DMN | Who's the better draft pick: Larry Allen or Michael Irvin

[SDogo]

Allen played in the last year-two of the dynasty and then played on a ****ty team for a decade.

Which makes what he did all that more impressive.

 

[Cowboy Brian]

Which makes what he did all that more impressive.

but what im trying to say is Irvin did more for this franchise than Larry did. In 50 years people will not be talking about the most dominant O-linemen, they will talk about the triplets and 3 super bowl victorys.

 

[pgreptom]

but what im trying to say is Irvin did more for this franchise than Larry did. In 50 years people will not be talking about the most dominant O-linemen, they will talk about the triplets and 3 super bowl victorys.

And that's "people" - that's the key word.

The general public will snitch and snatch over Irvin, Aikman, and Smith. That's all they ever saw on TV...

The bottom line is without players like Allen, none of that would have ever existed. Never mind that Allen was the most dominant offensive lineman in the NFL - arguably ever. Allen was picked in the 2nd round. Irvin was a top-15 pick.

And that, my friends, is why I choose Allen.

 

[SDogo]

but what im trying to say is Irvin did more for this franchise than Larry did. In 50 years people will not be talking about the most dominant O-linemen, they will talk about the triplets and 3 super bowl victorys.

I disagree

Put Michael Irvin on those teams Larry Allen played on and you likely would skip over his name in any conversation.

 

[KJJ]

No question Allen was great but the Cowboys won 2 of their 3 SB's in the 90's without him. The Cowboys would have had a tough time winning a SB without either of the triplets. Irvin put up almost 12,000 receiving yards and 65 TD's. The Cowboys proved they could win SB's without Allen but Irvin was a big part of all 3 SB wins. As great as Allen was my vote goes to Irvin.

 

[Future]

Holy cow. Larry Allen in a runaway. I have said it before, he is not appreciated enough because he played an unsexy position. He is the most dominant player we have ever had at his position. The gap from him to John Hannah as the 2nd best OF ever is the widest gap in our History.
.

I think guards are sexy...

 

[Cowboy Brian]

No question Allen was great but the Cowboys won 2 of their 3 SB's in the 90's without him. The Cowboys would have had a tough time winning a SB without either of the triplets. Irvin put up almost 12,000 receiving yards and 65 TD's. The Cowboys proved they could win SB's without Allen but Irvin was a big part of all 3 SB wins. As great as Allen was my vote goes to Irvin.

like.

 

[KJJ]

Because Irvin was drafted in 1988 and Larry Allen in 1995 that is a deciding factor................you never cease to amaze me.

That's fine if that's your choice, but at least use a logical argument.

By the way, you love numbers. Based on numbers it can be said Irvin is not even among the top 15 WR's of all time let alone the top 5.

I can assure you it's easier winning a championship losing your best OL than it is losing one of your top offensive scoring threats. Irvin opened up things for Harper and our entire passing game. He made the tough over the middle catches to pick up key first downs and was one of our emotional leaders. The facts are the Cowboys were winning SB's before Allen arrived and they would won their third SB without him. Allen was a GREAT player that's not an argument but he wasn't as important to the Cowboys success as Irvin was. Irvin made key receptions in big games and when he wasn't scoring he put Emmitt in a position to take it the rest of the way. I'm not trying to take anything away from the contributions Allen brought to the team but I'll always put a skill player who puts points on the board ahead of a player who blocks. The triplets got the most notoriety for a reason. You take one of them out of the lineup and the Cowboys might not have won any of those 3 SB's.

 

[KJJ]

Another point that should be made during Allen's prime years the Cowboys were a struggling football team. By 98 when Allen was only 26 yrs old the Cowboys were a bad team picking in the top 10. Aikman, Irvin and Emmitt were starting to get some age on them. The injuries were piling up and the team wasn't near as good once their careers started to wind down even though Allen was in his prime.

 

[casmith07]

This thread is tragic.

 

[KJJ]

This thread is tragic.

This is what happens when things are slow and guys are bored.

 

[casmith07]

This is what happens when things are slow and guys are bored.

The off-season sucks.

 

[Hostile]

To my knowledge no CB ever got sick the day before facing the Cowboys and going head to head with Michael Irvin. Guys literally would develop mysterious injuries and illnesses right before facing LA.

Someone ask Greg Lloyd who he would choose.

 

[xpistofer]

Holy cow. Larry Allen in a runaway. I have said it before, he is not appreciated enough because he played an unsexy position. He is the most dominant player we have ever had at his position. The gap from him to John Hannah as the 2nd best OF ever is the widest gap in our History.

11 times he went to the Pro Bowl. 6 times he was 1st team All Pro. He played 4 different positions along the OL in his career here. He earned All Pro and Pro Bowl honors at 3 of those 4 positions.

To answer Irvin is to really not get how important LA was. In a runaway I tell you.

I get how important larry was...but I have two simple questions for you:

(1) How many superbowls did we win in the 90's without larry?
(2) How many superbowls did we win in the 90's without mike?

as previous posters have said, mike was the heart and soul, and larry was the best ever at his position, but we won without larry and never won (in the 90's) without mike...

so, I disagree with you, but not because "I don't get" larry's importance...

EDIT: didn't see KJJ's earlier post basically making this point...

 

[SultanOfSix]

I believe even Michael would say Allen was a better "draft pick."

That doesn't mean Michael was any less important to the SB winning teams.

 

[THUMPER]

I get how important larry was...but I have two simple questions for you:

(1) How many superbowls did we win in the 90's without larry?
(2) How many superbowls did we win in the 90's without mike?

as previous posters have said, mike was the heart and soul, and larry was the best ever at his position, but we won without larry and never won (in the 90's) without mike...

so, I disagree with you, but not because "I don't get" larry's importance...

EDIT: didn't see KJJ's earlier post basically making this point...

I'm sorry, but this is really a dumb argument. :bang2:

 

[Hostile]

I get how important larry was...but I have two simple questions for you:

(1) How many superbowls did we win in the 90's without larry?
(2) How many superbowls did we win in the 90's without mike?

as previous posters have said, mike was the heart and soul, and larry was the best ever at his position, but we won without larry and never won (in the 90's) without mike...

so, I disagree with you, but not because "I don't get" larry's importance...

EDIT: didn't see KJJ's earlier post basically making this point...

So Larry gets graded lower because he is younger and had to play for us when Jerry was in delusion mode as GM?

Not in my book.

 

[Four]

Micheal was a game changer.

I love the linemen more than just about anyone here, Mike was a bigger part of what we accomplished than Larry was.

The teams with Mike wouldn't have been anywhere near what they were without him, if you substitute a slightly lesser player for Larry I still think those teams could be successful.

but, eric williams pre accident was better than both.

 

[Hoofbite]

Gotta go with LA but Irvin was more than just a player.

I haven't seen a player with as much heart and passion as Mike.

You're basically asking who is the better of two greats.

Pretty ridiculous. Lets just conclude that both were kick *** and move on.

 

[utrunner07]

Larry Allen was the better player and probably technically more important, (ie kept Troy alive), however, Mike was the heart of the 90s teams and irreplaceble.

If I had to chose it would be Larry, but we would not have gotten 3 SB with out Mike.

Edit; I see others have made this exact point...should have read the whole thread first.