Should Irvin be in the Hall?

[moklerman]

The HOF isn't all about stats........results beyond stats come into play as well.

I agree and I'm not basing my opinion on stat's alone. I don't see Irvin as deserving on any level though. Stat's, longevity, character, postseason impact, groundbreaker or innovator, I don't see him as HOF worthy.

but they are in because of their impact on their respective superbowl teams.

Exactly. Irvin doesn't have a "he's in because" and that's my problem with his selection.

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.

Here's a link to the NFL's website/recordbook re: receiving records. I'm deferring to their site's accuracy so I stand corrected if it's wrong. http://www.nfl.com/history/randf/records/indiv/receiving

Irvin was drafted by the cowboys before aikman and smith by the late great Tom Landry.

I didn't realize this and erroneously stated earlier that Smith was already established by the time Irvin got there in 1991. I had it all wrong. Irvin didn't really start producing until Smith and the o-line were instilled in 1990-91.

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.

This is the sort of thing where you lose me. Smith was the showboating, trash-talker and Irvin was the inspirational, emotional "leader" of the Cowboys???

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.

I can't really forget about the statistical aspect when discussing the HOF. It isn't everything but it's a substantial part of making it in. Arguing what someone would have done doesn't really hold a lot of water for me either. Tony Nathan "would have" put up many 1,000 yard seasons if Marino didn't throw the ball so much. But he did, so he didn't. 65 td's is what Irvin got. If Emmitt wasn't there or if they ran a different offense he likely could have had more. They didn't, so he didn't.

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

Ah, but you see, I could easily rattle off 10 reasons justifying his induction if asked "why?". I wouldn't need to rationalize his induction with immeasurables and intangibles and I wouldn't have any hesitation about whether or not he should be in. A poor example for you point I think. Stallworth would be a better analogy in my opinion although they didn't play in the same era. JS isn't a no-brainer to me either and I'm less familiar with the '70's than I am with the '90's so it would be hard for me to really comment on him. I think he fits the mold of "good receiver on a great team" though.

He would do everything to catch the ball including pushing off.

I think they should put that on his bust!

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.

It doesn't make sense to me. I've brought this up already but what happened between the last two years where he wasn't voted in and this year? Did he get better with one more year of retirement?

Irvin made it more on his self promotion, and the hype of the Cowboys than he did on individual ability.

That's the most believable statement I've heard so far.

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

Ricky Proehl was a key part of a great team. That doesn't mean he belongs in the Hall of Fame. An extreme example, I know, but we're talking about an individual honor not a team honor.

 

[john h]

Nope...

I never have been a Cowboy fan but since Jerry Jones is from Arkansas all he Cowboy fans games are shown here. I watched Irvin his entire career. I would without question put him in the Hall of Fame and as I say I am no Cowboy fan.

 

[football karma]

When I look at the thread title out of the corner of my eye -- it looks like it says "Should Irvin be in Hell"

I vote yes

 

[Dback Jon]

When I look at the thread title out of the corner of my eye -- it looks like it says "Should Irvin be in Hell"

I vote yes

You're not the only one who read it that way.

 

[LoyaltyisaCurse]

Irvin being voted in is a disgrace...This is just a matter of him riding the coattails of Emmit and Troy into the hall...

I can think of quite a few recievers who deserve to be there over him...

 

[Lorenzo]

I agree and I'm not basing my opinion on stat's alone. I don't see Irvin as deserving on any level though. Stat's, longevity, character, postseason impact, groundbreaker or innovator, I don't see him as HOF worthy.
Exactly. Irvin doesn't have a "he's in because" and that's my problem with his selection.
Here's a link to the NFL's website/recordbook re: receiving records. I'm deferring to their site's accuracy so I stand corrected if it's wrong. http://www.nfl.com/history/randf/records/indiv/receiving
I didn't realize this and erroneously stated earlier that Smith was already established by the time Irvin got there in 1991. I had it all wrong. Irvin didn't really start producing until Smith and the o-line were instilled in 1990-91.
This is the sort of thing where you lose me. Smith was the showboating, trash-talker and Irvin was the inspirational, emotional "leader" of the Cowboys???
I can't really forget about the statistical aspect when discussing the HOF. It isn't everything but it's a substantial part of making it in. Arguing what someone would have done doesn't really hold a lot of water for me either. Tony Nathan "would have" put up many 1,000 yard seasons if Marino didn't throw the ball so much. But he did, so he didn't. 65 td's is what Irvin got. If Emmitt wasn't there or if they ran a different offense he likely could have had more. They didn't, so he didn't.
Ah, but you see, I could easily rattle off 10 reasons justifying his induction if asked "why?". I wouldn't need to rationalize his induction with immeasurables and intangibles and I wouldn't have any hesitation about whether or not he should be in. A poor example for you point I think. Stallworth would be a better analogy in my opinion although they didn't play in the same era. JS isn't a no-brainer to me either and I'm less familiar with the '70's than I am with the '90's so it would be hard for me to really comment on him. I think he fits the mold of "good receiver on a great team" though.
I think they should put that on his bust!
It doesn't make sense to me. I've brought this up already but what happened between the last two years where he wasn't voted in and this year? Did he get better with one more year of retirement?
That's the most believable statement I've heard so far.
Ricky Proehl was a key part of a great team. That doesn't mean he belongs in the Hall of Fame. An extreme example, I know, but we're talking about an individual honor not a team honor.

I admire you for your opinion. But irvin is already in the hall. Proehl?? well it's clear that you are set in your opinion that irvin was not a great football player. Irvin was the leader......yes the leader.....of that cowboys team in the 90's. You said it best yourself that you aren't up to speed with the history of the cowboys, and you reflect it in your posts. Take it from a cowboys fan who doesn't miss a game. You may not hear about it, but emmitt talked as much trash as irvin. Why do you think the NFL made a take off the helmet rule? I try to be as fair as possible, despite my cowboys roots. This is the way i look at it. Irvin is one of the triplets. If you take one of those 3 away from the cowboys, that team wasn't the same. That team one 3 superbowls. It's fairly simple to think that people would consider him.

 

[moklerman]

Proehl was just an example of a guy that was tough as nails, willing to go over the middle and always got the first down...but that that type of player doesn't deserve to go into the HOF(edit: on that alone. That attitude is exactly what the Hall needs, but it's only part of what a player should have done to get in).

And, while I was never a Cowboys fan per se, I hope I haven't given the impression that I know absolutely nothing about the Cowboys. I'm just not a Cowboys expert. I've asked a couple of the Cowboys fans that I know and they usually put Irvin 3rd in terms of relevance to the triplets. My impression of the situation, as a very casual Cowboys watcher of the period, is the same.

It may be coincidence but Irvin's career didn't really start until Smith got there. Even then, he only had a 2 year span of true excellence on the field. His other 10 years in the league were very unnotworthy. I think there is a very strong case against Irvin being in the Hall and I apologize for being unswayed thus far. By starting this thread it was my hope to be enlightened by some perspecitive or information that made it plausible for Irvin to go into the HOF. A few Card's fans have offered opinions and they alternate between definitely not to definitely.

The (paraphrased) reasons I've seen for Irvin to be in the Hall are: Don't look at the stat's, he was a playmaker(not a TD playmaker), he was willing to go over the middle, he was one of the triplets and he was the "leader" of the Cowboys. Even if I agreed with all of it, it doesn't add up, collectively or independently, to enshrinement in the Hall of Fame.

All of this, of course, is my opinion. It annoy's me to have to qualify this but apparently I do. "He's already in so it doesn't matter" isn't what this conversation is about. I know he's in and I know nothing I say will change that. Debating the point is entertaining for me(and others I hope) and this seems to be a good place for it. No beer bottles to be bashed over someone's head and no shouting matches. So please indulge me hypothetical conversations. It's an entertaining part of being a sports fan. Also, it's a very weak defense of Irvin's induction. Unless of course we're all going to start singing the praises of sports writers.

 

[Lorenzo]

Proehl was just an example of a guy that was tough as nails, willing to go over the middle and always got the first down...but that that type of player doesn't deserve to go into the HOF(edit: on that alone. That attitude is exactly what the Hall needs, but it's only part of what a player should have done to get in).

And, while I was never a Cowboys fan per se, I hope I haven't given the impression that I know absolutely nothing about the Cowboys. I'm just not a Cowboys expert. I've asked a couple of the Cowboys fans that I know and they usually put Irvin 3rd in terms of relevance to the triplets. My impression of the situation, as a very casual Cowboys watcher of the period, is the same.

It may be coincidence but Irvin's career didn't really start until Smith got there. Even then, he only had a 2 year span of true excellence on the field. His other 10 years in the league were very unnotworthy. I think there is a very strong case against Irvin being in the Hall and I apologize for being unswayed thus far. By starting this thread it was my hope to be enlightened by some perspecitive or information that made it plausible for Irvin to go into the HOF. A few Card's fans have offered opinions and they alternate between definitely not to definitely.

The (paraphrased) reasons I've seen for Irvin to be in the Hall are: Don't look at the stat's, he was a playmaker(not a TD playmaker), he was willing to go over the middle, he was one of the triplets and he was the "leader" of the Cowboys. Even if I agreed with all of it, it doesn't add up, collectively or independently, to enshrinement in the Hall of Fame.

All of this, of course, is my opinion. It annoy's me to have to qualify this but apparently I do. "He's already in so it doesn't matter" isn't what this conversation is about. I know he's in and I know nothing I say will change that. Debating the point is entertaining for me(and others I hope) and this seems to be a good place for it. No beer bottles to be bashed over someone's head and no shouting matches. So please indulge me hypothetical conversations. It's an entertaining part of being a sports fan. Also, it's a very weak defense of Irvin's induction. Unless of course we're all going to start singing the praises of sports writers.

Irvin doesnt stack up to rice and some of the other big names that you mentioned. You have said before that if you have to think about it.....he shouldn't be in. But there are several players in the hof that people have had to think about over time. Every Year voters make their presentations and try to influence other voters. Not everyone has the stats and rings that smith and rice do. Tell me which one of these that just made the hof was a sure thing? only bruce matthews imo...
Now ive stated different things about irvin in which i believe makes him worthy. It isn't only one paticular thing.....he did many things for the cowboys. If they don't win 3 SBs then his stats alone probably don't get him in. He wasn't just a good wr' for 2 years as you say. He came to dallas in 88. He started on a team that was very bad then played with a rookie the next season. Thruout that time period i always thought that irvin was the lone bright spot on the team as even aikman looked aweful early. after trading walker.....the cowboys were able to put together a team loaded with great players. In 1990 the cowboys got emmitt and by then the team was much better than the year before. In 1991 the cowboys finished strong beating the redskins, but lost aikman to injury. We saw what happened when the cowboys started 0-2 in 1993. The cowboys also lost the games that season in which irvin or aikman were injured. The team was never the same after irvin's off the field problems. The team struggled when irvin was suspended. after 1996 the cowboys were mediocre and all of the triplets were not at the same level as before. Maybe they get all of the glory......thats just the way it is i guess. But that cowboys team was loaded at almost every position. When you watch those SBs there are so many other great players that deserve recognition. But the triplets have always got most of the glory. Hence the reason they will be the first HOFers of those teams.

 

[moklerman]

Thanks for the back and forth lorenzotexan, I admire your dedication and defense of Irvin and the Cowboys. Ultimately you're right, there are many guys in the HOF that are head-scratchers so focusing solely on Irvin is unfair by me. However, I'm not the least bit interested in starting a "who's really worthy" campaign so I'll just say congratulations. The Cowboys' triplets are forever together in the HOF.

 

[Lorenzo]

Thanks for the back and forth lorenzotexan, I admire your dedication and defense of Irvin and the Cowboys. Ultimately you're right, there are many guys in the HOF that are head-scratchers so focusing solely on Irvin is unfair by me. However, I'm not the least bit interested in starting a "who's really worthy" campaign so I'll just say congratulations. The Cowboys' triplets are forever together in the HOF.

I will admit that my judgement is clouded by the huge homer that i am. I've always thought that irvin was the heart and sole of that team. His play and leadership on the field was a huge part of those SB teams. His stats and and play will never touch a guy like rice. But he is deserving if you are going to reward great players on great teams. Because of all of the off/field problems and the amount of cowboys that can be considered some are going to be left off......in paticular the one's on that great OL. Larry Allen should make it though. And i think it was the consensus that irvin was one that was going to make it eventually. Anyway like i said i admire your opinion. Like Aikman said.....if i wasn't a cowboy or a fan, irvin is a guy i probably wouldn't care to listen to. Unlike T.O., irvin was a great Teammate and that's why so many fans and players liked him.