My question would be what wide receiver, not named Jerry Rice, didn't Irvin compare to? The 1990's All Decade Team consisted of four wide receivers. The first team consisted of Jerry Rice and Chris Carter and the second team of Tim Brown and you guessed it, one Michael Irvin, “The Playmaker”.
Irvin in the 90's amassed 10,872 yards, in 139 games he averaged about 78 yards a game, with 58 touchdowns, five pro bowls, and seven 1000 yard seasons
Tim Brown in the 90's amassed 10211 yards, in 159 games he averaged about 64 yards per game, with 70 touchdowns, seven pro bowls, and seven 1000 yard seasons
Chris Carter in the 90's amassed 10,238 yards, in 156 games he averaged 65 yards a game, with 95 touchdowns, seven pro bowls, and seven 1000 yard seasons
Jerry Rice in the 90's amassed 12,078 yards, in 146 games he averaged 82 yards a game, with 103 touchdowns, eight pro bowls, and eight 1000 yard seasons.
Andre Reed in the 90's amassed 8687 yards, in 147 games averaging 60 yards a game, with 55 touchdowns five pro bowls, four 1000 yard seasons.
Now Irvin wasn’t the scoring machine that Rice, Carter and Brown were, and as we all know that was Emmitt’s job. So all of them but Reed have more touchdowns. I am sure most of us could agree that Jerry Rice was the best of the bunch, and most if not all of us would even say he was the best wide receiver ever. Looking at the numbers, how exactly doesn't Irvin compare stat wise with the likes of Reed, Brown and Carter? To me, Reed is a non factor compared to the other three. For pities sake he only ever had four 1000 yard seasons. So for all intents and purposes his part in this discussion is over.
In almost 20 fewer games then Carter and 20 fewer games than Brown, Mike has them beat in almost every stat. He had more yards, averaged more per catch, averaged more per game, and he is the only one of them (not Named Jerry Rice) to record over 1600 yards receiving . . . In fact, now that I think about it, I am pretty shocked Irvin wasn’t a first team wide receiver with Rice on the 1990's All Decade Team.
The pundits will say that Brown, Carter, and Rice are all first ballot guys. You know I can’t argue that, I agree they are, but why isn’t Mike. All three played much longer than Mike, so maybe the whole longevity question comes to play, but Irvin played for 12 years. A very long career by most standards. Irvin also averaged 902 yards per year in his career. Brown and Carter 878 and 869 respectively. Given that, and that Mike played between four to six full season less than Carter (4) and Brown (6), it could be speculated that Irvin would have surpassed both in yardage had he not been forced to retire due to the injury in the Philly game. I don’t get the reluctance against adding Irvin to the Hall of Fame. Someone please explain this to me.
Now on to Monk, aside from Monk leading the League in most Receptions for a period of four years before being passed by Rice in 1995, the fact is that Art Monk just doesn’t measure up to Michael Irvin. Monk had five 1000 yard seasons was a pro bowler only three times, played in 224 career games and only amassed 817 more yards than Irvin. That amounts to four more full 16 game seasons. In those four additional seasons he only had three more touchdowns than Irvin and only averaged 13.5 yards a catch. They were both all decade players Monk for the 80's and Irvin for the 90's but Irvin clearly was the more dominant player in every aspect . . .
