RealCowboyfan;1314630 said:
I think that isn't a good rule at all. So you saying you going to count the players that probably already got things together and going in the right direction can't go to the pro bowl. You taking Hall Of Fame credibility away from players. That's unfair. We do have a receiver that's trying to make it in the hall of fame, not saying this have anything to do with it but Cowboys had players like that.
I just believe who every performs the best gets in regardless of drug test suspension or not. Don't take potential credibility away from the players.
No, the player is taking things away from himself. They are the ones who chose to take something that is against NFL policy. Not only that, they are the ones that chose to get caught doing it. Plus it is only for that season. It doesn't mean that the player can't get things together and going in the right direction in other seasons.
I don't like an all encompassing rule that says all drug use. I much rather let it stick to just performance enhancement drugs, but that is just me.
Irvin is very deserving of getting to the HOF. I don't think his off field problems should be held against him that much because other than missing 5 games in 1996, he didn't miss any other time due to his indiscretions. Missing those 5 games hurt Dallas a lot that 1996 season. They went 2-3 without Irvin. His presence could have been the difference in those 3 losses and instead of 10-6, the team could have been 13-3 and the second seed for the playoffs.
That does take away from Irvin's HOF consideration because he hurt his team, but in the end he did so much to help his team and Dallas has 3 SB trophies to show for it. His contributions far out way his negatives and that is the way he should be judged.
That goes for any player who screws up. I wonder if Cris Carter will be scrutinized as much as Irvin when he is eligible for HOF consideration. He is deserving of the honor, but he had his off field issues as well.
