NFLN Top Ten Dallas Cowboys

[Manster68]

What is unfortunate for the Cowboys is that when you do a Top 10 for this franchise, there will be great players left out.

 

[Cowboy Brian]

Uh, ill argue Emmitt over Roger and after 2010 Witten over Hayes.

 

[Stautner]

No love for Drew? How can Wright or Renfro possibly be better Cowboys than Drew?

I'm just curious is all. Everyone has their own unique set of standards for what makes certain Cowboys more important and so I'm interested to see what makes you place them higher than Drew.

I love Drew - I would put him in the same league as Irvin. But Wright and Renfro are certainly worthy of at least being considered over Drew. Especially Renfro.

I think LA is the best OG to ever play the game and has to be on my list. Simply too dominant.

I can't argue with that.



AS FOR BOB HAYES: He did change the position and force the league to develop zone defenses HOWEVER it was due to his speed and not due to being a great receiver. Hayes did not have particularly great hands, nor was he tough going over the middle. Hayes had great speed, but Irvin and Pearson's great hands, toughness and dependability in the clutch made them far and away the better receivers.

 

[burmafrd]

Emmitt over Roger? Well consider the source.

 

[Stautner]

Emmitt over Roger? Well consider the source.

It may be an age thing. Most younger fans seem to think the Cowboys legacy orginated in the 1990's.

 

[Cowboy Brian]

Emmitt over Roger? Well consider the source.

Greatest RB of all time vs a top 3 QB of all time. Either is a valid pick.

 

[Stautner]

Greatest RB of all time vs a top 3 QB of all time. Either is a valid pick.

I'll bet you can't find any Cowboy fan who was old enough to understand the game in both eras and who saw both Roger and Emmitt play that would place Emmitt above Roger. That's no disrespect to Emmitt, but Roger is the man. Lilly is probably next, then Emmitt.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

Well Wright and Renfro ARE HOFers. I'm guessing that's a start.

I guess so but I don't believe what the Hall of Fame voters decide should be part of the equation.

Drew should be in the Hall of Fame, IMO, and why he is not is baffling. I mean by that thought process would you leave Andre Reed off the list of top 10 Bills of all time because the Hall of Fame voters are too stupid to get him in the Hall already?

How about Charles Haley? Does he not deserve to be in the Hall, yet for some reason isn't? The Hall of Fame thing simply isn't accurate to me cause they far too often leave guys out that should long ago have been in.

Already in the Hall of Fame or 1st ballot guys.

Like I said above. I put no real merit in that because the voters for the Hall seem to be really weird about some of the guys they're missing out on.

WRs are just not the most important players on a team. They are exciting but they are nowhere near as important to a team's success as pretty much every other full-time position. On most plays they are decoys at best, especially on the Cowboys who have, until recently, run much more than they throw.

Emmitt Smith was vastly more important to the Cowboys' success in the 90s than Michael Irvin was. For all his excitement and getting the team fired up, Irvin was not the main offensive weapon, Emmitt was. Troy was also more important to the team than Irvin was.

Same goes for Pearson, Dorsett was the main weapon that teams had to try to stop, not Drew.

As for Irvin being our all-time leading receiver, that is only in receptions and yards, not receiving TDs. Bob Hayes still owns that record and he caught less than half the passes that Irvin did.

It is likely that at the rate he is going, Jason Witten will surpass Irvin in receptions in 3 years as he is currently 227 behind him now but he is averaging about 90 receptions a year over the last 3 seasons.

Here is how I would rank the top-15 Cowboys (players) of all-time:

1. Bob Lilly
2. Roger Staubach
3. Emmitt Smith
4. Randy White
5. Larry Allen
6. Troy Aikman
7. Mel Renfro
8. Tony Dorsett
9. Rayfield Wright
10. Bob Hayes
11. Michael Irvin
12. Chuck Howley
13. Don Perkins
14. Drew Pearson
15. Jason Witten

But of course, that is just my opinion. Your mileage may vary.

Don't get me wrong I think Emmitt was the most important player back then (as shown by how poorly they'd play without him) and Aikman was equally as important but don't try and tell me that those teams would have been anywhere near as good without Irvin. In fact those teams don't win 3 out of 4 without Irvin at WR unless the WR he was replaced with was Jerry Rice.

Irvin was extremely important. A great example of how important he was, despite the fact that they were much older of course, was his final season. 3-0 out the gates and doing really well offensively only to stall and be average, at best, the rest of the year after he was gone.

It wasn't just what he did on the field, or the position he played, that meant so much to those teams it was his on the field fire, passion, and leadership that you simply couldn't just replace with someone else.

But, again, I don't have any problem if people put Irvin lower on the list. To each their own. I don't know if he'd be top 3 for me either but I certainly can see why NFLN had him top 3.

Uh, ill argue Emmitt over Roger and after 2010 Witten over Hayes.

Man that's crazy talk about Emmitt. I love him. He's my all time favorite Cowboys player but even I'll tell you there is absolutely no way, ever, in any measurable way that he's more important in Cowboys history than Captain America.

He is the Cowboys. He is what made the Cowboys what they are today. The closest to that, and still far behind in my opinion, is Bob Lilly. Mr. Cowboy is really the only guy anyone can even remotely make a case for over Roger.

 

[JPM]

I think LA is the best OG to ever play the game and has to be on my list. Simply too dominant.

I'll go a step further Hos, LA was the best OL to play. Big, strong, fast, and his best quality NASTY.

 

[thechosen1n2]

Michael Irvin #3? Ridiculous! I'd put him at #8 or even lower.

Where is Mel Renfro? Chuck Howley? Harvey Martin? Don Perkins?

I know why some would feel that way, but I feel he was the only player out of the triplets that there was never a decent replacement for.

 

[DallasEast]

Uh, ill argue Emmitt over Roger and after 2010 Witten over Hayes.

I'm just going to ban myself.

 

[bbgun]

I'm just going to ban myself.

http://img696.*************/img696/8026/catpermabanned.gif

 

[Stautner]

I know why some would feel that way, but I feel he was the only player out of the triplets that there was never a decent replacement for.

Really? How long did it take to find a replacement for Aikman and Emmitt? Do you remember the string of Stoerner, Leaf, Wright, Henson, Hutchingson, Quincy, Vinnie etc ... before we finally got to Romo? As for Emmitt, it took the 3 headed combo we have acquired the last couple of years to provide hope of replacing him.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Michael Irvin #3? Ridiculous! I'd put him at #8 or even lower.

 

[THUMPER]

Really? How long did it take to find a replacement for Aikman and Emmitt? Do you remember the string of Stoerner, Leaf, Wright, Henson, Hutchingson, Quincy, Vinnie etc ... before we finally got to Romo? As for Emmitt, it took the 3 headed combo we have acquired the last couple of years to provide hope of replacing him.

You beat me to it. It took about 17 years to replace Aikman and we STILL haven't replaced Emmitt and it has been about the same amount of time. I don't see any one of the three RBs we currently have that could do anything close to what Emmitt did.

Everyone talks about how Irvin was the "heart and soul" of the Cowboys of the 90s but having played football at various levels for 40+ years I can tell you that rah-rah guys only fire up a small percentage of players on a team. Most guys are self motivated and don't need or want some guy jumping and yelling to get them fired up. I didn't need or appreciate guys like that and I was considered sort of a crazy player. I got myself fired up and if someone was stupid enough to get in my face they usually found themselves on the ground somehow.

Aikman certainly didn't need Irvin to get him to play hard, neither did Novacek or a lot of other guy on the team. That is a media myth that people have bought into but it is not true to the extent that they would have us believe. Yes Irvin was a leader on the team but THE leader was Aikman and anyone who doubts it wasn't paying attention.

Irvin was a great player but he wasn't the best or most important of the "Triplets". It seems to be the younger fans who believe the hype about him. :geezer:

 

[BubbleScreen]

Wow. 4 pages and still no Cliff Harris, Charlie Waters, or Lee Roy Jordan. No Danny White, who was at least the McNabb of his era.

I think Cowboys fans would have a hard time agreeing on a consensus top 50, regardless of order. Someone put Darren Woodson in the top 10. He's one of my favorites, but he's not even top 20 by this team's standards.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Randy is on DFW Sports Beat right now (he's going to have his own show with Tinker this year in addition to DFWSB, they announced), and just talking about Spencer playing with intensity, he leans forward on the couch like he's all fired up himself.

He's the man.

 

[Stautner]

You beat me to it. It took about 17 years to replace Aikman and we STILL haven't replaced Emmitt and it has been about the same amount of time. I don't see any one of the three RBs we currently have that could do anything close to what Emmitt did.

Everyone talks about how Irvin was the "heart and soul" of the Cowboys of the 90s but having played football at various levels for 40+ years I can tell you that rah-rah guys only fire up a small percentage of players on a team. Most guys are self motivated and don't need or want some guy jumping and yelling to get them fired up. I didn't need or appreciate guys like that and I was considered sort of a crazy player. I got myself fired up and if someone was stupid enough to get in my face they usually found themselves on the ground somehow.

Aikman certainly didn't need Irvin to get him to play hard, neither did Novacek or a lot of other guy on the team. That is a media myth that people have bought into but it is not true to the extent that they would have us believe. Yes Irvin was a leader on the team but THE leader was Aikman and anyone who doubts it wasn't paying attention.

Irvin was a great player but he wasn't the best or most important of the "Triplets". It seems to be the younger fans who believe the hype about him. :geezer:

I agree with much of this, but 17 years? I don't think we were trying to replace Aikman or Emmitt in 1993 in the middle of the Super Bowl years.