Irvin Deserves The Hall

[2233boys]

Unfortunately, nothing above has anything to do with the HOF voting other than the part in Bold, a negative.

I hope he gets in, but it won't surprise me at all if he doesn't....he has the stats to compare with some other HOF WRs, but he wasn't the best WR of his own time, which explains his lack of All-Pro selections. Also, WR stats have to be looked at carefully as the NFL becomes more and more a passing league...WR's of today will indeed put up bigger numbers than some old timers like Bob Hayes could ever have dreamed of simply because it's the style of play.

I think it's unfair to compare all future WR's to Jerry Rice, but don't be surprised if Irvin doesn't make it, and it will have nothing to do with Cowboys bias.

That said, Good Luck, Mr. Irvin.

The only rec better than Irvin in the 90's was Rice. Case closed, I showed you the results. If you want to keep thinking that the 3 to 4 more full 16 game seasons that Carter and Brown had to pad their stats made them better then be my guest.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

This is really where the anti-bias comes in imho. You give a guy a black mark or two AND he is a Cowboy, these voters just make idiotic excuses.

And the fact that HOF voters even bring up stats is ridiculous. Shouldn't you, if you are that much of a NFL expert, realize his impact? He was dominant. Pur and simple. And he posted those numbers in a run oriented offense!

What separates Irvin from Monk, Carter, and Brown is that he was FEARED (in terms of playing against and game planning for) and was critical in taking him team to 3 Superbowls in an era of very good teams. Think about how good the Bills, 49ers, Packers, Eagles and others were in that era.

Hey all I know is my sweet Mom who knows nothing about football always loved Irvin the best because you don't need to understand football to see the impact he had.

I have never throw the "bias" card out there because I'm too young to remember the old school players, so I cannot honestly comment on them versus their peers. But Irvin stoodl head and shoulders above his peers with the exception of Jerry Rice. The next closest WR I would have put down was Sterling Sharpe early in his career, but even then, he wasn't a cog in winning a superbowl (let alone 3). Okay, the only other time I threw out the bias card was when Woody didn't make the all-decade team. Serioulsy, what do you need for him to do?

Troy, Emmitt, Irvin, Allen and Woodson should all have been 1st ballet HOF, without question! Hopefully Woody will be, we know Emmitt will.

Haley should probably be a 1st ballot one too.

I don't believe Michael Irvin was better then Sterling Sharpe. Sharpe, IMO, was the better WR by a decent margin. Sharpe may not have won a Super Bowl but Irvin would not have one any with that team either. That is my opinion of the two.

 

[rcaldw]

I don't believe Michael Irvin was better then Sterling Sharpe. Sharpe, IMO, was the better WR by a decent margin. Sharpe may not have won a Super Bowl but Irvin would not have one any with that team either. That is my opinion of the two.

I can't agree with you there ABC. Sharpe was a great one, I don't deny that, but no one was more physical than Michael Irvin was. The thing I loved about Michael was his strength and athleticism coupled with a pretty good set of hands.

One image that exemplifies this is the TD pass that Aikman threw to him in the 92 Super Bowl against the Bills, on the sideline close to the endzone.

Aikman threw a perfect laser, no doubt about that, but I don't know of any other receiver who would have been able to shield the defender with his body, catch the pass, twist his body around and leap for the endzone quite like Michael did.

I would go Rice then Irvin in the 90's in that order, but I will say again, not discounting that Rice was a big game receiver throughout his long career, but in the 90's matchups between those two teams Irvin showed up bigger than Rice did.

 

[windward]

I don't believe Michael Irvin was better then Sterling Sharpe. Sharpe, IMO, was the better WR by a decent margin. Sharpe may not have won a Super Bowl but Irvin would not have one any with that team either. That is my opinion of the two.

Unfortunatley for Sharpe, he only played seven seasons to Irvin's 12.

 

[Doomsday]

They did, that's why Merriman was an all-pro.. how did you feel about that decision?

Merriman cheated\broke the rules trying to give himself an unfair competitive advantage. There is a huge difference in my book between that and doing harm to yourself by taking drugs.

 

[Doomsday]

The only rec better than Irvin in the 90's was Rice. Case closed, I showed you the results.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I can't agree with you there ABC. Sharpe was a great one, I don't deny that, but no one was more physical than Michael Irvin was. The thing I loved about Michael was his strength and athleticism coupled with a pretty good set of hands.

One image that exemplifies this is the TD pass that Aikman threw to him in the 92 Super Bowl against the Bills, on the sideline close to the endzone.

Aikman threw a perfect laser, no doubt about that, but I don't know of any other receiver who would have been able to shield the defender with his body, catch the pass, twist his body around and leap for the endzone quite like Michael did.

I would go Rice then Irvin in the 90's in that order, but I will say again, not discounting that Rice was a big game receiver throughout his long career, but in the 90's matchups between those two teams Irvin showed up bigger than Rice did.

Actually, I believe Sharpe was every bit as physical, every bit as strong. Maybe stronger in fact. He was certainly quicker and faster.

I mean, I know I'm coming off as an Irvin hatter but that's really not the case. I like Irvin. How can you not? I just try to be objective about this thing. I saw both players play. In my mind, Rice was the best, Sharpe was next and then probably Irvin.

 

[step]

Unfortunately, nothing above has anything to do with the HOF voting other than the part in Bold, a negative.

I hope he gets in, but it won't surprise me at all if he doesn't....he has the stats to compare with some other HOF WRs, but he wasn't the best WR of his own time, which explains his lack of All-Pro selections. Also, WR stats have to be looked at carefully as the NFL becomes more and more a passing league...WR's of today will indeed put up bigger numbers than some old timers like Bob Hayes could ever have dreamed of simply because it's the style of play.

I think it's unfair to compare all future WR's to Jerry Rice, but don't be surprised if Irvin doesn't make it, and it will have nothing to do with Cowboys bias.

That said, Good Luck, Mr. Irvin.

With all due respect, your wrong when you said off the field problems count. According to the charter, it does NOT count. I know the answer people always say is, "it's not SUPPOSSED to count, but people are human and it does." Which drives me crazy, are you telling me judges, jury's, etc can't set aside personal feeling and judge the evidence in front of them without bias? I suppose sometimes no, ala OJ Simpson, but I believe in most cases, YES, people in a position to judge should be able to follow the guidlines in front of them! I think as has been said here, people voting for the hall will put him in, but wanted to "teach him a lesson" by makig him wait a year...which is a shame since he could have went in with Troy.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Unfortunatley for Sharpe, he only played seven seasons to Irvin's 12.

That really is unfortunate for Sharpe. He never really had the chance to play with the real good Green Bay teams. He pretty much just missed out on that. You have to wonder what he might have been able to do if he had played with the kind of talent Irvin and Rice played with.

 

[rcaldw]

That really is unfortunate for Sharpe. He never really had the chance to play with the real good Green Bay teams. He pretty much just missed out on that. You have to wonder what he might have been able to do if he had played with the kind of talent Irvin and Rice played with.

This is one thing, though, that I get a little weary of. Let me be clear. Not of you ABC, because you are just making a point, that may be very valid, in the context of this thread.

But I get weary of it in the case of anti-Cowboys folks.

Tell me how this works?

If they (meaning the average NFL media type person) want to talk about great teams, they LOVE to talk about the 49ers, the Steelers, the Packers, etc. You RARELY hear about the Cowboys. I can even remember some people on a national radio talk show trying to make the case that the Cowboys weren't the team of the 90's.

BUT, if you want to talk about the individually great players of the Cowboys, they always want to discount the individuals based upon the "talent they had around them."

Was Aikman the best QB of the 90's, in light of the fact that he QB'd his team to 3 Super Bowl wins? "No, of course not, look, he had that offensive line, he had Emmitt, he had Michael, he had that defense."

Was Emmitt the best running back in football? "No, what would Barry Sanders have done behind that line? Barry Sanders never had a QB like Aikman and a receiver like Irvin to take away the focus that he was for a defense."

Was Irvin one of the top 2 receivers of the 90's? "No, what would some of these other guys have done with Aikman and Emmitt, and that line and that defense."

My point is, the national mediots don't respect the TEAM to the degree that they should, but then they use the TEAM TO ARGUE AGAINST THE PARTS?????????

You can't have it both ways.

So, how many out of that "GREATEST LINE OF ALL TIME" will be in the Hall of Fame? Want to guess? Will Stepnoski? Will Gogan? Will Newton? Will Tuinei? Will Gesek? Will Kenard?

One - Larry Allen

Man, Aikman had it made with all the guys he threw to right? Well how many of them will be voted into the hall?

Novacek? Harper? K-Mart? K-Dub? Bjornson? Lafleur?

Irvin can't even get in HIS FIRST 2 TRIES.

Emmitt is a shoe in, because they would look absolutely stupid not to.

I personally think that the team was great BECAUSE OF THEIR INDIVIDUAL GREATNESS.

If Bradshaw, Harris, Stallworth and Swan can all go into the hall, then Aikman, Irvin, and Smith, should go. And Irvin should go THIS YEAR.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

This is one thing, though, that I get a little weary of. Let me be clear. Not of you ABC, because you are just making a point, that may be very valid, in the context of this thread.

But I get weary of it in the case of anti-Cowboys folks.

Tell me how this works?

If they (meaning the average NFL media type person) want to talk about great teams, they LOVE to talk about the 49ers, the Steelers, the Packers, etc. You RARELY hear about the Cowboys. I can even remember some people on a national radio talk show trying to make the case that the Cowboys weren't the team of the 90's.

BUT, if you want to talk about the individually great players of the Cowboys, they always want to discount the individuals based upon the "talent they had around them."

Was Aikman the best QB of the 90's, in light of the fact that he QB'd his team to 3 Super Bowl wins? "No, of course not, look, he had that offensive line, he had Emmitt, he had Michael, he had that defense."

Was Emmitt the best running back in football? "No, what would Barry Sanders have done behind that line? Barry Sanders never had a QB like Aikman and a receiver like Irvin to take away the focus that he was for a defense."

Was Irvin one of the top 2 receivers of the 90's? "No, what would some of these other guys have done with Aikman and Emmitt, and that line and that defense."

My point is, the national mediots don't respect the TEAM to the degree that they should, but then they use the TEAM TO ARGUE AGAINST THE PARTS?????????

You can't have it both ways.

So, how many out of that "GREATEST LINE OF ALL TIME" will be in the Hall of Fame? Want to guess? Will Stepnoski? Will Gogan? Will Newton? Will Tuinei? Will Gesek? Will Kenard?

One - Larry Allen

Man, Aikman had it made with all the guys he threw to right? Well how many of them will be voted into the hall?

Novacek? Harper? K-Mart? K-Dub? Bjornson? Lafleur?

Irvin can't even get in HIS FIRST 2 TRIES.

Emmitt is a shoe in, because they would look absolutely stupid not to.

I personally think that the team was great BECAUSE OF THEIR INDIVIDUAL GREATNESS.

If Bradshaw, Harris, Stallworth and Swan can all go into the hall, then Aikman, Irvin, and Smith, should go. And Irvin should go THIS YEAR.

Well, I understand the point you are making and it is not without some basis IMO. I don't know that it's just Cowboys thou. Lots of fans feel as if there teams are singled out and a sort of Bias exist against them. I just think it comes with the territory.

Having said that, I also think that as Cowboy fans, we too can be guilty of a certain Bias. It's OK, that's what being a fan is about.

Just the way it is I guess.

 

[rcaldw]

Well, I understand the point you are making and it is not without some basis IMO. I don't know that it's just Cowboys thou. Lots of fans feel as if there teams are singled out and a sort of Bias exist against them. I just think it comes with the territory.

Having said that, I also think that as Cowboy fans, we too can be guilty of a certain Bias. It's OK, that's what being a fan is about.

Just the way it is I guess.

I agree that we should strive to be objective and fair minded, but I think even the most cynical have come to admit that there is some anti-Cowboys bias at work in the media and in the hall of fame selection process.

Oh yea, they make their arguments with statistics and such, but the exceptions that they then make to the same statistical barriers in the case of other players from same era are GLARING.

CASE IN POINT: (ONE OF MANY THAT COULD BE MADE)

Lynn Swann:

+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| Rushing | Receiving |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| 1974 pit | 11 | 1 14 14.0 0 | 11 208 18.9 2 |
| 1975 pit | 14 | 3 13 4.3 0 | 49 781 15.9 11 |
| 1976 pit | 12 | 1 2 2.0 0 | 28 516 18.4 3 |
| 1977 pit | 14 | 2 6 3.0 0 | 50 789 15.8 7 |
| 1978 pit | 16 | 1 7 7.0 0 | 61 880 14.4 11 |
| 1979 pit | 13 | 1 9 9.0 1 | 41 808 19.7 5 |
| 1980 pit | 13 | 1 -4 -4.0 0 | 44 710 16.1 7 |
| 1981 pit | 13 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 34 505 14.9 5 |
| 1982 pit | 9 | 1 25 25.0 0 | 18 265 14.7 0 |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| TOTAL | 115 | 11 72 6.5 1 | 336 5462 16.3 51 |
Drew Pearson:

| Rushing | Receiving |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| 1973 dal | 14 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 22 388 17.6 2 |
| 1974 dal | 14 | 3 6 2.0 0 | 62 1087 17.5 2 |
| 1975 dal | 14 | 1 11 11.0 0 | 46 822 17.9 8 |
| 1976 dal | 14 | 2 20 10.0 0 | 58 806 13.9 6 |
| 1977 dal | 14 | 2 22 11.0 0 | 48 870 18.1 2 |
| 1978 dal | 16 | 3 29 9.7 0 | 44 714 16.2 3 |
| 1979 dal | 15 | 3 27 9.0 0 | 55 1026 18.7 8 |
| 1980 dal | 16 | 2 30 15.0 0 | 43 568 13.2 6 |
| 1981 dal | 16 | 3 31 10.3 0 | 38 614 16.2 3 |
| 1982 dal | 9 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 26 382 14.7 3 |
| 1983 dal | 14 | 2 13 6.5 0 | 47 545 11.6 5 |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| TOTAL | 156 | 21 189 9.0 0 | 489 7822 16.0 48 |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

You can argue 4 Super Bowl wins, but Drew Pearson played in 3, and made more big game, huge situation catches of just about any receiver in NFL history.

Just plain bias.

 

[Rampage]

chris carter

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I agree that we should strive to be objective and fair minded, but I think even the most cynical have come to admit that there is some anti-Cowboys bias at work in the media and in the hall of fame selection process.

Oh yea, they make their arguments with statistics and such, but the exceptions that they then make to the same statistical barriers in the case of other players from same era are GLARING.

CASE IN POINT: (ONE OF MANY THAT COULD BE MADE)

Lynn Swann:

+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| Rushing | Receiving |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| 1974 pit | 11 | 1 14 14.0 0 | 11 208 18.9 2 |
| 1975 pit | 14 | 3 13 4.3 0 | 49 781 15.9 11 |
| 1976 pit | 12 | 1 2 2.0 0 | 28 516 18.4 3 |
| 1977 pit | 14 | 2 6 3.0 0 | 50 789 15.8 7 |
| 1978 pit | 16 | 1 7 7.0 0 | 61 880 14.4 11 |
| 1979 pit | 13 | 1 9 9.0 1 | 41 808 19.7 5 |
| 1980 pit | 13 | 1 -4 -4.0 0 | 44 710 16.1 7 |
| 1981 pit | 13 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 34 505 14.9 5 |
| 1982 pit | 9 | 1 25 25.0 0 | 18 265 14.7 0 |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| TOTAL | 115 | 11 72 6.5 1 | 336 5462 16.3 51 |
Drew Pearson:

| Rushing | Receiving |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| 1973 dal | 14 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 22 388 17.6 2 |
| 1974 dal | 14 | 3 6 2.0 0 | 62 1087 17.5 2 |
| 1975 dal | 14 | 1 11 11.0 0 | 46 822 17.9 8 |
| 1976 dal | 14 | 2 20 10.0 0 | 58 806 13.9 6 |
| 1977 dal | 14 | 2 22 11.0 0 | 48 870 18.1 2 |
| 1978 dal | 16 | 3 29 9.7 0 | 44 714 16.2 3 |
| 1979 dal | 15 | 3 27 9.0 0 | 55 1026 18.7 8 |
| 1980 dal | 16 | 2 30 15.0 0 | 43 568 13.2 6 |
| 1981 dal | 16 | 3 31 10.3 0 | 38 614 16.2 3 |
| 1982 dal | 9 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 26 382 14.7 3 |
| 1983 dal | 14 | 2 13 6.5 0 | 47 545 11.6 5 |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| TOTAL | 156 | 21 189 9.0 0 | 489 7822 16.0 48 |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

You can argue 4 Super Bowl wins, but Drew Pearson played in 3, and made more big game, huge situation catches of just about any receiver in NFL history.

Just plain bias.

Well, this is actually part of the reason I don't think Irvin should be in yet. We have players like Hayes and Pearson that, IMO, are long - long over due. I just think that these guys and other players like them deserve to be in first. I'm not saying that Irvin doesn't deserve to be in. I just don't believe he deserves to be in at the expense of some other very deserving players, both Cowboy and otherwise.

 

[rcaldw]

Well, this is actually part of the reason I don't think Irvin should be in yet. We have players like Hayes and Pearson that, IMO, are long - long over due. I just think that these guys and other players like them deserve to be in first. I'm not saying that Irvin doesn't deserve to be in. I just don't believe he deserves to be in at the expense of some other very deserving players, both Cowboy and otherwise.

I hear you, I really do, but I respectfully disagree with you. How will holding Irvin out, with no other Cowboys as a finalist, rectify the injustices of the past? And, you may not (which is fair), but I believe (which is what this entire thread is about ), that Irvin is absolutely deserving out of the 17 finalists that are on the ballot this year.

Don't hold Irvin out, GET PEARSON, AND HAYES, AND HARRIS AND OTHERS IN!

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I hear you, I really do, but I respectfully disagree with you. How will holding Irvin out, with no other Cowboys as a finalist, rectify the injustices of the past? And, you may not (which is fair), but I believe (which is what this entire thread is about ), that Irvin is absolutely deserving out of the 17 finalists that are on the ballot this year.

Don't hold Irvin out, GET PEARSON, AND HAYES, AND HARRIS AND OTHERS IN!

I understand your point. Everybody is intitled to there own pespectives on these kinds of things. No sweat here. We just disagree on how and when is all. The objectives are ultimatly the same.

 

[2233boys]

chris carter

Irvin was better in the 90's. Look it up... I posted it in this thread.

 

[2233boys]

Well, this is actually part of the reason I don't think Irvin should be in yet. We have players like Hayes and Pearson that, IMO, are long - long over due. I just think that these guys and other players like them deserve to be in first. I'm not saying that Irvin doesn't deserve to be in. I just don't believe he deserves to be in at the expense of some other very deserving players, both Cowboy and otherwise.

I agree that Hayes and Pearson should be in, but the simple fact is Irvin was better, he was the Best wr in Cowboys history, there is no debate on that. He was the second best wr in his era. He helped win 3 superbowls. He should have been in on his first try. Just because the Hall of Fame has unfairly excluded others doesn't mean Irvin should have to endure exclusion longer.

 

[ilovejerry]

Well, this is actually part of the reason I don't think Irvin should be in yet. We have players like Hayes and Pearson that, IMO, are long - long over due. I just think that these guys and other players like them deserve to be in first. I'm not saying that Irvin doesn't deserve to be in. I just don't believe he deserves to be in at the expense of some other very deserving players, both Cowboy and otherwise.

Lynn swann in the Hall is a joke, showed up in SB thats it! Your preaching to
guys that never saw mr clutch not that its there fault but the HOF and the media hate us , and that is the reason we will never see the 70s guys in there.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I agree that Hayes and Pearson should be in, but the simple fact is Irvin was better, he was the Best wr in Cowboys history, there is no debate on that. He was the second best wr in his era. He helped win 3 superbowls. He should have been in on his first try. Just because the Hall of Fame has unfairly excluded others doesn't mean Irvin should have to endure exclusion longer.

I do not agree that Irvin was the 2nd best WR of his era. I also don't know that I would agree that he was the best that ever played for us. I think he was the best WR that played for us in his Era but I don't know that you can say he was better then Hayes, who changed the game or Pearson who was the best WR for us of his Era for us. I personally believe Irvin was probably better then Pearson but that's not my call. Either way, I understand what your saying but I don't agree with it. I believe that what will happen is that if Irvin got in, that would close the door for Pearson and Hayes. I believe the voters would view it as "You've got Irvin in and that's it." They may do that anyway but I guess I just don't have as big of a problem with Irvin not getting in because I do see it as others more deserving.