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

[MapleLeaf]

I respect your opinion. But I disagree with your logic.

I give you Roy11 & Kyle Kosier as examples but you can choose others as well.

And simply being rah-rah doesn't make you a leader. You so discredit Irvin's contribution with that statement. It would be similarly wrong to suggest you can find a fat guy on every street corner to stand in front of a D-lineman for a few seconds til the QB throws the ball.

...I'm not sure how I can add to this with anymore clarity.

This is the best I can do.

If Larry Allen and his accomplishments were to be translated into a WR he would be a greater WR in stats and regular contribution than Michael Irvin ever would be.

If Michael was translated into a O-lineman with his accomplishments he would not reach the heights that Larry did, although he would be a good lineman and only difference would be is he would be louder, flashier and have gotten into more trouble.

Staying with the original thread premise Allen was the better draft pick hands down.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Funny how Irvin's emotional leadership didn't win us anything in the late 90s when our talent was falling apart.

And I guess Campo and Quincy just had bad timing... If only they'd had Mike to get in people's faces.

 

[MapleLeaf]

I guess I don't understand why you think choosing Irvin ahead of Allen means I don't appreciate Larry Allen or the work of the lineman in general. I simply give Irvin a slight nod over Allen in the overall value of his contributions to our team's success. That is not meant to diminish the value of Allen one iota.

...diminish.

I argue that people display tendencies. I did at one time also. I played football into my collegiate years and I can say I was much more attracted to the flashy, loud guys who made the highlight plays.

More noise more attention. That was me.

As I got older and more importantly more experienced and wiser in the nature of the game it has given me the clarity of insight to give Allen the obvious nod over Irvin in the thread argument.

It also brings out the need for me to share my opinion of the reason why this topic is a divisive one really by the nature of how fandom watches football.

In my opinion it should have ended with Allen is the better draft pick and Michael was a great WR and here is the irrefutable evidence why.

Picking Michael because he was the heart and soul of the Cowboys is not why a GM would ever make a draft pick and it would be fool's gold to use that as a premise to value one pick over another.

Remember we are talking about drafting here, not who was your favourite Cowboy on TV.

 

[KJJ]

Staying with the original thread premise Allen was the better draft pick hands down.

So if you had to choose between Allen or Irvin to head into the 90's with you would have chosen Allen? You're saying his impact on the team as an offensive lineman would have been greater than Irvin's impact as a WR?

 

[5Stars]

I love #88...not so much love for #22, but I respect the hell out of Emmitt.

However...Irvin probably does not accomplish what he did without Troy getting him the ball. And Troy probably does not get Irvin the ball unless he's upright most of the time, and when Larry was in, Troy was upright!

So, my vote goes to Larry because he was so damn mean that defensive linemen were terrified to play against him, thus giving Troy more time to involve Irvin.

But, IMO, football is such a team sport that it would be difficult to exactely point out or make a distinction of which player or coach was responsible for the success of the 90's Cowboys. There are just to many variables to consider how that team came togeather to create one hell of a dynasty!

It was so much fun to watch.

 

[MapleLeaf]

Funny how Irvin's emotional leadership didn't win us anything in the late 90s when our talent was falling apart.

And I guess Campo and Quincy just had bad timing... If only they'd had Mike to get in people's faces.

...put Michael down for this. It was never his fault that the ownership group lost sight of how to make/run a quality team.

He was never drafted for that reason - to make up for ownership mistakes. (53) players those years could have screaming and yelling and it wouldn't have made a hill of beans in results.

 

[5Stars]

So if you had to choose between Allen or Irvin to head into the 90's with you would have chosen Allen? You're saying his impact on the team as an offensive lineman would have been greater than Irvin's impact as a WR?

Not to answer the question posed to David, but without the greatezst Olineman to ever play the game, how do you know Troy would have been able to get Irvin the ball.

the gate swings both ways, IMO.

 

[CoCo]

Funny how Irvin's emotional leadership didn't win us anything in the late 90s when our talent was falling apart.

And I guess Campo and Quincy just had bad timing... If only they'd had Mike to get in people's faces.

That line of reasoning could of course also be applied to Larry Allen. But of course it really doesn't hold water in either case.

 

[Doomsday101]

Funny how Irvin's emotional leadership didn't win us anything in the late 90s when our talent was falling apart.

And I guess Campo and Quincy just had bad timing... If only they'd had Mike to get in people's faces.

Funny we won 2 SB back to back without Allen yet we won nothing without Irvin. Again I hate these threads because you are talking 2 important member of this organization. I think the OL is critical no question about it and I love Larry Allen but he was a gaurd not a LT there is a reason LT tend to make more money. Erik Williams to me was one of the meanest lineman I have seen in Dallas and the way he would pound guys like Reggie White to the point they were non factors was big.

 

[KJJ]

However...Irvin probably does not accomplish what he did without Troy getting him the ball. And Troy probably does not get Irvin the ball unless he's upright most of the time, and when Larry was in, Troy was upright!

Troy wasn't having any trouble getting Irvin the ball before Allen arrived. Irvin had three 1300-plus yard seasons before Larry Allen was drafted. He only had one 1300-plus yard season after Allen was drafted.

 

[CoCo]

Not to answer the question posed to David, but without the greatezst Olineman to ever play the game, how do you know Troy would have been able to get Irvin the ball.

the gate swings both ways, IMO.

Uhhh, because he did? See 1992 & 1993 SB Championships.

Not that I want to suggest that as a valid premise. Just answering your question.

 

[KJJ]

Not to answer the question posed to David, but without the greatezst Olineman to ever play the game, how do you know Troy would have been able to get Irvin the ball.

the gate swings both ways, IMO.

Because Troy was getting Irvin the ball BEFORE Allen was drafted. Look at the stats Irvin was putting up before Allen arrived.

 

[5Stars]

Troy wasn't having any trouble getting Irvin the ball before Allen arrived. Irvin had three 1300-plus yard seasons before Larry Allen was drafted. He only had one 1300-plus yard season after Allen was drafted.

That's my point, too. It's a team game, so who really knows? Both were amazing at what they did, but each season is different, so debating which was more effective is difficult to conclude.

For me, IMO, I would build a team around 4 LA's rather than 4 #88's.

 

[MapleLeaf]

So if you had to choose between Allen or Irvin to head into the 90's with you would have chosen Allen? You're saying his impact on the team as an offensive lineman would have been greater than Irvin's impact as a WR?

You may think of it as disrespect to Michael, but I pose it to you as the ultimate nod to Larry and what he has done.

Let's take 1990 if you had Aikman and disregard all of the other players and draft picks and you had (2) players in front of you and you know piece for piece what they were going to bring to the table; Pro Bowls, All Pros, consistency, locker room demeanor, public personas, criminal records, length of service in the league and position. The wholeshebang which you would use to choose a draft pick who would you choose?

In 1990 and any other time I would choose Larry Allen, but moreso when Aikman was a young QB would I choose Larry Allen.

But for draft picks you don't make WRs #1 overall. You do that for QBs and OL. Especially LTs. I would even argue that Larry would have had a stellar career at LT although possibly not a great a one. His arms were of elite length, but when he was young he had great foot speed and balance.

There was incredible talent on those 90's teams, but it was a real shame they didn't get Larry earlier. Combined with Erik, Nate, Tunei and Stepnoski I can't imagine what that offence could have accomplished.

We are talking about possibly the most accurate QB in the history of the league in terms of ball placement? What would have been if his career early on would have featured even more time in the pocket?

What would Novachek's stats be like. Smith's rushing TDs may have gone up? Aikman's passes may have gone down, but he may have helped his completion % go up and ints go down. These are the byproducts of elite protection.

An unharassed Aikman would have made all the receivers look better as they would have had more time to get uncovered and find the soft zones of a pass defence. And I haven't even begun to explore the plays and traps that Larry could perform for Emmitt.

Hands down Larry.

 

[KJJ]

That's my point, too. It's a team game, so who really knows? Both were amazing at what they did, but each season is different, so debating which was more effective is difficult to conclude.

For me, IMO, I would build a team around 4 LA's rather than 4 #88's.

The fact is Irvin was more productive before Allen ever arrived. The Cowboys had a great offensive line before Allen was drafted that's why they were winning SB's. Having 4 Larry Allen's isn't going to do you much good if you don't have a playmaker and some emotional leaders. Allen was a great player but he didn't make the impact Irvin did. The Cowboys were a great team before Allen arrived and Irvin's leadership and playmaking ability was part of the reason. Harper wouldn't have been as affective without Irvin on the opposite side. Harper proved he couldn't be the man when he went to Tampa as a free agent. Irvin was one of those players who made everyone better around him.

 

[MapleLeaf]

Because Troy was getting Irvin the ball BEFORE Allen was drafted. Look at the stats Irvin was putting up before Allen arrived.

...began to erode and Allen's career starting winding up you can answer much more of that trend by looking to Irvin's injuries and Aikman's concussions.

The offensive line began to erode. Stepnoski left along with many other lineman.

 

[CoCo]

...diminish.

I argue that people display tendencies. I did at one time also. I played football into my collegiate years and I can say I was much more attracted to the flashy, loud guys who made the highlight plays.

More noise more attention. That was me.

As I got older and more importantly more experienced and wiser in the nature of the game it has given me the clarity of insight to give Allen the obvious nod over Irvin in the thread argument.

It also brings out the need for me to share my opinion of the reason why this topic is a divisive one really by the nature of how fandom watches football.

In my opinion it should have ended with Allen is the better draft pick and Michael was a great WR and here is the irrefutable evidence why.

Picking Michael because he was the heart and soul of the Cowboys is not why a GM would ever make a draft pick and it would be fool's gold to use that as a premise to value one pick over another.

Remember we are talking about drafting here, not who was your favourite Cowboy on TV.

Imagine what kind of clarity and insight you'll have then when you reach my age. I've got you by 6 years. But of course that point has little application to this issue does it?

And I'll have to disagree again on your 2nd point as well. Irvin, and every player drafted is selected for the entire package they bring to the team (athleticism, skills & character). Of course Mike was selected because the perceived sum total was so great. Fortunately, he delivered on all that and more (good & bad).

Allen, similarly played beyond draft expectations.

 

[CoCo]

That's my point, too. It's a team game, so who really knows? Both were amazing at what they did, but each season is different, so debating which was more effective is difficult to conclude.

For me, IMO, I would build a team around 4 LA's rather than 4 #88's.

As might I. But that is a different issue entirely.

 

[Doomsday101]

...began to erode and Allen's career starting winding up you can answer much more of that trend by looking to Irvin's injuries and Aikman's concussions.

The offensive line began to erode. Stepnoski left along with many other lineman.

Allen was drafted in 94 and left in 2004 we did not have alot of winning season over that period. Larry was great but Larry at his peak was not enough.

 

[MapleLeaf]

The fact is Irvin was more productive before Allen ever arrived. The Cowboys had a great offensive line before Allen was drafted that's why they were winning SB's. Having 4 Larry Allen's isn't going to do you much good if you don't have a playmaker and some emotional leaders. Allen was a great player but he didn't make the impact Irvin did. The Cowboys were a great team before Allen arrived and Irvin's leadership and playmaking ability was part of the reason. Harper wouldn't have been as affective without Irvin on the opposite side. Harper proved he couldn't be the man when he went to Tampa as a free agent. Irvin was one of those players who made everyone better around him.

...Larry Allen great.

Take any GM in the league and if you told him you could have (5) Larry Allen's on your line in terms of talent hew would tell you he had a chance at winning the SuperBowl every year.

Even a troubled QB like Alex Smith, Matt Leinart, Brady Quinn with some serviceable receivers could do some real damage against any team in the league right now.

With (5) Larry Allen's there would have been no Jared Allen or Ray Edwards to worry about this past playoffs.

I think what you are missing in understanding here is the progression of the football at the start of an offensive play and the overall ability Allen presented that was so unique and different from lineman before him.

There were many receivers who were much greater than Irvin and would have been able to contribute just as much to the team of the 90's.

Larry Allen was in a league of his own at his peak. Possibly the best there ever was.