed what I said despite creating post after post after post after post doing just that.

And what's funny is neither me, nor the poster I responded to about the career INTs, ever said Darren was better than Charles, yet now you are claiming that as entire basis of your dispute with me.

And even then you are saying that was the basis of your dispute with me, yet never thought I said it to begin with.

It's like the meds haven't kicked in yet

GET TO THE HEART OF IT …. What are you now telling me I said that you disputed in post after post.

 

[KJJ]

I responded to that poster's comment - that established a dialogue between he and I. Then you responded to me, and quoted me, so you responded to me.

I responded to this comment and you joined in. Shortly there after you began twisting my comments to create an ongoing argument. It’s day two and you’re continuing to do it.

Charles Woodson was not better than Darren Woodson.

 

[OmerV]

I responded to this comment and you joined in. Shortly there after you began twisting my comments.

I responded to another poster about career INT totals determining who what the better player. My response to that is what you responded to me about.

Now, cut out out the endless smokescreen …

What was it that I said that you disputed?

 

[KJJ]

I responded to another poster about career INT totals determining who what the better player. My response to that is what you responded to me about.

Now, cut out out the endless smokescreen …

What was it that I said that you disputed?

Dude you initiated the discussion we’re having. Look through the thread and see for yourself! This is the first exchange we had it’s on page 4 and you initiated it.

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.

 

[OmerV]

Dude you initiated the discussion we’re having. Look through the thread and see for yourself! This is the first exchange we had it’s on page 4 and you initiated it.

Quit stalling, ..

What were you disputing that I said?