Who was better, Irvin or T.O.? - 6/3/08

[dfense]

From what I remember, Irvin was never left in single coverage. Ever.

And he could beat double coverage alot.

When TO is doubled, the ball goes elseware.

 

[THEHEREAFTER]

From what I remember, Irvin was never left in single coverage. Ever.

And he could beat double coverage alot.

When TO is doubled, the ball goes elseware.

Different offense. Different QB/WR relationship. Irvin was Aikman's guy. NFL network had them rated as the #6 QB/WR tandem EVER. They had ridiculous chemistry and timing.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Because Owens is not a natural born WR I cannot really give a fair answer.

Irvin was a natural GREAT WR.

Owens is a self made GREAT WR.


Yes Irvin was part of the 3 SB's... but think of it this way.... In Owens first year with a SB potential team... THEY GOT THERE... and yes they probably should have won. (cough-cough Pats Spygate)

Its too close to me.

 

[Cowboys2008]

I remember watching Irvin, and the impression I always got from him was, he was a man playing among boys. You just don't see that type of dominance very often from any position. I remember times him making Green from Washington look stupid. Or the competition between him and Dieon, the cornerback no other receiver in history could have stood with, let alone in that time. And to be honest, though TO does have many of the same qualities and his playing style is monsterous...Irvin's was a good deal ahead of it. Not to mention he wasn't a Michael Jordan type that needed to hog the ball constantly, such as is TO and many WRs out there, Irvin was a team player and a leader. He excelled at being part of the machine, not needing to be all of it.

I will give TO this however, since coming to dallas, he has accepted that last part above finally. He is becoming a team player and realizing how any contribution he can add is enormous, even the little things. I think with that, these years in dallas for him, and those still ahead of him, could change the story of TO and make it a much similar feat in the end- though only time will tell. Bring us a couple of lombardi's in the time yet to come, too, and who knows what we could be saying about this guy before it's all said 'n done.

In the end; Not displeased with either of these men wearing the STAR and continuing our great legacy. In fact, I thank them both equally for being the caliber of star we both desire and need, being America's Team. My hat's off to two great football players.

 

[Cowboys2008]

I'm amazed at how people forget things and then perceive what they want to believe.

Irvin was not just a possession WR...far from it...his CAREER yds per catch was 15.9. He had indv seasons with yds per catch of 20.4, 20.7, 16.4, 17.9, 15.1 and 15.7 (twice)...he scored 65 tds in the regular season and his longest plays per season were 61, 65, 61, 66, 87, 61, 65, 61...he had 7 1000 yd seasons and would have had 8 in a row had it not been for the ridiculously long suspension in 1996 where he missed 5 games but still had 64 catches for 962 yds...4 times he had more than 1330 yds receiving including seasons with 1523 and 1603...

he had alot of long plays and long tds, yet nobody seems to remember how explosive he was...he was a great run after catch threat, but he still had the ability to get deep

the guy was almost unstoppable...everybody knew he was THE WR on this team, they'd double him and sometimes even triple him...yet he continued to make plays and out up big numbers

David

 

[QT]

I think the better question is Irvin or Tim Brown. Would we have won 3 superbowls if Tim Brown slipped to Dallas and Oakland drafted Irvin. Tim Brown had a pretty decent career but unfortunately got drafted by Oakland who didn't have a QB as talented as Aikman. Also, don't forget Sterling Sharp came out that draft. Sterling was having a great career until that injury.

 

[joseephuss]

Yards per game(regular season)
75.5 TO
74.9 Irvin

TDs per game(regular season)
0.75 TO
0.41 Irvin

Yards per game(post season)
68.3 TO
82.1 Irvin

TDs per game(post season)
0.45 TO
0.50 Irvin

 

[rlgiv]

Irvin was one of the best clutch recievers of all time. Not to mention the emotional leader of one of the greatest dynasties of all time. Irvin W/O a second thought.

 

[Wimbo]

Wow. This is a gutsy question.

If you put Irvin and TO at the same age (in their prime) at the same time, I think I would pick Michael in the 1990's, but TO in the 2000's. Irvin was great at shielding off smaller CB's with his body so he could go up and make the catch. I think he would have a much harder time doing that against the CB's that are playing in today's NFL. Plus, I think Irvin would have a hard time with the scrutiny in the NFL today around personal conduct/substance issues (when he was in his prime - I know he is different now).

Hands: Irvin
Game Speed: TO
Strength: TO
Routes: Irvin
Leadership: Irvin
Threat to score: TO
Moving chains: Irvin
Reliability: Irvin

I want to like Michael Irvin the best of the two... but at the end of the day, in the same number of seasons, Irvin scored 65 TD's and TO scored 131 TD's... that is a a huge difference.

 

[PosterChild]

Wow. This is a gutsy question.

If you put Irvin and TO at the same age (in their prime) at the same time, I think I would pick Michael in the 1990's, but TO in the 2000's. Irvin was great at shielding off smaller CB's with his body so he could go up and make the catch. I think he would have a much harder time doing that against the CB's that are playing in today's NFL. Plus, I think Irvin would have a hard time with the scrutiny in the NFL today around personal conduct/substance issues (when he was in his prime - I know he is different now).

Hands: Irvin
Game Speed: TO
Strength: TO
Routes: Irvin
Leadership: Irvin
Threat to score: TO
Moving chains: Irvin
Reliability: Irvin

I want to like Michael Irvin the best of the two... but at the end of the day, in the same number of seasons, Irvin scored 65 TD's and TO scored 131 TD's... that is a a huge difference.

 

[THEHEREAFTER]

I remember watching Irvin, and the impression I always got from him was, he was a man playing among boys. You just don't see that type of dominance very often from any position. I remember times him making Green from Washington look stupid. .

I was at the Boys vs. Skins game in '91 @ RFK. They were 11-0. Watching Irvin run that skinny post vs. Green all day was a thing of beauty. There was absolutely nothing he can do to stop it. When Aikman went down, Buereline came in without missing a step. All day.

Then again, take the Phili vs. Denver game where TO just owned Champ, one of the best athletes in the league. Quick hitch.. one quick move.. and TO is off to the races for a 90+ yard TD. Simply awesome. Irvi' ain't doin that. They're both special.

 

[Maikeru-sama]

Terrell Owens is a better receiver and personally I do not think it is even close.

Terrell Owens never played on a team with as much talent as Michael Irvin's teams, which plays a huge role in how successful you will be with regards to the team.

 

[adbutcher]

I'm amazed at how people forget things and then perceive what they want to believe.

Irvin was not just a possession WR...far from it...his CAREER yds per catch was 15.9. He had indv seasons with yds per catch of 20.4, 20.7, 16.4, 17.9, 15.1 and 15.7 (twice)...he scored 65 tds in the regular season and his longest plays per season were 61, 65, 61, 66, 87, 61, 65, 61...he had 7 1000 yd seasons and would have had 8 in a row had it not been for the ridiculously long suspension in 1996 where he missed 5 games but still had 64 catches for 962 yds...4 times he had more than 1330 yds receiving including seasons with 1523 and 1603...

he had alot of long plays and long tds, yet nobody seems to remember how explosive he was...he was a great run after catch threat, but he still had the ability to get deep

the guy was almost unstoppable...everybody knew he was THE WR on this team, they'd double him and sometimes even triple him...yet he continued to make plays and out up big numbers

David

 

[Wimbo]

 

[joseephuss]

Terrell Owens is a better receiver and personally I do not think it is even close.

Terrell Owens never played on a team with as much talent as Michael Irvin's teams, which plays a huge role in how successful you will be with regards to the team.

Personally I think it is very close. TO played on some very talented teams. They weren't the Cowboys of the early 90s, but he wasn't stuck with a bunch of stiffs, either. He was on teams that got deep in the playoffs. He has played with pro-bowl QBs. TO is great and very talented, but he is not head and shoulders above Irvin. I think it is a very close call. I give Irvin the slight edge.

 

[bigE79]

MIKE

 

[BlueStar II]

Irvin gets my vote.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

I think the real question here is....


Does Irvin think that Keyshawn is a #1 WR?


:laugh2:

 

[dcfanatic]

Terrell Owens is a better receiver and personally I do not think it is even close.

Terrell Owens never played on a team with as much talent as Michael Irvin's teams, which plays a huge role in how successful you will be with regards to the team.

T.O. played on some playoff teams in SF, a Super Bowl team in PHI and the Cowboys were 13-3 last season.

Those were good teams.

 

[PosterChild]

My point simply is that the Dallas Offense that Irvin was a part of was designed to run the ball down the throats of defenses. Down near the goal line it was #22's job to get the ball into the endzone. This partially explains the disparity in TDs. I know you know that, though. I just don't see this as the defining criterion for assessing the better WR.

As I've said, Owens is clearly the bigger scoring threat. But technically Irvin is the better receiver overall.

Here we see evidence of Irvin's remarkable body control (notice how he shields the defender) and superior, stronger hands. And who could forget his storied TD catch in the Superbowl which he made at about the 8 yard line before stretching across? I doubt TO makes that catch.