Think Objectively:Does Irvin deserve the HOF? - Dallas Cowboys Forum

Sifillest · 05-31-2005

now look, i love the playmaker as much as i do Emmitt and Troy.....but in my heart i do not know if he is a hall of fame caliber player....i know that to the cowboys organization he meant a hell of a lot and he cooked many a d-back in his time as well as linebackers....and he was a very complete receiver.....but the truth of the matter is....he only had one truly dominant season('95)...so im not sure....i would love to see him go into canton with troy....but what do you guys think?

el_chevo · 05-31-2005

Hell yes, no questions asked...

blindzebra · 05-31-2005

Based on the numbers of players already in the HOF, yes without a doubt.

Is he a shoe-in? No because of his off the field issues and he was a Cowboy.

FolsomCowboy · 05-31-2005

If Lynn Swann is in the Hall of Fame Irvin should be a lock

Coy · 05-31-2005

He was the leader of the Cowboys in their 3 super bowl teams, he made a bunch of pro bowls, he had 750 receptions, almosto 12,000 yards receiving and 65 touchdowns. He is no Jerry Rice of course but he sure as hell deserves the hall of fame.

Rack Bauer · 05-31-2005

There is no question whatsoever that Irvin deserves to be in the HoF. It's not even debatable.

The cowboys of the 90s started on a decline when Free Agency started to kill them. But that team officially died when they lost Irvin.

TwoDeep3 · 05-31-2005

Rack and I seldom agree on anything.

He nailed it better than I have seen it stated ever.

No question.

LaTunaNostra · 05-31-2005

Players are elected to the HOF based on their individual stats first and foremost, then their contribution to the team, usually analyzed either in terms of rings or game breaking impact.

There is also a historical factor as well. A player like Joe Namath was a shoe-in, not because of his w-l record, but the obvious talent - release, arm, etc, and of course much more for his status as the player who more than any helped force the "merger" via SB III. More than any other late 60's player he defined an era, an era of transition.

Irvin has an important historical role in the annals of the NFL. He was the prototype of the new receiver who had been making such a radical change in the college game, (from running back to wide receiver as chief weapon of offenses struggling to combat the new smaller but much faster "speed defenses".) With Irvin the blueprint went from Jerry Rice as the most recognizable wideout "type" to a bigger, more muscular possession type but with sufficient speed to keep the position from becoming a glorified tight end. This new model receiver dominoed to a new set of characteristics for defensive backs, ie size, and to innovations in coverages and offensive formations.

That Irvin was also highly colorful and provocative just reinforced the transition. Some may not fancy the trash talking prototype, but I think that is short sighted. Michael's game was highly psychological, not unlike Michael Jordan's. He raised intimidation to a new level, and offensive intimidation at that. Just like Jordan, he used even his eyes to win a battle with his opponent, the of his head, the dare to beat him that he spoke with every part of his body. Previous players had used psychology to win an edge..Irvin carried it to a whole new level. He mastered it.

Both physically and psychologically, Irvin represents a major transition at the position. Certain "purists" might not like it, but Irvin is to the wideout what Elway was to the QB - Elway set up expectations for mobility in the quarterback and Irvin for the incorporation of the defensive mentality into the receiver.

Taking the objective view means locating the player in time and space...viewing him dynamically as well as statically..taking the historical perspective and going beyond his stats (or rings) and asking how and if he impacted or even changed the game.

He did.

He belongs in.

JackMagist · 05-31-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaTunaNostra

Players are elected to the HOF based on their individual stats first and foremost, then their contribution to the team, usually analyzed either in terms of rings or game breaking impact.

There is also a historical factor as well. A player like Joe Namath was a shoe-in, not because of his w-l record, but the obvious talent - release, arm, etc, and of course much more for his status as the player who more than any helped force the "merger" via SB III. More than any other late 60's player he defined an era, an era of transition.

[View Full Quote]

Exactly LTN...Irvin had a big impact on the game and how it is played today. Much like Bob Hayes before him who ushered in the era of the fast (really fast in his case) WR who had to be accounted for with deep coverage help. Both of these guys deserve to be in the HOF.

It is a shame that Irvin did not make it on the first ballot.

It is an absolute Travesty that Bob Hayes has not made it in at all.

Lets hope that Irvin does not end up being snubbed the way Hayes has...That would be a double Travesty.

**BrAinPaiNt** · 05-31-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by blindzebra

Based on the numbers of players already in the HOF, yes without a doubt.

Is he a shoe-in? No because of his off the field issues and he was a Cowboy.

Agreed and to be honest I did not expect him to get in the first time around...somehow I just knew he would not get in and all because of his off the field issues and the HOF cowboys bias.

Rack Bauer · 05-31-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwoDeep3

Rack and I seldom agree on anything.

He nailed it better than I have seen it stated ever.

No question.

LaTunaNostra · 05-31-2005

Jack, he'll get in. But they'll make him sweat first...I saw his lengthy comments on the rejection, the "I have to try to put it in my head that I just wasn't good enough" BS.

But that is exactly what his detractors want, to see him humbled. Irvin seems to know that because he is "playing the game". Sure, he really believes he wasn't good enough, lol.

I have a generally low opinion of sports writers, but some of them DO get it. I am sure there are those who see the HOF as some kind of wax museum, some nostalgia dungeon with cardboard characters, all of them "perfect", from the past. But comments others have made indicate they understand that tho the Hall is comprised OF individual players and coaches, it is not ABOUT individuals, but the movement of NFL history.

I think a lot of them know the HOF is really about history, about how the game developed, progressed, adapted, transitioned. You should be able to take or lead a tour there and move from era to era, understanding the evolution of the game..step by step, year by year, decade to decade. A who begat whom type journey.

Irvin is the historically significant player of the Cowboys SB teams of his era, not Aikman, and not even the record holding Emmit, who will be a shoe-in.

Irvin and Jimmy Johnson.

My guess is next time he gets in.

**Sarge** · 05-31-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbthal

If Lynn Swann is in the Hall of Fame Irvin should be a lock

..........and there you have it.

Sifillest · 05-31-2005

lol i love this board, 12 responses in 30-40 minutes?its great to be a cowboy

JDSmith · 05-31-2005

Irvin belongs in easily, no doubt about it. Aside from changing the position with his size and physical play, he had terrific stats:

Seasons among the league's top 10
Receptions: 1991-2, 1992-7, 1993-3, 1995-5
Receiving yards: 1991-1, 1992-2, 1993-2, 1994-8, 1995-4, 1997-8t
Receiving TDs: 1991-9t, 1992-8t, 1993-9t, 1995-10t, 1997-6t
Yards from scrimmage: 1991-4, 1992-10, 1993-8, 1995-9

Among the league's all-time top 50
Receptions: 16t
Receiving yards: 11
Receiving TDs: 34t

He averaged 75 yards per game receiving throughout his career (as a point of reference Terrel Owens has thus far averaged 72). In his 16 playoff appearances he averaged 82 yards per game - compare that to Lynn Swann and his paltry 63 yards per game post season (supposedly the reason Swann got in was his post season play). Here he is along with the guys above him in total receiving yards with games played, total yards and average yards per game:

Jerry Rice: 303 games, 22895 yards, 75.6 yards per game
Tim Brown: 255 games, 14934 yards, 58.6 yards per game
James Lofton: 233 games, 14004 yards, 60.1 yards per game
Cris Carter: 234 games, 13899 yards, 59.4 yards per game
Henry Ellard: 228 games, 13777 yards, 60.4 yards per game
Andre Reed: 227 games, 13198 yards, 58.1 yards per game
Steve Largent: 200 games, 13089 yards, 65.4 yards per game
Irving Fryar: 255 games, 12785 yards, 50.1 yards per game
Art Monk: 224 games, 12721 yards, 56.8 yards per game
Charlie Joiner: 239 games, 12146 yards, 50.8 yards per game
Michael Irvin: 159 games, 11904 yards, 74.9 yards per game

Outside of Rice the ONLY thing those guys have on Irvin is that every one of them played at least 40 more games, and most played in around 80 more games. None of them can even come close to his per game average.

Irvin is a lock for the HoF, and the fact that he didn't get in first ballot borders on a travesty. For anyone to imply that he doesn't belong is laughable.