Should Irvin be in the Hall?

[blindseyed]

I say 'Who Cares?!' I didn't like him on the Pukes and don't like him as an announcer.

 

[ajcardfan]

I'm not sure I understand your position.

1. You critsize the Hall for admitting average players, then
2. Say that Monk should be in before Irvin based on his longevity rather than his talent/greatness.

Those things seem to me to be in conflict. If the Hall has let in average players in the past, that should punish the truly great players because the non-greats that have been waiting longer need to get in first? uh-uh, I don't buy it. Just because they may have made mistakes in the past doesn't mean they need to keep making them.

I actually think Monk was a better player than Irvin.

He had to deal with QB changes, Irvin basically played with one. Irvin also played with the best offensive line I've ever seen and a truly great running back. Yes, the Skins also had a good line and running most of the years Monk played, but it was never as great as the Cowboys of the 90s. Also, Monk had much better players at WR on his own team sucking away catches. Had Monk been as gifted at self-promotion as Irvin he would've been in on his first chance.

 

[Pariah]

Had Monk been as gifted at self-promotion as Irvin he would've been in on his first chance.

When was Monk great? When was he the best, and what was he the best at--other than playing for a very long time?

 

[ajcardfan]

When was Monk great? When was he the best, and what was he the best at--other than playing for a very long time?

106 catches in 1984 was completely off the hook for that time. He was easily the greatest WR in the game THAT year. As for the rest of the time, both Monk and Irvin had competition from guys like Jerry Rice and Cris Carter. Neither were clearly the best in their day and age.

 

[JS22]

 

[moklerman]

Who posted that long page about why irvin shouldn't be in?

That would be me and I still haven't heard a compelling argument in his favor. He tore up the Cardinals 22nd ranked (27th vs. the pass) in 1992?

Irvin was the leader on those cowboys teams.

I'm not an expert on the history of the Cowboys but just because he was the loudest doesn't mean he was the leader. That was Emmitt's team and he earned it. Emmitt was the face of the franchise, league MVP and alltime leader in rushing. Michael Irvin was the Keyshawn Johnson of the 90's. I don't mean that as a slight toward Irvin either.

KJ is 6' 3", 212 lbs.
MI is 6' 2", 207 lbs.

KJ has 814, 10,571 and 64 in 11 seasons.
MI has 750, 11,904 and 65 in 12 seasons.

Each had 100+ receptions once in their career.
Each had 10+ td's in a season once.

Both had average speed, good hands and a willingness to go over the middle and get first downs. Both are very outspoken and even abrasive.

Both have been to multiple pro bowls and both have been on Super Bowl winners.

Is Keyshawn even worth mentioning in a HOF discussion? I don't think he's as good as Irvin, but I don't think there's a huge difference between the two either.

Oh by the way irvin had a field day on Deon Sanders that day.

Yes, one of the rare times that the Cowboys lost in the playoffs just happened to coincide with Irvin's biggest playoff performance. Is there any chance that SF might have had a gameplan in that regard? Maybe putting an extra guy in the box to slow down Emmitt and taking their chances with Irvin?

He had multiple TD's in playoff games.

True, but he also had 0 td's in 11 of 16 career playoff games.

He set an NFL record for 11 straight 100yd games in the 1995 season.

Actually, he had 7 straight 100 yard games that year and 11 overall. I'll give him that though, he had 1 or 2 really dominant years, like I mentioned before, but so have guys like Herman Moore.

The only question i would raise is why both he and bullet bob hayes previously made the final 6 on the ballots and didn't recieve 80% of the vote?

I was thinking along the same lines but I wonder what happened between the last two years and this year for Irvin to get in? How is Michael Irvin considered by the "experts" to be the best WR the Cowboys have ever had?

 

[Lorenzo]

That would be me and I still haven't heard a compelling argument in his favor. He tore up the Cardinals 22nd ranked (27th vs. the pass) in 1992?
I'm not an expert on the history of the Cowboys but just because he was the loudest doesn't mean he was the leader. That was Emmitt's team and he earned it. Emmitt was the face of the franchise, league MVP and alltime leader in rushing. Michael Irvin was the Keyshawn Johnson of the 90's. I don't mean that as a slight toward Irvin either.

KJ is 6' 3", 212 lbs.
MI is 6' 2", 207 lbs.

KJ has 814, 10,571 and 64 in 11 seasons.
MI has 750, 11,904 and 65 in 12 seasons.

Each had 100+ receptions once in their career.
Each had 10+ td's in a season once.

Both had average speed, good hands and a willingness to go over the middle and get first downs. Both are very outspoken and even abrasive.

Both have been to multiple pro bowls and both have been on Super Bowl winners.

Is Keyshawn even worth mentioning in a HOF discussion? I don't think he's as good as Irvin, but I don't think there's a huge difference between the two either.
Yes, one of the rare times that the Cowboys lost in the playoffs just happened to coincide with Irvin's biggest playoff performance. Is there any chance that SF might have had a gameplan in that regard? Maybe putting an extra guy in the box to slow down Emmitt and taking their chances with Irvin?
True, but he also had 0 td's in 11 of 16 career playoff games.
Actually, he had 7 straight 100 yard games that year and 11 overall. I'll give him that though, he had 1 or 2 really dominant years, like I mentioned before, but so have guys like Herman Moore.
I was thinking along the same lines but I wonder what happened between the last two years and this year for Irvin to get in? How is Michael Irvin considered by the "experts" to be the best WR the Cowboys have ever had?

that's a nice breakdown. I don't understand because you say you don't know about dallas.....yet you have all of those stats. Maybe you are looking too much at stats and not what took place on the field. keyshawn has a superbowl ring i think. anyway...... as far as emmitt being the face of the franchise you couldn't be more wrong. Maybe after troy and irvin retired that was the case. and you said it best that you aren't an expert on the history of the cowboys. The best thing about Irvin was his leadership. He was the emotional leader of those superbowl teams. I watched every single cowboys game and that was clear to me. Emmitt is great, troy is great as well. But Irvin was the leader. As i said before i would equate him to ray lewis.......if you can relate to that. I don't understand the arguement here. Emmitt was never a vocal leader for the cowboys and he set the rushing record long after Irvin was gone. Irvin deserved to be a first ballot HOF. He wasn't called the playmaker for nothing. Having said all of this, the cowboys of the 90's will always be linked by the triplets. Not one was more important than the other and anytime one was gone so was the team. When troy missed games they lost. When emmitt held out they lost. When irvin was suspended for off-field reasons in 96' they never recovered. All three are where they belong....only time keeps emmitt waiting.

 

[Southpaw]

I wonder if the " Televison personality " factor didn't clinch it for him. I still wonder about Howie Long and figure his televison analyst job had a lot to do with it. The Hall of Fame has become a TV media event and maybe it helps to have a current TV "face" on the list. Maybe Phil Simms and Sean Salisbury have a shot.

 

[blindseyed]

I wonder if the " Televison personality " factor didn't clinch it for him. I still wonder about Howie Long and figure his televison analyst job had a lot to do with it. The Hall of Fame has become a TV media event and maybe it helps to have a current TV "face" on the list. Maybe Phil Simms and Sean Salisbury have a shot.

Oohh we can only dare to dream!

 

[Russ Smith]

Would you please elaborate on why you believe this? I think Irvin was good but not dominant. I think most of his numbers were accumulated because he benefitted from such a well-rounded offense. If Emmitt wasn't churning out the yards and td's, then Aikman was spreading the ball around to guys like Novachek and Harper. A defense couldn't double any one receiver because Aikman would gladly go to the guy with single coverage. That's the thing, if a defense wanted to shut down Irvin I don't think it was too much of an issue to do so.

Nobody hates Irvin any more than me but people forget his TD numbers were held down by Dallas' system that ran the ball so much in the redzone. Irvin was the prototype big physical WR would have been fabulous near the goalline but they always ran. That's why Emmitt had so many rushing TD's and why Aikman's passing Td numbers were never great.

One of the reasons why Jerry Rice caught so many TD's is the 49ers threw the ball more in the redzone than anybody else in that era.

I don't think Irvin was a HOF player on his own but he got in because of the team he was on.

 

[moklerman]

Maybe it's just harder with WR's but my basic litmus test is a simple yes or no to the question "Should (player x) be in the hall of fame?". Emmitt: yes. Favre: yes. Rice: yes. Unitas, Marino, Payton, Sanders, etc. If you have to think about it or try and justify it, I think you've already answered the question.

I don't understand because you say you don't know about dallas.....yet you have all of those stats.

I didn't know them, I just looked them up to try and research how Irvin looked on paper and how he compared statistically to his contemporaries.

as far as emmitt being the face of the franchise you couldn't be more wrong.

I can see that you're adament about this but I just don't see how it can be the case. Smith was there before Irvin, led the league in rushing Irvin's first three years as a Cowboy, won the MVP in 1993 and in Irivin's career year of 1995, Emmitt had 1700+rushing yards and 25 TD's to set the single season record. Emmitt's face and jersey were a lot more common in terms of marketing as well. I believe you believe what you're saying and although I admit I'm not a Cowboys historian, I still remember Emmitt being all over the place and synonymous with "Cowboys".

Irvin deserved to be a first ballot HOF.

I've already shown that he doesn't deserve it based on his numbers. He didn't have a spectacular postseason career either. He didn't play for a very long time either so longevity's out. As far as I can tell, he didn't do anything particularly remarkable, innovative or groundbreaking either. I can wholeheartedly see putting him in the Cowboys ring of honor but I don't see how he should be 1 of 18 WR's in the Hall of Fame.

I'm still having a hard time getting past the idea that Emmitt only became a leader of the Cowboys after Irvin and Aikman retired. Maybe he became more vocal, but that team was his from day 1 if you ask me.

 

[Pariah]

I've already shown that he doesn't deserve it based on his numbers.

Congratulations, then. You've answered your own question.

I'll stand by my assertion that Irvin is a HoF WR (lo and behold--I'm right! ), and Monk isn't.

Disclaimer: This by no means endorses Irvin as a HoF person.

 

[lobo]

Monk played for a long time--that's why his stats are up there. He was a very good WR that played for a long time, he was never, IMO, particularly "great."

Irvin, for all of his faults as a person, was dominant. He was a great WR in his day.

Irvin belongs in the HOF. Monk is borderline.

JMHO.

both should be in .....monk was an oustanding receiver and deserves to be in....so was irvin

 

[moklerman]

I'll stand by my assertion that Irvin is a HoF WR (lo and behold--I'm right! ), and Monk isn't.

The question isn't whether Irvin is "in" the HOF, it's whether he deserves it. Irvin in and Tagliabue out shows just how worthless the current voters are.

 

[Pariah]

The question isn't whether Irvin "is" in the HOF, it's whether he deserves it. Irvin in and Tagliabue out shows just how worthless the current voters are.

Clearly there's a case for him both ways. I guess you can't please all the people all the time. I think he's worthy, and it wouldn't even be an issue if he weren't such a royal a-hole.

 

[Lorenzo]

Maybe it's just harder with WR's but my basic litmus test is a simple yes or no to the question "Should (player x) be in the hall of fame?". Emmitt: yes. Favre: yes. Rice: yes. Unitas, Marino, Payton, Sanders, etc. If you have to think about it or try and justify it, I think you've already answered the question.
I didn't know them, I just looked them up to try and research how Irvin looked on paper and how he compared statistically to his contemporaries.
I can see that you're adament about this but I just don't see how it can be the case. Smith was there before Irvin, led the league in rushing Irvin's first three years as a Cowboy, won the MVP in 1993 and in Irivin's career year of 1995, Emmitt had 1700+rushing yards and 25 TD's to set the single season record. Emmitt's face and jersey were a lot more common in terms of marketing as well. I believe you believe what you're saying and although I admit I'm not a Cowboys historian, I still remember Emmitt being all over the place and synonymous with "Cowboys".
I've already shown that he doesn't deserve it based on his numbers. He didn't have a spectacular postseason career either. He didn't play for a very long time either so longevity's out. As far as I can tell, he didn't do anything particularly remarkable, innovative or groundbreaking either. I can wholeheartedly see putting him in the Cowboys ring of honor but I don't see how he should be 1 of 18 WR's in the Hall of Fame.

I'm still having a hard time getting past the idea that Emmitt only became a leader of the Cowboys after Irvin and Aikman retired. Maybe he became more vocal, but that team was his from day 1 if you ask me.

Let me start this one by saying i admire your opinion in which you are entitled to. You named off some players there that irvin isn't at their level at least statistically. None of the players that made the hall this go around would be in based on the list you just gave. Bruce Matthews is the only dominant one.....lucky for him he doesn't have to worry about yardage and TD's. The HOF isn't all about stats........results beyond stats come into play as well. And unless you have played on a pass happy team, outrageous WR stats have traditionally been hard to accumulate. Drew Pearson and Bob Hayes are two cowboys that aren't in maybe because of those reasons. Two guys that are in: Stallworth and the Swann(spelling) don't have mind boggling numbers either, but they are in because of their impact on their respective superbowl teams. you can say they had better SB performances than Irvin. You can also make the same arguement with those two(that you are making with irvin) because they were surrounded by other HOFers on those teams. I did research the 11 straight 100yd games for irvin and that's what they gave on the NFLN on the america's game series. Irvin was drafted by the cowboys before aikman and smith by the late great Tom Landry. Ironically, Jimmy johnson his NC coach came to the cowboys after irvin's rookie year. I have watched almost every cowboys game since i was a young child. Irvin was the emotional leader of that team. When you look at the ravens who would you say is the leader of that team? Well as good as smith and aikman were, it was irvin giving all of the pep talks and picking up the spirits of the defense and the offensive line on the sidelines. In fact aikman rarely talked unless he was pissed. Emmitt talked mainly when he was celebrating or trash talking. When the cowboys were winning superbowls there was not one player that was the face of the franchise. It was the triplets. It just depends on which cowboys fan you talk to. Troy aikman was probably the most popular......at least he led the cowboys in jersey sales for a long while. When irvin and aikman retired, smith clearly took over with his quest to break the record. Obviously I'm a cowboys fan and i'm going to say irvin should have been a first ballot HOFer. But there is no question that all of the triplets will be together in the hall. The HOF has always rewarded dynasty teams. You should watch the america's game series on the NFLN and try to watch the 1992 cowboys team. It will fill you in on all of the cowboys history in the early 90's and tell you more about that cowboys team.

 

[Lorenzo]

Nobody hates Irvin any more than me but people forget his TD numbers were held down by Dallas' system that ran the ball so much in the redzone. Irvin was the prototype big physical WR would have been fabulous near the goalline but they always ran. That's why Emmitt had so many rushing TD's and why Aikman's passing Td numbers were never great.

One of the reasons why Jerry Rice caught so many TD's is the 49ers threw the ball more in the redzone than anybody else in that era.

I don't think Irvin was a HOF player on his own but he got in because of the team he was on.

You are exactly dead on. Forget about TD's and yards. I can recall countless third down conversions that irvin and aikman had just on petty quick slants and out patterns. The timing between aikman and irvin was wonderful and comparable to other great duo's eventhough the stats don't show it. If the cowboys threw it more inside the 10, irvin could have had more TD's. The cowboys were extremely balanced on offense. They rarely had to throw the ball for more than 250yds in a game because they usually rushed for 150+. Which is noticeable when you see that irvin and emmitt had career years in 95'. Another reason irvin's numbers were higher in 95 is because harper was gone. The redzone was renamed the emmitt zone because the cowboys rarely had to throw the ball for TD's. Many of irvin's TD's were longer than 10yds. Unlike many teams in today's nfl.....the cowboys rarely threw the ball inside the five unless it was to johnston or novacek on play action.

 

[Pariah]

If you have to think about it or try and justify it, I think you've already answered the question.

I just saw this.

I don't have to think about it for Irvin--IMO, he deserves to be in because from where I sit, he played like a HoF WR. The only reason people are justifying it in this thread is because you asked us to.

What if I asked you to justify Marino? You'd be caught justifying his HoF induction.

 

[az jam]

IMO both Monk and Irvin should be in the Hall of Fame. I'm not a Cowboy fan but do recall Irvin being a hell of a big play maker. He would do everything to catch the ball including pushing off. He was all about winning. He was like Lynn Swann was with the Steelers; guys that would make the big plays. He didn't deserve to go in on the first year ballot but making it this in (I think) the third year makes sense to me.

 

[Lars the Red]

What's funny as I read through this thread is the obvious element that 'America's Team' brings to the debate. With the stats that Moklerman brings to the table, it's hard to consider Irvin worthy if he were playing for a lesser team. His stats are hardly eye popping. It can be argued that numerous other WR had a greater impact on league in many of the seasons Irvin was playing. His main asset is he played for the Cowboys.

You can pull out a ton of names of guys who had some pretty solid numbers, almost identical to Irvin, and I'm not sure they would be consider HOF worthy. Think of a guy like Gary Clark:

-In 11 seasons he gains 10,856 receiving yards.
-65 TDs
-4 Pro Bowls


Very similar numbers in other areas, such as 10 ten catagories, but I think it's highly unlikely that Clark will be a HOF'er.

Mark Clayton:

-Huge numbers in TDs (84)
-5 Pro Bowls
-6 years top 10 in TDs

Henry Ellard:

-top 5 All-Time in receiving yards
-top 15 in receptions
-top 20 in yards from scrimmage

Irving Fryer

-84 TDs
-5 seasons of a thousand yards or better
-12,785 yards
-6 Pro Bowls



If you have enough time you can go on forever finding players with as good or better stats who aren't in, or aren't being consider top contenders for the HOF. Irvin made it more on his self promotion, and the hype of the Cowboys than he did on individual ability.

 

[Russ Smith]

If you have enough time you can go on forever finding players with as good or better stats who aren't in, or aren't being consider top contenders for the HOF. Irvin made it more on his self promotion, and the hype of the Cowboys than he did on individual ability.

Yep he made it because he was a key part of a great team.

 

[Skkorpion]

If this wasn't the offseason, I'd dump this entire thread. Any reference to Michael Irvin pollutes this board. It wastes bandwidth and attracts cowturd apologists like lorenzotexan.

Irvin is a maggot.

 

[Lorenzo]

If this wasn't the offseason, I'd dump this entire thread. Any reference to Michael Irvin pollutes this board. It wastes bandwidth and attracts cowturd apologists like lorenzotexan.

Irvin is a maggot.

the sad thing is the thread wasn't started by a cowturd.
I'm a lost cowturd in arizona. There are a lot of them here. The cowboys/cardinals game was like a homecoming game. I guess so is the case with a few other nfl teams when they come here as well.

 

[Skkorpion]

Hey, lorenzo, you're not obnoxious and you've done your homework. You are welcome here.

 

[Lorenzo]

Hey, lorenzo, you're not obnoxious and you've done your homework. You are welcome here.

thank you very much. eventhough i'm an obvious homer for all things Dallas/Arlington.....I'm here to talk to my fellow people from arizona. I've lived here for 2 years now and can say i have very much enjoyed it. I respect the true arizona cardinals fans. It's easy to jump on a wagon as most people do. You guys should be proud of your young and upcoming team and the fine new stadium.