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

MapleLeaf

Maple Leaf
Messages
5,209
Reaction score
1,598
KJJ;3325646 said:
You never answered my question if you knew what you know now and could only choose ONE to start your team off with who would you choose Allen or Irvin?

...Allen because I know I could have my starting Left Tackle.

This is based on your premise of knowing what I know now.

He earned "all rookie" in 94 while playing part of the season at LT. In 98 he was consensus "All Pro" at LT.

I think if you look at any NFL "How to be a GM." dummies manual you will see that the positions to draft #1 overall are typically QB, RB and LT.

I would consider Allen worthy of the #1 overall pick in the 2010 draft over Michael Irvin knowing that it would result in me having a consensus all pro LT who could play (3) other positions at a Pro Bowl level.

Case closed for me.
 

MapleLeaf

Maple Leaf
Messages
5,209
Reaction score
1,598
KJJ;3325658 said:
How many offensive linemen have been named SB MVP? Answer...ZIP! But there's been several WR's named SB MVP. You're not going to win crap unless you have great players at the skill positions.

...has to pick the MVP minutes after a game was over is not my fault for the lack of foresight they have.

I am willing to bet that MVPs would be looked differently if the selection was made days after the game and the vote was made by players and coaches only.

Fans and the immediate gratification of TV does not make that selection right nor does it make the watering down of a lineman's contribution any less.

Those who know, play and have struggled inside in the game of football would know the real contribution those positions make.

For what Allen has done in his career is nothing but remarkable and the fact that the TV camera doesn't follow him or any other Hall of Fame lineman is a tragedy because there a significant part of the game the fans are missing.
 

KJJ

You Have an Axe to Grind
Messages
62,199
Reaction score
39,438
davidyee;3325664 said:
...Allen because I know I could have my starting Left Tackle.

This is based on your premise of knowing what I know now.

He earned "all rookie" in 94 while playing part of the season at LT. In 98 he was consensus "All Pro" at LT.

I think if you look at any NFL "How to be a GM." dummies manual you will see that the positions to draft #1 overall are typically QB, RB and LT.

I would consider Allen worthy of the #1 overall pick in the 2010 draft over Michael Irvin knowing that it would result in me having a consensus all pro LT who could play (3) other positions at a Pro Bowl level.

Case closed for me.

Take Allen ahead of Irvin and you'll have the same struggling team the Cowboys had from 97 on. In Allen's 12 seasons with the Cowboys the team finished over 500 only 6 times. Allen was part of a 9 year winless playoff drought in Dallas. It's alot easier finding a LT who can get the job done than a playmaking WR who provides leadership and puts points on the board. You don't see teams giving up two #1's for a LT. No GM in their right mind who has the choice between a HOF WR and a HOF LT is going to choose the LT. Any offensive linemen that were taken #1 overall were taken at that spot because there was no great talent at the skill positions those years. You can take Larry Allen and struggle finding those special skill positions that win playoff games and SB's. I'll take Irvin and his 12,000 yards and 65 TD's and plug in a decent LT and my team will be alot farther along than yours. :toast:
 

KJJ

You Have an Axe to Grind
Messages
62,199
Reaction score
39,438
davidyee;3325671 said:
...has to pick the MVP minutes after a game was over is not my fault for the lack of foresight they have.

I am willing to bet that MVPs would be looked differently if the selection was made days after the game and the vote was made by players and coaches only.

Fans and the immediate gratification of TV does not make that selection right nor does it make the watering down of a lineman's contribution any less.

Those who know, play and have struggled inside in the game of football would know the real contribution those positions make.

For what Allen has done in his career is nothing but remarkable and the fact that the TV camera doesn't follow him or any other Hall of Fame lineman is a tragedy because there a significant part of the game the fans are missing.

Playmakers who put points on the board are always going to get the glory over the guys in the trenches. Alot of great plays that are made to win SB's are after a QB's protection has already broken down. Any fan knows the offensive line is a significant part of the game but championships are won with great skill position players that's why they're named MVP's. Lynn Swann was the hero of SB X. I don't care how well an OL blocks if you don't have the players at the skill positions you're not going to win many games and you certainly aren't going to win any championships. You have your opinion and I have mine. I would take a great playmaking WR over a great offensive lineman any day. Playmaking WR's are game changers LT's aren't.
 

MapleLeaf

Maple Leaf
Messages
5,209
Reaction score
1,598
KJJ;3325716 said:
You have your opinion and I have mine. I would take a great playmaking WR over a great offensive lineman any day. Playmaking WR's are game changers LT's aren't.

...I don't know too many GMs who would take Irvin over Allen with the #1 draft.

You can talk SB and play making all you want, but flogging that dead horse is ignoring the contributions of the other (52). it sounds so Madden it ins't even funny anymore.

Making a play is not only making a catch. It a poor cliche and I wished the media would stop using it only for plays on the ball.

This is a QB driven league. The principle part of a QBs game is not guys who are receiving the ball, but rather the protection that allows him to find which part of the field that has been left uncovered by the defence.

Guys like Irvin will and have been covered and held off the stat sheet. You don't hold Larry Allen back from doing his job.

Of the past (4) SuperBowl winners who do you know of those teams is on the pace to become a Hall candidate in the mould of Irvin? I would say NONE!

You are much too Madden for me and the point you are trying to flog departs from the overall draft value of Allen versus Irvin as you completely disregard the road taken by Allen to reach the heights he has.
 

Derinyar

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,231
Reaction score
959
KJJ;3325716 said:
Playmakers who put points on the board are always going to get the glory over the guys in the trenches. Alot of great plays that are made to win SB's are after a QB's protection has already broken down. Any fan knows the offensive line is a significant part of the game but championships are won with great skill position players that's why they're named MVP's. Lynn Swann was the hero of SB X. I don't care how well an OL blocks if you don't have the players at the skill positions you're not going to win many games and you certainly aren't going to win any championships. You have your opinion and I have mine. I would take a great playmaking WR over a great offensive lineman any day. Playmaking WR's are game changers LT's aren't.
Skill position players win MVPs because their impacts are easier to see and quantify then OL or interior DL players. Its easier to see the great catch in the end zone then to realize what the LT or RG did for the 5-10 seconds leading up to the throw that lead to that great catch.
 

vlad

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,507
Reaction score
2,436
I would say Irvin, for sure. He was the heart and soul of a dynasty. He fueled that team. Not saying Guard isn't a very important position, its not even about position. Its about impact.

You take Irvin off those teams, do we win even one Superbowl? Remember how loaded the league was then. Larry Allen, dominant and arguably the best ever, but his impact was not nearly as far reaching...
 

RS12

Well-Known Member
Messages
32,527
Reaction score
29,874
KJJ;3325686 said:
Take Allen ahead of Irvin and you'll have the same struggling team the Cowboys had from 97 on. In Allen's 12 seasons with the Cowboys the team finished over 500 only 6 times. Allen was part of a 9 year winless playoff drought in Dallas. It's alot easier finding a LT who can get the job done than a playmaking WR who provides leadership and puts points on the board. You don't see teams giving up two #1's for a LT. No GM in their right mind who has the choice between a HOF WR and a HOF LT is going to choose the LT. Any offensive linemen that were taken #1 overall were taken at that spot because there was no great talent at the skill positions those years. You can take Larry Allen and struggle finding those special skill positions that win playoff games and SB's. I'll take Irvin and his 12,000 yards and 65 TD's and plug in a decent LT and my team will be alot farther along than yours. :toast:

That has more to do with Switzer, Gailey, Campo, and an aging roster than Allen. The SB and record arguement is a non starter. BTW Irvin was on some of those teams.
 

KJJ

You Have an Axe to Grind
Messages
62,199
Reaction score
39,438
davidyee;3325760 said:
You are much too Madden for me and the point you are trying to flog departs from the overall draft value of Allen versus Irvin as you completely disregard the road taken by Allen to reach the heights he has.

I'm too Madden for you? You're the one talking up Larry Allen over Irvin. LOL The only player Madden had a bigger man crush on over Allen was Favre.


davidyee;3325760 said:
...I don't know too many GMs who would take Irvin over Allen with the #1 draft.

How would you know? There can't possibly be a GM out there who's ever discussed this particular topic. LOL This discussion is so nuts it's hilarious. :laugh2: If there were GM's faced with having to take either one #1 overall more would take a playmaker over a LT. You might want to go to youtube and watch all the many plays he made during his career.


davidyee;3325760 said:
You can talk SB and play making all you want, but flogging that dead horse is ignoring the contributions of the other (52). it sounds so Madden it ins't even funny anymore.

I'm not ignoring the contributions of the other 52 players I mentioned Aikman, Emmitt and Haley but the discussion was which pick was better Irvin or Allen. No player on our 90's teams made more of an impact than Emmitt Smith. He meant as much to the success of our 90's teams as Roger Staubach meant to our 70's teams. Our entire offense revolved around Emmitt and our running game. The Cowboys had great "teams" in the 90's but the success of all great teams are centered around several skill position players. It's those players who get you over the top. It's not easy finding the Montana's, Rice's, Irvin's, Akiman's and Emmitt Smith's. It those "special" players that dynasties are built around.

davidyee;3325760 said:
This is a QB driven league. The principle part of a QBs game is not guys who are receiving the ball, but rather the protection that allows him to find which part of the field that has been left uncovered by the defence.

The principle part of a QB having success is having good receivers to throw to. Sure they need protection but behind every "great" QB there's been a great WR or TE. Elway is about the only great QB who didn't have a "great" WR but he had a great TE in Shannon Sharp. The HOF is loaded with great QB/WR combo's. Terry Bradshaw was just another QB until Swann and Stallworth came along.

davidyee;3325760 said:
Of the past (4) SuperBowl winners who do you know of those teams is on the pace to become a Hall candidate in the mould of Irvin? I would say NONE!

That goes to show how special Irvin was that's why you don't take a LT over him no matter how dominant. Two of the last three SB's were decided by plays by WR's in the final seconds. The players who've impacted the game most are skill position players. You just don't pass up a great skill position player for a guy who blocks. Like I keep saying it's alot easier finding some fat guy who can hold his position and block than it is finding a great WR, QB or RB who can put points on the board. Teams have given up an arm and a leg for players like that. The two biggest trades in NFL history involved RB's. Teams don't give up multiple picks for LT's.

davidyee;3325760 said:
Guys like Irvin will and have been covered and held off the stat sheet. You don't hold Larry Allen back from doing his job.

Alot of the times Irvin was covered and left off the stat sheet the Cowboys lost unless Emmitt had a big day. Stopping the triplets usually meant a loss for the Cowboys. Allen did his job as well as anyone ever did but that didn't prevent the Cowboys from having 5 losing seasons in his 12 yr career in Dallas.
 

KJJ

You Have an Axe to Grind
Messages
62,199
Reaction score
39,438
RS12;3325832 said:
That has more to do with Switzer, Gailey, Campo, and an aging roster than Allen. The SB and record arguement is a non starter. BTW Irvin was on some of those teams.

I'm not blaming Allen for our lack of success during that period I'm just pointing out that he didn't impact the game like a Michael Irvin. Irvin was on some of those teams but he was an aging player by that point who was going through some difficult off the field issues. The team was losing players through free agency and our drafts started going sour. The triplets were getting up in age and the Cowboys couldn't replenish the talent they were losing.
 

perrykemp

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,503
Reaction score
9,274
Chief;3324289 said:
Allen was a second-rounder.

Irvin was a top 15 pick.

If the question is "who is the better draft pick," then it has to be Allen.

Arguably the best guard ever .... in the second round.

Irvin wasn't even he best WR drafted in his draft class -- Sterling Sharpe was. At the 7 year mark Sharpe was surpassing Irvin in most of the WR categories ---- then he found out he had a narrow spinal column and had to retire.
 

Jon88

Benched
Messages
7,665
Reaction score
0
Larry Allen dominated anyone in front of him. He's by far the best pick considering any round. Larry was a monster. He's one of my favorite Cowboys. This guy ate people's lunch. He was awesome.

John Madden loved him. He said he would be the 1st pick in the 94 draft had people known. John Madden said it.

I agree.
 

KJJ

You Have an Axe to Grind
Messages
62,199
Reaction score
39,438
perrykemp;3327405 said:
Irvin wasn't even he best WR drafted in his draft class -- Sterling Sharpe was. At the 7 year mark Sharpe was surpassing Irvin in most of the WR categories ---- then he found out he had a narrow spinal column and had to retire.

Irvin ended up being the best WR in his draft class. Irvin's first 3 seasons were a wash because the Cowboys were a terrible team and he suffered an ACL injury. Sharpes career best yardage season was 1461 yards. Irvin's career best was 1603 and he had a 1523 yard season. Sharpes best 5 year total was 6224 yards. Irvin's best 5 year total was 7093 yards and it wasn't like Aikman was airing it out every week. The Cowboys offense revolved around Emmitt and our running game. Irvin had a career average of 15.9 per catch and Sharpe averaged 13.7. Sharpe was an excellent receiver and had he stayed healthy he probably would have put up some staggering numbers with Favre but we can only speculate. The only clear edge Sharpe had over Irvin was speed and scoring TD's. If you toss out Irvin's first 3 seasons and his last season where his career ended after the 4th game he was more productive than Sharpe except for TD's. Irvin had 5 straight 1000 yard seasons with 1241 being his lowest total during that period and because the Cowboys had Emmitt they weren't throwing the ball like the Packers did. Even before Favre arrived Don Majkowski and the other QB's Green Bay used were putting it up and Sharpe was all they had at receiver.
 

pgreptom

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,798
Reaction score
551
I think a lot of you are missing the point. It's about the best DRAFT PICK. You have the greatest Guard ever, who completely dominated his opponents and made them quit - who was drafted in the 2nd round, over a WR who was Top - 10 ever who was selected in the upper 1st round.

It's about who was the better draft pick...
 

Chuck 54

Well-Known Member
Messages
20,515
Reaction score
12,532
No contest...Larry Allen

One is a pro football hall of fame WR who wasn't the best at his position during his own era, but great, and he was a mid-first round draft pick from the "U," expected to make an impact.

The other is a first-ballot hall of famer and in the argument as one of the best at his position ever...totally dominant at more than one position, and he was a second round pick from a small college.
 

CrazyCowboy

Well-Known Member
Messages
32,287
Reaction score
440
Larry Allen was the better value pick considering all aspects of drafting.
 

Four

New Member
Messages
2,601
Reaction score
1
wayne motley;3327469 said:
No contest...Larry Allen

One is a pro football hall of fame WR who wasn't the best at his position during his own era, but great, and he was a mid-first round draft pick from the "U," expected to make an impact.


can I just ask what made Jerry better than Mike?

Everyone just accepts it as truth, Mike was a better player and a better teammate, and in my head it's not even close.

Jerry has 20 years and I understand it, and I know he was an amazing receiver, but I watched him a ton like I did Mike and Mike was a better player.

Jerry was faster, but that's about the only thing he had on Mike.

I never understood why, even in that era, it was always Jerry Rice and then everyone else.

Reed in buffalo was an amazing receiver in that era, but no one even mentions him.

Jerry Rice may be the GOAT but he is over rated and has been for years and years.
 

Chuck 54

Well-Known Member
Messages
20,515
Reaction score
12,532
Four;3327488 said:
can I just ask what made Jerry better than Mike?

Okay...so you like Mike better as a teammate, etc. The reason Jerry Rice is considered the best wr all-time by almost everyone, and Mike isn't is because:

1. NFL stats...his production eclipsed Mike's in every category.

2. SB rings.

3. Off-the-field issues

You can't make the argument that Mike was better than Jerry and have anything tangible to base your argument on...the things we love about Irvin aren't about production on the field...in those areas, it's not even close.
 

KJJ

You Have an Axe to Grind
Messages
62,199
Reaction score
39,438
wayne motley;3327469 said:
No contest...Larry Allen

One is a pro football hall of fame WR who wasn't the best at his position during his own era, but great, and he was a mid-first round draft pick from the "U," expected to make an impact.

The other is a first-ballot hall of famer and in the argument as one of the best at his position ever...totally dominant at more than one position, and he was a second round pick from a small college.

It's alot harder becoming a hall of famer as a WR than it is on the OL because WR's are judged by stats. They have to put up certain numbers to get consideration unless we're talking about Lynn Swann who got into the HOF off his SB performances. Allen may have been the best player at his position and selected 35 picks after Irvin but he wasn't a game changer. You could go 10-plus years and never find a WR who could impact a game the way Irvin could. It's not that difficult finding a LT who may not be nearly as dominate as Larry Allen but who's solid and can do the job. A couple of years ago the Steelers had arguably the worst offensive line to ever reach a SB but they won the championship because they had playmakers at the skill positions. Warner carved up their D in the SB but it was a WR who got it done in the end. Go review all the SB's and see how many teams won championships because of WR's making plays in crunch time. I'm not trying to slight what Larry Allen brought to the team but we're comparing him to a playmaking WR who has 3 SB rings and helped his college team win a National Championship. How many GM's do you honestly think would select a LT no matter how great they are over a Jerry Rice or a Troy Aikman if they knew what they were getting? With the logic some of you are using I guess you must think because Aikman was a #1 overall pick that makes Larry Allen an even better pick than him because he was drafted 45 picks later. :rolleyes: LOL You can find solid offensive lineman and win games and championships if you have playmakers at the skill positions.

As great as Allen was he would have ranked behind Aikman, Emmitt, Irvin, Charles Haley and maybe even Novacek as the one player the Cowboys could least do without. Like I've been saying you could plug in a decent lineman to fill his spot and get by but you couldn't do that as easily if the Cowboys lost one of the other 5 players. My definition of a "better draft pick" is the player who had the greatest impact on your team regardless of their draft position. The Cowboys drafted Irvin because the team was going down in the late 80's and they knew a playmaker who moves the chains and puts points on the board was going to help them win games that's why they drafted Mike Sherrard with their first pick in 86. Bad teams get better real quick when they have a good QB, WR and RB because they make plays and score points. Let's say Tony Mandarich lived up to the hype he had coming out of Michigan do you think he would have helped the Packers more than Barry Sanders? Would Larry Allen have made the 80's 49ers more dominant than Jerry Rice?
 
Top