KJJ
You Have an Axe to Grind
- Messages
- 62,199
- Reaction score
- 39,438
You guys are comparing two HOF players with one MAJOR difference one was a playmaking WR who put up over 12,000 receiving yards and 65 TD's and the other was an O-lineman. The Cowboys had a great OL before Allen arrived. The NFL Network ranked Irvin as one of the 10 greatest Cowboys and Larry Allen didn't even make their list. Irvin was inducted into the ROH the same night as Troy Aikman and Emmitt Smith. For Irvin to be inducted on the same night as Troy and Emmitt shows how much of an impact he had on the Cowboys winning those 3 SB's. Not only did he make plays but he pumped his teammates and the fans up. He was probably the best emotional leader the franchise ever had. A playmaking WR is going to impact a game much more than an offensive lineman. Irvin played a much bigger role in the success the Cowboys had in the 90's than Larry Allen did and this is a fact. The Cowboys had already won back to back SB's before Allen was even drafted. The OP wanted to know who the better draft pick was. It doesn't matter if one player was taken #1 overall and the other was taken in the 7th round it's who was the better pick. I don't care what round you draft a player in if they end up in the HOF and on your teams ROH they were a good value no matter what you gave up to get them.
When you compare Allen and Irvin you have to ask yourself what player made the biggest impact on the teams success and which one could you least do without. I think it was pretty clear which player the Cowboys could least do without at that time. The Cowboys didn't have much success during Allen's prime years because offensive lineman simply don't impact a game like skill position players. O-lineman are very important but they're not game changers. The Cowboys took a major hit when Irvin was forced to retire in 99. It affected the entire team especially Aikman who pretty much had no one to throw to. The team was 3-0 as Irvin laid motionless at the vet. The Cowboys went 5-8 the rest of that season and 5-11 the next 3 seasons. When Irvin was forced to retire the team started going straight down the drain. There's no way the Cowboys would have been as great as they were without the leadership and playmaking ability of Michael Irvin but they would have been just as good without Larry Allen. Allen may have been a greater player at his position than Irvin was at his but Irvin was an impact player who could change a game. It's alot easier replacing a blocker than a playmaker the Cowboys found that out in 2000 when Jerry gave up two #1's trying to replace Irvin and we all know how that ended up.
When you compare Allen and Irvin you have to ask yourself what player made the biggest impact on the teams success and which one could you least do without. I think it was pretty clear which player the Cowboys could least do without at that time. The Cowboys didn't have much success during Allen's prime years because offensive lineman simply don't impact a game like skill position players. O-lineman are very important but they're not game changers. The Cowboys took a major hit when Irvin was forced to retire in 99. It affected the entire team especially Aikman who pretty much had no one to throw to. The team was 3-0 as Irvin laid motionless at the vet. The Cowboys went 5-8 the rest of that season and 5-11 the next 3 seasons. When Irvin was forced to retire the team started going straight down the drain. There's no way the Cowboys would have been as great as they were without the leadership and playmaking ability of Michael Irvin but they would have been just as good without Larry Allen. Allen may have been a greater player at his position than Irvin was at his but Irvin was an impact player who could change a game. It's alot easier replacing a blocker than a playmaker the Cowboys found that out in 2000 when Jerry gave up two #1's trying to replace Irvin and we all know how that ended up.
) he struggled at times against the smaller, quicker DEs and was not as agile or athletic as Allen was.
