Dr. Z Mailbag

[InmanRoshi]

Yes, but we made the playoffs that year so that distraction didn't influence the season at all.

I beg to differ.

Signed,

Everett McIver

 

[AbeBeta]

I beg to differ.

Signed,

Everett McIver

You know, when people complain about Kyle Kosier, I think they should think about how McIver was our big FA signing in 1998. That should shut their cry-hole for a while.

 

[SultanOfSix]

So saying that Irvin didn't hurt the team at all because we still made the playoffs is the real straw man here.

Wow. Even after I consistently point out your strawmen, in the statement above, you once again state a strawman.

If you can't distinguish between a "legitimate shot at the SB" and "hurt the team at all", no wonder you're having problems knowing what other people are talking about.

 

[SultanOfSix]

The man admittedly stabbed another man in the neck with scissors while intoxicated while on probation, and somehow got away with it.

Umm...when was this verified anywhere?

If he somehow got away with it, how do you know he did it if he got away with it?

He may have, but unless you give substantial evidence to your claim, all you're doing is slandering someone.

 

[AbeBeta]

Wow. Even after I consistently point out your strawmen, in the statement above, you once again state a strawman.

If you can't distinguish between a "legitimate shot at the SB" and "hurt the team at all", no wonder you're having problems knowing what other people are talking about.

If you can't distinguish between having less of shot at a SB because you a) don't get a bye and b) have to play your 2nd playoff game on the road then it is clearly you who doesn't understand.

The best you've done here is say "we made it to the playoffs" -- that's it. Everything else is claiming my arguments hold no weight without providing legitimate arguments of your own. I've shown how teams who have to play wildcard week are far less likely to make it to the SB and how our passing game suffered during Irvin's 5 game absence -- a direct contribution to 3 losses that had us playing rather than resting wild card week. All you do is cry strawman without anything to back it up.

You and your strawman and need to go and see the wizard right now.

 

[SultanOfSix]

If you can't distinguish between having less of shot at a SB because you a) don't get a bye and b) have to play your 2nd playoff game on the road then it is clearly you who doesn't understand.

The best you've done here is say "we made it to the playoffs" -- that's it. Everything else is claiming my arguments hold no weight without providing legitimate arguments of your own. I've shown how teams who have to play wildcard week are far less likely to make it to the SB and how our passing game suffered during Irvin's 5 game absence -- a direct contribution to 3 losses that had us playing rather than resting wild card week. All you do is cry strawman without anything to back it up.

You and your strawman and need to go and see the wizard right now.

Are you really this clueless? Why is this even relevant?

THIS POINT ENTERED THIS DISCUSSION ONLY BECAUSE YOU WANTED TO DISTRACT THE ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO IRVIN'S "BORDERLINE" HOF ELIGIBILITY.

IT'S A STRAWMAN BY DEFINITION.

IF YOU'RE ARGUMENT IS IRVIN COST US A "LEGITIMATE" CHANCE AT A SB, THEN YOU FIRST HAVE TO SHOW WHAT A "LEGITIMATE" CHANCE AT A SB IS, WHICH YOU NEVER DID.

I MADE THE ASSUMPTION THAT A LEGITIMATE CHANCE AT A SB WAS NOT COSTING THE TEAM A CHANCE AT THE PLAYOFFS, WHICH HE DIDN'T DO BECAUSE THE TEAM MADE THE PLAYOFFS.

THE PATS WERE A WILDCARD TEAM IN 2001 AND WON THE SB. THE CHANCES DECREASE IF THE TEAM IS A WILDCARD TEAM, BUT THE FACT THAT THE TEAM IS A WILDCARD DOESN'T COST THE TEAM A "LEGITIMATE SHOT" BY DEFINITION BECAUSE EVERY TEAM HAS A "LEGITIMATE" SHOT ONCE IT IS IN THE PLAYOFFS.

YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT FOR IRVIN'S "HOF" BORDERLINE ELIGIBILITY IS BASED ON THIS IDEA THAT HE POSSIBLY COST US ONE SB, WHILE MY COUNTERPOINT WAS THAT HE WAS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THREE (GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD - THREE) SB VICTORIES.

GET A CLUE.

 

[AbeBeta]

Are you really this clueless? Why is this even relevant?

THIS POINT ENTERED THIS DISCUSSION ONLY BECAUSE YOU WANTED TO DISTRACT THE ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO IRVIN'S "BORDERLINE" HOF ELIGIBILITY.

IT'S A STRAWMAN BY DEFINITION.

IF YOU'RE ARGUMENT IS IRVIN COST US A "LEGITIMATE" CHANCE AT A SB, THEN YOU FIRST HAVE TO SHOW WHAT A "LEGITIMATE" CHANCE AT A SB IS, WHICH YOU NEVER DID.

I MADE THE ASSUMPTION THAT A LEGITIMATE CHANCE AT A SB WAS NOT COSTING THE TEAM A CHANCE AT THE PLAYOFFS, WHICH HE DIDN'T DO BECAUSE THE TEAM MADE THE PLAYOFFS.

THE PATS WERE A WILDCARD TEAM IN 2001 AND WON THE SB. THE CHANCES DECREASE IF THE TEAM IS A WILDCARD TEAM, BUT THE FACT THAT THE TEAM IS A WILDCARD DOESN'T COST THE TEAM A "LEGITIMATE SHOT" BY DEFINITION BECAUSE EVERY TEAM HAS A "LEGITIMATE" SHOT ONCE IT IS IN THE PLAYOFFS.

YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT FOR IRVIN'S "HOF" BORDERLINE ELIGIBILITY IS BASED ON THIS IDEA THAT HE POSSIBLY COST US ONE SB, WHILE MY COUNTERPOINT WAS THAT HE WAS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THREE (GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD - THREE) SB VICTORIES.

GET A CLUE.

And again, I mentioned several times why VOTERS see him as a borderline inductee. Go back and read the actual posts. You also confuse my explanation of why VOTERS would see him as borderline for some sort of Irvin hatred.

You always seem to get totally bent out of shape when arguments progress and move on to other topics. You act as though that is not a normal part of any discussion. Have you ever had an actual discussion? That's how they go -- they move from point to point.

You seriously need to chill the frick out and engage in a discussion about a topic rather than shouting the same tired stuff over and over. Your basic argumentation strategy seems to be to completely dismiss the points of others out of hand without given them any consideration. That's not argumentation, that's pigheaded stubbornness.

 

[SultanOfSix]

And again, I mentioned several times why VOTERS see him as a borderline inductee. Go back and read the actual posts. You also confuse my explanation of why VOTERS would see him as borderline for some sort of Irvin hatred.

And they were besides exactly what except "he's borderline because he cost his team a legit shot at a SB victory" in your responses to me?

I don't care whether Irvin hatred entered into the argument or not. That's irrelevant because it's not part of it. That's what you don't get about strawmans.

You always seem to get totally bent out of shape when arguments progress and move on to other topics.

Umm...that's not an argument. That's called going from one argument to the next. Arguments don't progress. They are settled.

You act as though that is not a normal part of any discussion. Have you ever had an actual discussion? That's how they go -- they move from point to point.

So your discussion/argument (whatever it is now) went from the same point and ended on the same point. Excellent job.

You seriously need to chill the frick out and engage in a discussion about a topic rather than shouting the same tired stuff over and over. Your basic argumentation strategy seems to be to completely dismiss the points of others out of hand without given them any consideration. That's not argumentation, that's pigheaded stubbornness.

No, it's called sticking with the premise of an argument and showing how yours failed miserably with not only stats (which others partook in and not me) but this weak argument Irvin's suspension costing his team a legitimate shot at the SB as evidence for him being a "borderline" HOF case. It's not diverting the issue about six different times within the context of it.

 

[AbeBeta]

I did read your posts, and I wasn't talking about anything other than Irvin's "HOF" eligibility. It was you who interjected this notion of Irvin being partly responsible for the team's demise into the discussion, which I wasn't talking about at all. You tried to use this idea to divert the attention from the real issue, as if the possibility of costing his team a SB has anything to do with his "borderline" HOF eligibility.

My first post in the thread - seriously. You have to read the entire thread before you freak out.

I've detailed this before -- Irvin was a borderline case because although he had great years, his career ended a bit early -- that makes him compare poorly on a statistical basis to the average WR in the hall. His receptions put him just a bit ahead of Andre Rison and Eric Moulds -- and those dudes aren't getting in the Hall. Even two more mediocre years and he's top 10 rather than top 20 in receptions and yards - and that's very important to many voters. Especially those who don't write for the Cowboys so they didn't follow the team as closely as the folks on the board.

Yes, he was part of 3 SB winners and the intangibles were outstanding. But those things do get offset in the minds of some of the voters by off the field stuf which is why his ended up a borderline case.

 

[InmanRoshi]

Umm...when was this verified anywhere?

If he somehow got away with it, how do you know he did it if he got away with it?

He may have, but unless you give substantial evidence to your claim, all you're doing is slandering someone.

Because Michael Irvin himself verified it all on KTCK, when he was making his 'mea culpea' tour trying to get into broadcasting.

According to Michael, the players were given the afternoon off, so he and Erik Williams went out to lunch and had a few beers too many. They came back to the Midwestern State University Dorms drunk, and the players were giving each other haircuts. Everett was next in line, and Michael cut to the front of the line. Erik Williams gave McIver the "You gonna take that from a WR?" treatment, and McIver .. being the new guy and not wanting to be punked in front of the veteran leader of the offensive line ... stood up for himself. The fight ensued, and after rolling around on the floor .. either intentionally or by accident .... a pair of scissors grasped in Michael's hand just so happened to end up in McIver's neck.

Thankfully for Michael, the man who signs McIver's checks came into the situation and convinced him that it would be in the teams best interests that McIver not make an issue out of it. There have also been rampant rumors that a little hush money was divvied out. Being that Michael was on probation, if a criminal investigation would have taken place Michael is probably still in a jail cell to this day.

See, I think Michael's supporters are having it both ways on this deal. Michael isn't like Lawrence Taylor. Michael isn't a no-brainer HOF'er just on face value. Michael doesn't have sure fire Hall of Fame stats for his position. The argument for Michael being in the Hall of Fame is "Forget the stats. What about the leadership? What about his fire that he brought to the team? What about the work ethic he brought to those around every day" Okay, I'm not denying he had those ... but those are intangibles and are completely unquantifiable and subjective. If we're going to bring in the positive intangibles and their impact on the team, then all intangibles should be brought to the table ... including the bad ones. The "Michael Irvin is a first rate scumbag" intangibles had their own impact on the team when Irvin couldn't play the first 6 games of the 1996 season because he was busted with coke, not to mention we lost in the playoffs that year to, I believe, a vastly inferior Panthers team because the entire week was spent on Michael's rape accusations.

 

[SultanOfSix]

My first post in the thread - seriously. You have to read the entire thread before you freak out.

I already know why you said he was borderline.

So, why did you keep saying the same thing over and over (about costing his team a legitimate chance at a SB in one year as a case against his "HOF" eligibility) in your responses to me then, huh?

 

[SultanOfSix]

Inman, you're argument for Irvin's "HOF" eligibility is essentially based on this notion that Irvin's transgressions cost his team more than his presence gained. It's just a more general way of stating the same thing that Irvin's 5 game (an extra added on because he was a Cowboy by Tagliabue) suspension cost the team a "possible" SB. It's comparing possibilities against actualities.

Irvin hasn't been a saint, but many other players haven't either. The fact that he was a Cowboy only magnified his transgressions. His stats are certainly "good enough" to put him into the HOF in the sense that they aren't something that can be argued to keep him out. But, as has been the case that many former players have been inducted into the HOF not based solely on stats, you have to look at what you classify as the "intangibles". But even when you do, I don't think anyone really believes except for people who let their negative personal feelings get in the way of their objectivity, that being a prominent component of a team that garnered 3 SB victories is an intangible. It's because of the player that he was.

And even if we consider your notion that bad intagibles should be brought to the table, the positives far outweigh the negatives, even in the example already given.

 

[AbeBeta]

I already know why you said he was borderline.

So, why did you keep saying the same thing over and over (about costing his team a legitimate chance at a SB in one year as a case against his "HOF" eligibility) in your responses to me then, huh?

Because you argued this

I'm using the example of someone who meant more to his team than just stats.

To that I replied that if you want to go beyond stat you have to consider positive AND negative influences.

You do know that you can go back and read what we wrote earlier in the thread right?

 

[percyhoward]

Unless you can show me how players have worse training and medical care now than they did in the 70s then your arguments aren't blowing up crap.

You're confused.

For Irvin to not be as deserving as Swann, Stallworth, or for that matter, Charlie Joiner (who also only went to 3 Pro Bowls), you have to show how each of those players missed an opportunity at 2 more Pro Bowls for health reasons.

Specifically.

Not with some general comment about medical care, but with concrete examples of each player, the two seasons each one of them missed that would likely have been Pro Bowl seasons, and what their injuries were. You might also want to check and see if any of them MADE a Pro Bowl because of some injury to another receiver who would have otherwise gone.

The burden of proof falls on the guy who's trying to say that 3 rings and 5 Pro Bowls does not make a Hall of Fame receiver. After all, you can count the number of such players on one finger.

 

[SultanOfSix]

Because you argued this

To that I replied that if you want to go beyond stat you have to consider positive AND negative influences.

You do know that you can go back and read what we wrote earlier in the thread right?

And yet, I still showed that the positive influences far outweighed the negative ones.

 

[InmanRoshi]

Inman, you're argument for Irvin's "HOF" eligibility is essentially based on this notion that Irvin's transgressions cost his team more than his presence gained. It's just a more general way of stating the same thing that Irvin's 5 game (an extra added on because he was a Cowboy by Tagliabue) suspension cost the team a "possible" SB. It's comparing possibilities against actualities.

I think he should be a Hall of Famer when all the pros and cons are weighed, but its unfair to say we shouldn't even take into account the negative intangibles when we're including all of his positive intangibles.

By the way, Irvin was on Norm earlier this week, and he said he feels like his personal actions did hurt the team. He said that he and Troy talk about it all the time ... they should have won five Superbowls, and he feels responsible for the fact that they didn't. I'm assuming he's specifically talking about the 1996 season.

 

[AbeBeta]

You're confused.

For Irvin to not be as deserving as Swann, Stallworth, or for that matter, Charlie Joiner (who also only went to 3 Pro Bowls), you have to show how each of those players missed an opportunity at 2 more Pro Bowls for health reasons.

Specifically.

Not with some general comment about medical care, but with concrete examples of each player, the two seasons each one of them missed that would likely have been Pro Bowl seasons, and what their injuries were. You might also want to check and see if any of them MADE a Pro Bowl because of some injury to another receiver who would have otherwise gone.

The burden of proof falls on the guy who's trying to say that 3 rings and 5 Pro Bowls does not make a Hall of Fame receiver. After all, you can count the number of such players on one finger.

Specifically -- John Stallworth missed nearly 50 games with injuries - many of these were persistent knee and hamstring problems - these are exactly the kind of injuries where advancements in treatment (e.g., arthroscopic surgery) help today's players to get back on the field.

Specifically -- Lynn Swann missed much of his final season with injuries - being injured his final season gave him the opportunity to engage in extensive discussions with ABC about becoming a broadcaster -- seeing that Swann was wavering over playing the next year, ABC came with a long-term broadcasting contract.

Now you prove something. Seriously. All you do is shout "prove it" over and over again without providing a shred of your own analysis. Saying "nuh-uh" again and again is not an argument.

 

[AbeBeta]

And yet, I still showed that the positive influences far outweighed the negative ones.

How did you show that. You haven't shown anything. All you've said is "but we made the playoffs" at which point you totally discounted the negative effect of the 1996 season.

Let me ask this -- and don't get your panties in a wad b/c I am bringing up another issue as it is relevant to the +/- influence issue. Do you not think that the negative press stemming from Irvin's various incidents didn't have a bad impact on the team? You do remember that for while the Cowboys were the punchline just about every night on Leno right? Do you really believe that sort of environment is conducive to playing winning football? Do you really think that has NO impact on signing free agents?

Now I'm not saying that the good didn't outweigh the bad -- but you can't just say "major part of three SB teams" and leave it at that -- there is so much more in the intangible area you have to consider and you seem to refuse to acknowledge most of the negatives.

 

[percyhoward]

Specifically -- John Stallworth missed nearly 50 games with injuries - many of these were persistent knee and hamstring problems - these are exactly the kind of injuries where advancements in treatment (e.g., arthroscopic surgery) help today's players to get back on the field.

Specifically -- Lynn Swann missed much of his final season with injuries - being injured his final season gave him the opportunity to engage in extensive discussions with ABC about becoming a broadcaster -- seeing that Swann was wavering over playing the next year, ABC came with a long-term broadcasting contract.

That's good information, but you're not tying it to your original reasoning--that the missed games were unique to that era, and that they cost these players Pro Bowl appearances.

Irvin missed 33 games himself, in a career that was 2 years shorter than Stallworth's. You'd really have to be giving Stallworth all of the benefit of the doubt to say that those 18 extra missed games caused him to miss two Pro Bowls, especially since he did not make the Pro Bowl in 11 of the 14 seasons he played.

You know about Swann's final season and how it relates to his broadcasting career, but Swann did not make the Pro Bowl in any of his last three seasons, so he very likely would not have made it that final year either. Even if he had, that only adds up to 4 Pro Bowls--still less than Irvin.

And if you look at Swann's whole career (instead of just one season), Swann missed 12 fewer games over his career than Irvin did.

Then there's Joiner, who like the others, went to fewer Pro Bowls than Irvin, but who lasted 18 years in the league. 12 seasons of which he played every game!

If Swann, Stallworth, and Joiner are Hall of Fame receivers, shouldn't Irvin (with more rings, more Pro Bowls, and in 2 out of the 3 cases a healthier career) be one too?

 

[SultanOfSix]

How did you show that. You haven't shown anything. All you've said is "but we made the playoffs" at which point you totally discounted the negative effect of the 1996 season.

I showed that his positives outweighed his negatives.

Let me ask this -- and don't get your panties in a wad b/c I am bringing up another issue as it is relevant to the +/- influence issue. Do you not think that the negative press stemming from Irvin's various incidents didn't have a bad impact on the team? You do remember that for while the Cowboys were the punchline just about every night on Leno right? Do you really believe that sort of environment is conducive to playing winning football? Do you really think that has NO impact on signing free agents?

Now I'm not saying that the good didn't outweigh the bad -- but you can't just say "major part of three SB teams" and leave it at that -- there is so much more in the intangible area you have to consider and you seem to refuse to acknowledge most of the negatives.

I never argued that his misbehavior didn't have a negative effect on the team. Geez, you still don't know what a strawman is.