who argued on behalf of the cowboys?

[jumanji]

i read it here awhile ago that it was the same guy who argued for all 3 of them.

thanks

 

[jterrell]

right now its goose gosselin who seems real weary of not getting more Boys in.

he takes this stuff as seriously as we do obviously. he looked real bad when they showed him and he was saying there wasn't any anti-cowboys bias but also looked like he had aged 20 years in 1 month.

 

[Echo9]

right now its goose gosselin who seems real weary of not getting more Boys in.

he takes this stuff as seriously as we do obviously. he looked real bad when they showed him and he was saying there wasn't any anti-cowboys bias but also looked like he had aged 20 years in 1 month.

At the same time. I find Gosselin at least partically responsible. Most of his articles are critical in one way of another. If the guy who's supposed to be stumping for a guy gives credibility to a players reasons for not getting in, what are the other guys supposed to think.

Let him age quickly.

 

[Little Jr]

i read it here awhile ago that it was the same guy who argued for all 3 of them.

thanks

John McLain of the Houston Chronicle has been arguing for Wright for a while now. I know he thought Aikman was a 1st ballot. I'm prettty sure he thought Mike should be in also.

 

[5 Super Bowls]

At the same time. I find Gosselin at least partically responsible. Most of his articles are critical in one way of another. If the guy who's supposed to be stumping for a guy gives credibility to a players reasons for not getting in, what are the other guys supposed to think.

Let him age quickly.

Goose is the reason Rayfield got in this year. He has some articles that point out the bad or lacking of something, but he also explains why it shouldn't matter. If someone is going to bring up shortcomings of a player, don't you want them to be defended.

This year someone brought up that they didn't think Irvin belonged because he was too physical. Goose said there are several players that played on the edge of the rules that are in the HOF. Should we take them out. It should be a credit to Mike that he knew where the edge was.

Goose is an extremely intelligent writer with a ton of respect nation wide.

 

[TruBlueCowboy]

I can tell you one thing, Michael Wilbon wasn't against Aikman at all. I saw him on the Sports Reporters this morning and he said he thought Aikman was a better quarterback than Dan Marino. I don't know if Goose is the only fellas talking but we certainly didn't lose any love from Wilbon when it came to Aikman.

 

[cowboyjoe]

I contacted these writers, this is what they had to say:::::::::

DGoldberg@ap.org
To: OhCates@cs.com
Received from Internet: click here for more information


Joe

I don't usually respond to the thousands of e-mails like this.

I'll tell you this:

a. Aikman will get in.

b. I've voted for Wright and Irvin in the past. I'll certainly vote for Troy and for Emmitt when he comes up. I also think Jimmy Johnson deserves far more consideration than he's gotten (and discussed it with him.)

c. HOF rules are specific _ anything that happened outside of FB isn't to be considered. People did that anyway with LT, who barely squeezed in.

Gridder32@aol.com
To: Oh Cates


Those are some disturbing points, I agree
I just do my best to be fair.....no agenda.
thanks
Frank


Gridder32@aol.com
To: Oh Cates


upon further review i know for a fact that some of the information you have is incorrect....one is especially totally incorrect....
but some of it, alas, reflects some unfortunate realities

IMiller@sfchronicle.com
To: OhCates@cs.com
Received from Internet: click here for more information


I AM THE VOTER FROM SAN FRANCISCO. I NEVER MADE SUCH A STATEMENT AND IN FACT, VOTED FOR IRVIN LAST YEAR AND VOTED FOR WRIGHT IN THE SENIORS COMMITTEE AND EXPECT TO VOTE FOR HIM AGAIN TOMORROW. SOME PEOPLE NEED TO CHECK THEIR FACTS.

joe