Irvin Deserves The Hall

[ilovejerry]

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.

At this point I dont care who gets in anymore as long as he has a STAR :starspin on his helmet.

Haley,Sanders, I'm desperate to see more Cowboys in the Hall I have given up all hope for my beloved 70s Cowboys getting in.

 

[Rampage]

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

irvin averaged more yards, carter had 37 more tds. everythingelse is the same. that means carter was better

 

[rcaldw]

irvin averaged more yards, carter had 37 more tds. everythingelse is the same. that means carter was better

I'll say it again. We will all be better off when we quit looking at a stats line and actually watch the players play.

If you forget the stats, and you watched those two players play, do you really believe that Chris Carter was better than Michael Irvin? That defenses had to account for Carter the way that they did for Irvin? That at times Chris Carter could be as unstoppable and game dominating as Irvin was?

Man, I just don't see that at all, and I watched both of them their entire careers.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

irvin averaged more yards, carter had 37 more tds. everythingelse is the same. that means carter was better

I also think that a case can be made for Sharpe. It's really unfortunate that he only played 7 years before sustaining injury but, in those 7 years, you compare him and he compares very favorably.

Here are the Stats for both players.

Irvin's first 7 years.
Seasons 7, Rec 416, Yards 6935, YPC 16.67, TDs 40


Sharpe's 7 year Career
Seasons 7, Rec 595, Yards 8134, YPC 13.7, TDs 65

Longevity is what is going to keep Sharpe out of the Hall but IMO, he was probably the second best WR of that Era. JMO of course.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I'll say it again. We will all be better off when we quit looking at a stats line and actually watch the players play.

If you forget the stats, and you watched those two players play, do you really believe that Chris Carter was better than Michael Irvin? That defenses had to account for Carter the way that they did for Irvin? That at times Chris Carter could be as unstoppable and game dominating as Irvin was?

Man, I just don't see that at all, and I watched both of them their entire careers.

8 Straight seasons of 1000 yards or better, 8 straight seasons where he averaged 97 catches, 8 straight seasons of averaging better then 11 TDs a season.

You can say don't look at the stats but how can you not? This business of saying that he played longer is true but you also have to remember that Carter gave up a good 5 seasons of his career early on to the bottle. When Carter got right, his career compared very favorably to anybodies, including Irvin. I don't know that I could say Irvin was better, for sure. I watched them both too and while I will always side with Irvin as a favorite, Carter was also very, very good.

 

[rcaldw]

8 Straight seasons of 1000 yards or better, 8 straight seasons where he averaged 97 catches, 8 straight seasons of averaging better then 11 TDs a season.

You can say don't look at the stats but how can you not? This business of saying that he played longer is true but you also have to remember that Carter gave up a good 5 seasons of his career early on to the bottle. When Carter got right, his career compared very favorably to anybodies, including Irvin. I don't know that I could say Irvin was better, for sure. I watched them both too and while I will always side with Irvin as a favorite, Carter was also very, very good.

I never said that Carter wasn't a great player. I simply said that we need to look at the players play, not just a stats line, and that having watched them both play, and despite all of Carter's stats, I don't remember him being the game changer that Irvin was. Just my opinion.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I never said that Carter wasn't a great player. I simply said that we need to look at the players play, not just a stats line, and that having watched them both play, and despite all of Carter's stats, I don't remember him being the game changer that Irvin was. Just my opinion.

That's cool, and really, that's what I'm saying as well. To me, Sharpe was easily the more dominating player. About Carter, I just remember him always catching TDs. That guy always seemed to get a TD or two.

 

[step]

irvin averaged more yards, carter had 37 more tds. everythingelse is the same. that means carter was better

Well, yeah this only proves that all Carter did was catch TDs.

 

[2233boys]

irvin averaged more yards, carter had 37 more tds. everythingelse is the same. that means carter was better

No everything else isn't the same, Irvin had more yrds rec in the 90's averaged more per game, had over 1600 yrds rec Carter never did, yes Carter had more tds. Carter played in more games and aside from tds produced less than Irvin. Less per catch, less per game and fewer total yrds.

As an aside for Sharpe, who I feel was a great rec, he really didn't do much in the 90s to say he was better than Irvin.

Sharpe 1990, 67 catches 1105 yrds 16.5 a catch and 6 tds in 16 games
Irvin in 1990, 20 catches for 413 yrds for 20.6 a catch and 5 tds in 12 games

Sharpe in 1991 69 catches for 961 yrds for 13.9 a catch and 4tds in 16 games
Irvin in 1991 93 cacthes for 1523 yrd for 16.4 a catch and 8 tds in 16 games

Sharpe in 1992 108 cacthes for 1461 yrds for 13.5 a cathc and 13 tds in 16 games
Irvin in 1992 78 catches for 1396 yrds for 17.9 a catche and 7 tds in 16 games

Sharpe in 1993 112 catches for 1274 yrds for 11.4 catch and 11tds in 16 games
Irvin in 1993 88 catches for 1330 for 15.1 a catch and 7tds in 16 games

Sharpe in 1994 94 catches for 1119 yrds for 11.9 a catch and 18 tds in 16 games
Irvin in 1994 79 catches for 1241yrds for 15.7 a catch and 6 tds in 16 games

(As an aside during those 5 years Carter only had 1000 yrds twice.)

I guess what some are doing is using the meaningless stat of catches to define greatness. Again the tds come up but every year Irvin averaged more per catch while in almost every year outgaining Sharpe.

Sharpe never had a 1600 yrd season either.

 

[2233boys]

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.

You are entitled to your opinion. Irvin was the 2nd best wr in the 90's I guess if anything this one is open to some debate, but I have backed my opinion up with facts and I stand by my conclusion. He clearly was the best wr ever in Dallas, to me there is no debate about that. I watched Drew play as a kid too, so it isn't about never seeing him play. I never saw Hayes play and I have written letters based on my research to the Hall of Fame asking for Hayes to be reintroduced by the Senior Committee.

If the Hall decides by letting Irvin in and they need to exclude Hayes and Pearson then it is a bigger joke then I already think it is.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

You are entitled to your opinion. Irvin was the 2nd best wr in the 90's I guess if anything this one is open to some debate, but I have backed my opinion up with facts and I stand by my conclusion. He clearly was the best wr ever in Dallas, to me there is no debate about that. I watched Drew play as a kid too, so it isn't about never seeing him play. I never saw Hayes play and I have written letters based on my research to the Hall of Fame asking for Hayes to be reintroduced by the Senior Committee.

If the Hall decides by letting Irvin in and they need to exclude Hayes and Pearson then it is a bigger joke then I already think it is.

I am not a fan of comparing players from different Eras. I can't say Irvin was better because the game was different then. For this reason, I don't think you can say that Irvin deserves to be in ahead of those guys because he was the greater player. I can't prove that.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

No everything else isn't the same, Irvin had more yrds rec in the 90's averaged more per game, had over 1600 yrds rec Carter never did, yes Carter had more tds. Carter played in more games and aside from tds produced less than Irvin. Less per catch, less per game and fewer total yrds.

As an aside for Sharpe, who I feel was a great rec, he really didn't do much in the 90s to say he was better than Irvin.

Sharpe 1990, 67 catches 1105 yrds 16.5 a catch and 6 tds in 16 games
Irvin in 1990, 20 catches for 413 yrds for 20.6 a catch and 5 tds in 12 games

Sharpe in 1991 69 catches for 961 yrds for 13.9 a catch and 4tds in 16 games
Irvin in 1991 93 cacthes for 1523 yrd for 16.4 a catch and 8 tds in 16 games

Sharpe in 1992 108 cacthes for 1461 yrds for 13.5 a cathc and 13 tds in 16 games
Irvin in 1992 78 catches for 1396 yrds for 17.9 a catche and 7 tds in 16 games

Sharpe in 1993 112 catches for 1274 yrds for 11.4 catch and 11tds in 16 games
Irvin in 1993 88 catches for 1330 for 15.1 a catch and 7tds in 16 games

Sharpe in 1994 94 catches for 1119 yrds for 11.9 a catch and 18 tds in 16 games
Irvin in 1994 79 catches for 1241yrds for 15.7 a catch and 6 tds in 16 games

(As an aside during those 5 years Carter only had 1000 yrds twice.)

I guess what some are doing is using the meaningless stat of catches to define greatness. Again the tds come up but every year Irvin averaged more per catch while in almost every year outgaining Sharpe.

Sharpe never had a 1600 yrd season either.

I don't understand this post.

If I understand you, your saying that Sharpe didn't do much to prove he was the better receiver yet in the commen years of the 90s, Sharpe had more yards, more catches and more TDs then did Mike. Aside from that, you totally discount his first two season which produced a rookie year with 55 catches, 791 yards, 1 TD and a very good 2nd year with 90 catches, 1423 yards and 12 TDs.

As for Carter, yeah he did have two 1000+ yard seasons in that time but he also had a 962 yard season and followed it up with 6 more 1000+ yard seasons.

Carter may have played more years then did Mike but that is not why his stats look better. If you look at both these players, you see that Irvin had seven 1000+ yard seasons, one 100+ reception season, one 90+ receptions season and 1 double digit TD season. On the other hand, Carter had eight 1000+ yard seasons, Two 100+ catch seasons, three 90+ catch seasons and Six 10+ TD seasons. Carter has more yards, catches and TDs for his entire career but, he also has only 634 fewer yards then does Irvin in the 90s. Carter also has 143 more catches and 37 more TDs then does Mike in the 90s. I mean, maybe Irvin was better but I don't know how you would tell that from these stats. Just too tough to be able to say that diffinatively IMO.

I respect the fact that you believe Irvin was the 2nd best WR of the 90s and if this was the HOF for the 90s, I might agree but it's not limited to just the 90s. You gotta look at the whole body of work and in my mind at least, it's not as clear cut for me as it is for you. I believe there is room for doubt on who was better. I recognize that Irvin had to share the offense with Emmitt and that might impact his numbers but on the other hand, Sharpe didn't play with the same kind of talent Irvin did and he was focused on much more by opposing defenses then was Mike. Carter simply out produced Irvin.

I guess for me, the truth of the matter is that I believe all of them deserve to be in the Hall, eventually.

 

[2233boys]

I don't understand this post.

If I understand you, your saying that Sharpe didn't do much to prove he was the better receiver yet in the commen years of the 90s, Sharpe had more yards, more catches and more TDs then did Mike. Aside from that, you totally discount his first two season which produced a rookie year with 55 catches, 791 yards, 1 TD and a very good 2nd year with 90 catches, 1423 yards and 12 TDs.

As for Carter, yeah he did have two 1000+ yard seasons in that time but he also had a 962 yard season and followed it up with 6 more 1000+ yard seasons.

Carter may have played more years then did Mike but that is not why his stats look better. If you look at both these players, you see that Irvin had seven 1000+ yard seasons, one 100+ reception season, one 90+ receptions season and 1 double digit TD season. On the other hand, Carter had eight 1000+ yard seasons, Two 100+ catch seasons, three 90+ catch seasons and Six 10+ TD seasons. Carter has more yards, catches and TDs for his entire career but, he also has only 634 fewer yards then does Irvin in the 90s. Carter also has 143 more catches and 37 more TDs then does Mike in the 90s. I mean, maybe Irvin was better but I don't know how you would tell that from these stats. Just too tough to be able to say that diffinatively IMO.

I respect the fact that you believe Irvin was the 2nd best WR of the 90s and if this was the HOF for the 90s, I might agree but it's not limited to just the 90s. You gotta look at the whole body of work and in my mind at least, it's not as clear cut for me as it is for you. I believe there is room for doubt on who was better. I recognize that Irvin had to share the offense with Emmitt and that might impact his numbers but on the other hand, Sharpe didn't play with the same kind of talent Irvin did and he was focused on much more by opposing defenses then was Mike. Carter simply out produced Irvin.

I guess for me, the truth of the matter is that I believe all of them deserve to be in the Hall, eventually.

You started the discussion that Sharpe was the second best rec in the 90's your words, that is why 88 and 89 don't count. Sharpe gained 5922 yrds in the 90s Irvin in that same time period gained 5903 yrds in 4 fewer games. You don't think Mike could have gotten 19 more yrds in 4 games? Sharpe averaged 13.5 yrds a catch Irvin 17.24. Sharpe averaged 74.025 yrds a game, Irvin 77.671 per game. You got me, Sharpe had more tds and more rec. Tds are an improtant stat but that is the only thing he has Irvin beat in, how exactly is he better. Receptions to me is a meaningless stat for Rec. You can catch 100 3 yrd passes in a season and lead the NFL in rec. Is that productive? (you can apply this to your argument about Carter as well)

I am not making the argument that this is all about the 90's you and others have said Irvin wasn't even the second best rec of the 90's I have shown enough to make a valid argument that he was and thus deserving of the Hall of Fame. Carter didn't simply out produce Irvin, the proof is in the pudding... I posted the stats for the 90's Irvin played in almost 20 fewer games, and still averaged more per catch, more total yrds and way more per game. Sure he had more tds. Emmitt scored the tds for the Cowboys. You can bring in 88 and 89 as well for Carter but it doesn't help your argument much.

I agree with you on Carter, and Irvin. Not sure about Sharpe, I just don't think he will get in.

 

[Rampage]

Well, yeah this only proves that all Carter did was catch TDs.

wow what was i thinking? i mean who wants the wrs to catch tds

 

[Gameover]

Michael had low numbers because he played with Troy Aikman.

C.CARTER:130TD
T.AIKMAN:165TD

1994
S.Sharpe:18td
T.Aikman:13td
B.Favre:33
M.Irvin:6
It's hard for a receiver to put up numbers when his QB doesn't.

1995
C.Carter:17td
T.Aikman:16
W.Moon:33
M.Irvin:10

1994
B.Favre: 3882 6.7 33 14
W.Moon:4264 7.1 18 19
T.Aikman2676 7.4 13 12

S.Sharpe: 94 1119 11.9 18
C.Carter:122 1256 10.3 7
M.Irvin:79 1241 15.7 6

I wonder why Michael had the lowest numbers of the three?

1995
W.Moon:4228 7.0 33 14
T.Aikman:3304 7.6 16 7

C.Carter:122 1371 11.2 17
M.Irvin:111 1603 14.4 10

 

[rcaldw]

It wasn't about his QB my friend. Irvin played with a better QB than Sharpe OR Carter. (In my humble opinion ) Irvin's QB is in the Hall of Fame.

It was about a philosophy inside the 5 yard line because the Cowboys had that offensive line and Emmitt Smith.

If I had a dollar for every TD pass Favre got inside the 5 yard line I would be a rich man.

I would also add, if I had a dollar for every time one of Aikman's receivers were downed at the 1 yard line I would be a rich man as well.

Michael had low numbers because he played with Troy Aikman.

C.CARTER:130TD
T.AIKMAN:165TD

1994
S.Sharpe:18td
T.Aikman:13td
B.Favre:33
M.Irvin:6
It's hard for a receiver to put up numbers when his QB doesn't.

1995
C.Carter:17td
T.Aikman:16
W.Moon:33
M.Irvin:10

1994
B.Favre: 3882 6.7 33 14
W.Moon:4264 7.1 18 19
T.Aikman2676 7.4 13 12

S.Sharpe: 94 1119 11.9 18
C.Carter:122 1256 10.3 7
M.Irvin:79 1241 15.7 6

I wonder why Michael had the lowest numbers of the three?

1995
W.Moon:4228 7.0 33 14
T.Aikman:3304 7.6 16 7

C.Carter:122 1371 11.2 17
M.Irvin:111 1603 14.4 10

 

[Gameover]

It wasn't about his QB my friend. Irvin played with a better QB than Sharpe OR Carter. (In my humble opinion ) Irvin's QB is in the Hall of Fame.

.

Numbers are numbers.Like it or not the reason Michael Irvin isn't in the Hall already is because of his numbers.Not because of some BS Cowboys bias.Not because of his off the field trouble.Not because they may or may not hate his TV persona.The reason he isn't in is because of his numbers.

It really doesn't matter if Troy was better than the other QB's, the other QB's put up better numbers.And lack of numbers is the reason Michael isnt in the Hall of Fame already.


Warren Moon is in the Hall of Fame as well if you didn't know.

 

[rcaldw]

Numbers are numbers.Like it or not the reason Michael Irvin isn't in the Hall already is because of his numbers.Not because of some BS Cowboys bias.Not because of his off the field trouble.Not because they may or may not hate his TV persona.The reason he isn't in is because of his numbers.

It really doesn't matter if Troy was better than the other QB's, the other QB's put up better numbers.And lack of numbers is the reason Michael isnt in the Hall of Fame already.


Warren Moon is in the Hall of Fame as well if you didn't know.

No way! When did THAT happen?! (Sarcasm)

If the Hall is just about numbers, if that is ALL that it is about, then shut the stupid thing down.

 

[2233boys]

Numbers are numbers.Like it or not the reason Michael Irvin isn't in the Hall already is because of his numbers.Not because of some BS Cowboys bias.Not because of his off the field trouble.Not because they may or may not hate his TV persona.The reason he isn't in is because of his numbers.

It really doesn't matter if Troy was better than the other QB's, the other QB's put up better numbers.And lack of numbers is the reason Michael isnt in the Hall of Fame already.


Warren Moon is in the Hall of Fame as well if you didn't know.

Irvins numbers are Hall of Fame numbers he isn't in, for a couple of reasons, because of the issues he had in the past, Art Monk, and the issues he had coming into last years vote and that Aikman and Wright went in. This isn't my opinion this is from emails I recieved from Hall of Fame Voters.

Irvins numbers are Hall worthy, to say otherwise is laughable.