Twitter: Darren Woodson Snubbed for HOF Again

[perrykemp]

This thread is devolving into hilarity

 

[KJJ]

Quit stalling, ..

What were you disputing that I said?

You’re the one stalling, you were disputing my comments and decided to twist them. Lol All anyone has to do is scan through the first 4 pages to see who initiated this. It’s an easy trail to follow. Keep making yourself look foolish.

 

[OmerV]

You’re the one stalling, you were disputing my comments and decided to twist them. Lol All anyone has to do is scan through the first 4 pages to see who initiated this. Keep making yourself look foolish.

I just went back and looked, and I admittedly do have something wrong. I thought it was another poster that made the comment about career INT stats, and that was actually you, so I agree I responded to you first.


But as for the content of the discussion, here is what I found ….


I said that having higher career cumulative INT stats than another player does not necessarily mean that player is the better player.

You subsequently spent post after post after post telling me I was wrong about that, and that INTs are the main thing HOF voters look at.

Then I showed examples of HOF voters electing many players who don't have big careerINT numbers.

Then you reversed yourself and claimed you never said career INT stats prove a player is better than another.

And you said you only disputed me because Darren is not better than Charles, yet in the next breath admitted I never said he was, therefore there was nothing to dispute.

 

[kskboys]

Woodson was a SS. Using his INT numbers and comparing him to CB's would be like using Vince Wilfork's sack numbers and comparing him to DE's. Not comparable.

Was Charles better? Prolly, but if he was it wasn't by much. Was Montana better than Staubach? Yes, but both are in the HOF, and deservedly so. Darren's HOF consideration has nothing to do w/ Charles's HOF career.

Darren was considered a top 5 S for most of his career. He often played as a 5th LB. Not putting him in the HOF is sad and shows that the voting system is flawed.

 

[CATCH17]

If you give me the choice of any SS ever he is on the short list.

His game translates to any era.

 

[KJJ]

I just went back and looked, and I admittedly do have something wrong. I thought it was another poster that made the comment about career INT stats, and that was actually you, so I agree I responded to you first.


But as for the content of the discussion, here is what I found ….


I said that having higher career cumulative INT stats than another player does not necessarily mean that player is the better player.

You subsequently spent post after post after post telling me I was wrong about that, and that INTs are the main thing HOF voters look at.

Then I showed examples of HOF voters electing many players who don't have big careerINT numbers.

Then you reversed yourself and claimed you never said career INT stats prove a player is better than another.

And you said you only disputed me because Darren is not better than Charles, yet in the next breath admitted I never said he was, therefore there was nothing to dispute.

If you want to continue wasting your time feel free.

 

[OmerV]

Woodson was a SS. Using his INT numbers and comparing him to CB's would be like using Vince Wilfork's sack numbers and comparing him to DE's. Not comparable.

Was Charles better? Prolly, but if he was it wasn't by much. Was Montana better than Staubach? Yes, but both are in the HOF, and deservedly so. Darren's HOF consideration has nothing to do w/ Charles's HOF career.

Darren was considered a top 5 S for most of his career. He often played as a 5th LB. Not putting him in the HOF is sad and shows that the voting system is flawed.

I made exactly that point about SS and CB being different positions, just as DT and DE are different positions with a different emphasis on sacks, but he insisted that all DB's are measured the same way. He seems to have no idea that their roles and responsibilities are not identical, or that safeties have run game responsibilities that CB's do not.

 

[Tussinman]

Reality is there's going to be very good players that had great careers but not quite good enough to get in Canton. Eric Weddle is a modern era safety who will be just like Darren, great but not quite good enough.

Left tackle Joe Staley who just made the all-decade team will be just like Darren as well, amazing player but just barely on the outside looking in where his peers like Joe Thomas and Jason Peters will be getting in

 

[OmerV]

If you want to continue wasting your time feel free but I’m done!

So, you have no idea what you disagreed with me on?

Not even a clue?

You cannot even create a sentence telling me what I said wrong about career INT totals as a way of determining who is the better player?

 

[KJJ]

So, you have no idea what you disagreed with me on?

Not even a clue?

You cannot even create a sentence telling me what I said wrong about career INT totals as a way of determining who is the better player?

You disagreed with me which prompted you to respond. You didn’t agree with my comment about INT’s and began twisting my comments. I never said a DB that has more career INT’s is automatically better than a DB that had fewer. Those were your words not mine! INTs are the main thing the Hall of Fame voters look at when judging DBs but it’s not the only thing. INT’s point to ball skills and playmaking ability. Corners are going to have more INTs than safeties because they cover receivers man to man. They have more opportunities. Most of the safeties in the Hall of Fame have 25+ INT’s. Cliff Harris had 29 career INT’s which is a solid number for a HOF safety. For a safety to get INT’s they have to be instinctive and be around the ball a lot. DEs are judged on career sacks but it’s not the only thing the HOF voters look at. Look at all the corners and safeties in the Hall of Fame and check out their INT totals.

 

[KJJ]

There’s only 11 pure safeties in the Hall of Fame and 10 members played exclusively at cornerback.

 

[KJJ]

List of Hall of Fame members by position. There’s 34 DBs.

https://www.profootballhof.com/heroes-of-the-game/positions/

 

[OmerV]

You disagreed with me which prompted you to respond. You didn’t agree with my comment about INT’s and began twisting my comments. I never said a DB that has more career INT’s is automatically better than a DB that had fewer. Those were your words not mine! INTs are the main thing the Hall of Fame voters look at when judging DBs but it’s not the only thing. INT’s point to ball skills and playmaking ability. Corners are going to have more INTs than safeties because they cover receivers man to man. They have more opportunities. Most of the safeties in the Hall of Fame have 25+ INT’s. Cliff Harris had 29 career INT’s which is a solid number for a HOF safety. For a safety to get INT’s they have to be instinctive and be around the ball a lot. DEs are judged on career sacks but it’s not the only thing the HOF voters look at. Look at all the corners and safeties in the Hall of Fame and check out their INT totals.

lol - you cannot say what you disagreed with me on, so you are rambling to avoid it.

Again, ALL I ever said was career cumulative INT stats is a flawed way to decide one DB is better than the other because things like longevity and position and other responsibilities of the player factor in.

That's it - that's ALL I ever said, and if you didn't disagree with that comment then what did you write multiple posts arguing with me about? You still can't seem to answer that.


You didn't even claim to understand that cumulative career INT's is a flawed way to determine the better player until after I showed HOF voters recognize it. Onloy then did you backpedal.

And now, with this post, you are recognizing that INT stats for safeties are viewed differently than for CBs despite the fact you repeatedly argued otherwise before.

I'm thinking you pedal backward faster than you do forward. lol

 

[KJJ]

lol - you cannot say what you disagreed with me on, so you are rambling to avoid it.

You disagreed with me. This all started with you. You’re rambling on to keep this going. You’re bored! lol

 

[OmerV]

You disagreed with me. This all started with you responding to me. You’re rambling on to keep this going. lol

I did disagree with you, yes. I never said otherwise. There you go arguing another irrelevant point.

The point is that you are now saying you don't and never did disagree with what I with what I wrote in my comment that disagreed with you. That after you wrote post after post after post indicating otherwise.

Again, you can't even say what I wrote that you disagreed with.

If you agreed with my comment all along, like you are now saying, you would have just acknowledged that my point was valid, but you didn't

 

[KJJ]

You didn't even claim to understand that cumulative career INT's is a flawed way to determine the better player until after I showed HOF voters recognize it. Onloy then did you backpedal.

That’s a discussion you had with someone else not me. You can’t get anything straight. You continue to twist and turn everything. lol

 

[OmerV]

That’s a discussion you had with someone else not me. You can’t get anything straight. You continue to twist and turn everything. lol

Post #99 in this thread. I quoted you, and laid it out there. It was not directed to someone else. I haven't been having this discussion with someone else.

 

[KJJ]

I did disagree with you, yes. I never said otherwise. There you go arguing another irrelevant point.

Right, you disagreed with me and began putting your own spin on my comments. The only disagreement I’ve had with you are regarding my comments that you keep twisting.

 

[KJJ]

Post #99 in this thread. I quoted you, and laid it out there. It was not directed to someone else. I haven't been having this discussion with someone else.

I’m on my phone and don’t see post numbers. I haven’t read most of your posts, I’ve only glossed over them. You’re just wasting time rambling on with lengthy posts that are going unread. You have an agenda!

 

[OmerV]

Right, you disagreed with me and began putting your own spin on my comments. The only disagreement I’ve had with you are regarding my comments that you keep twisting.

lol - so, again, what was it I said that you objected to? Forget what came later for a minute, and go to the outset of this. What was it about my original comment to you about cumulative INT stats that you had a problem with?