Results 25 to 36 of 92
Thread: Ring of Honor poll
-
03-09-2007, 09:40 AM #25
Re: Ring of Honor poll
Right now I say no to J. Lewis and Mulitalo.
Ogden and R. Lewis are locks. No one can argue that.
Future possibilities are Heap, Stover, Reed, and McAllister. But we'll see...
-
03-09-2007, 10:50 AM #26
Re: Ring of Honor poll
I pretty much agree with this, mainly because I believe the Ring should be reserved for the best of the best (yes, I know Byner's in there, and every August when the first preseason game arrives, I look to see if his name has somehow been quietly removed).
To me, Edwin, while a great guy and solid player doesn't rise to that level. Heck, he never even went to a Pro-Bowl.
Jamal, on the other hand, is a very close call. If not for the 2000 yard season, he's not even close IMO, but because of that season, I think I'd put him in.
-
03-09-2007, 11:00 AM #27
Re: Ring of Honor poll
I love Ed but he does not warrant a place in the ring of honor. Even if we use the criteria of both on AND off the field accomplishments, Ed simply has not performed well enough on the field to demand this accolade.
As for Jamal, I'm on the fence. If we hold him to the same off the field standards as we are with Mule, then, no, he is not deserving. However, his ON field performance has been wonderful since we drafted him in 2000. Either way, it's a tough call, but for now I will say no on Jamal too.
After players leave, it's usually difficult to set aside the pain/disappointment of their loss and look back clearly on their careers with unbiased views. Let's give this debate a year or two and revisit it then.
-
03-09-2007, 11:01 AM #28
Re: Ring of Honor poll
There are three criteria discussed so far in this thread.
1. Quality of play on the field
2. Quality of participation in the community
3. Consistency with other names on the RoH, notably Ernest Byner
The posts are informed by the way the poster ranks these criteria.
My personal opinion is that consistency is irrelevant. Byner is up there, but it doesn't mean we need to be goofy about it every time someone retires.
What I want to see is a *combination* of 1 and 2, with excellence in one or the other and at least a good job in the other. Michael McCrary being the king of both is the model. Someone who brings talent to the field but is a quiet malcontent when the stadium is quiet is a hired gun, and may go to Pro Bowls but does not belong on the Ring of Honor.
So, my vote:
Mulitalo: Quality of play is good enough to supplement outstanding contributions to the community. What more could he have given.
"I loved my time in Baltimore, and now it's time for me to find somewhere else to play. Baltimore will always be my home."
Jamal Lews: Mercenary malcontent crybaby. Has his SB ring, has his records of personal achievement, take them with my congratulations and pack your bags.
"I wanted to get out of that deal and get out of Baltimore."
Quotes from this article.Festivus
His definitions and arguments were so clear in his own mind that he was unable to understand how any reasonable person could honestly differ with him.
-
Re: Ring of Honor poll
Didn't we release Mule?; meaning can't we resign him if noone else picks him up?
-
03-09-2007, 11:04 AM #30
-
Re: Ring of Honor poll
^^OK, so he gone, but not really gone yet!!! I think he's gonna end up re-signing with us. Just my opinion though
-
03-09-2007, 11:30 AM #32
Re: Ring of Honor poll
I love both players but...
Jamal -
Mule -
-
03-09-2007, 11:49 AM #33
-
03-09-2007, 12:09 PM #34
Re: Ring of Honor poll
But look at how many players you did NOT name. Remember this organization is young. Over time, things will thin out a bit. Actually, each of the above names (save for Byner) will be in the ROH.
Byner was a mistake and he shouldn't be considered when looking at new possibles. Just because the bar was set at "making the team and Modell liking you" doesn't me it should stay there.
You obviously don't understand the concept of the ROH.
Posters like Greg think "woulda, shoulda, coulda" and ignore reality (what is).
I have met Edwin numerous times and I love the guy, I think he is an outstanding person. But as an NFL player he is between average and good. Better, higher impact players not up in the ROH include people like Sharper, Woodson, Burnett, Michael Jackson, Starks, Siragusa and many I am missing.
Check out the stadium, there just isn't room for all of these people and the Greggs, Flynns, etc. And there shouldn't be. Yes, Byner's inclusion diminishes the honor to those who are deserving, no reason to perpetuate that mistake, move his name to an end on the lower level and move on and forget he is there.
Byner does have one note-worthy accomplishment that makes him kind of worthy in a Baltimore ROH...the fumble. LOL, great smack against Clownfan.
-
03-09-2007, 12:18 PM #35On The Practice Squad
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
- Location
- Howard County
- Posts
- 33
Re: Ring of Honor poll
I think we should replace Earnest Byner's name with
PHIL SAVAGE and the rest of the former Ravens that have gone on to die/end there careers in Cleveland.
-
03-09-2007, 12:30 PM #36
Re: Ring of Honor poll
To both for all of the reasons previously stated.
Bookmarks