So he used Cocaine. Nobody, especially in the NFL, is perfect. The fact that half the time Football commentators say that a reciever is "like Michael Irvin" when they talk about the physical ball hawking reciever that he totally defined shows he's deserving enough to be in the hall. The only reason he wasn't inducted two years ago was his coke habit, which had nothing to do with his 11904 Yards, 750 catches, 65 touchdown receptions averaging 15.9 yards a catch, five Pro Bowl selections, and three Super Bowl rings.
Michael Irvin's also in the Hiring Prostitutes Hall of Fame.
The truth is (a) while he was a premier receiver, he owes those three rings and thus his enshrinement to Emmit and Troy. He is comparable to a modern reciever like Chad Johnson who puts up good numbers but doesn't have a shot at the Hall unless he wins some rings. (B) Andre Reed was a better reciever than Michael Irvin, he just never won any Super Bowls. (Though as much as I hate to admit it, Emmit was better than Thurman Thomas, who I think is a much better man.)
Lawrence Taylor used Coke and hired prostitutes too. He also belongs in the Hall of Fame. I love the argument that one of the triplets owes his success to the others. People who harbor an anti-Cowboys bais make it all the time, though more often against Emmitt Smith in my experience. Someone at one point has argued to me about all three that they owe their success to the others and therefore do not deserve enshrinement in the hall. So by that logic, none of the 90's Cowboys should go, and actually the entire success of the Cowboys team was really hollow and no one should give it any creedence in football history. Andre Reed was a great reciever, and he will be in the Hall of Fame. And yeah he's not in right now because A) Has no rings and B) did not define the position the way that Irvin did.
Lawrence Taylor was a far more dominating player at his position than Irvin was at his. Lawrence Taylor was, as a linebacker, on the level of Barry Sanders or Walter Payton as a running back. I think Troy and Emmit could have held their own on any team and put up amazing numbers and won playoff games (though they wouldn't have dominated like the Cowboys teams did). I do not think Michael Irvin did. Heck, I think Moose Johnston was a better tight end in the same era than Irvin was a reciever. And Irvin only defined the position in the sense that he created the look-at-me prima donna variation of the position that exists now. His on-field skills were not revolutionary. Jerry Rice TRULY defines the position as a player.
It doesn't matter that LT was one of the greatest linebackers ever. If cocaine and prostitutes are going to disqualify someone, then he should be disqualified. Anything else is a double standard. And yet every time that Michael Irvin was removed from the triplet mix, Aikman and Smith weren't able to hold their own. Look how much the team suffered during his suspension, look how they collapsed when he was injured in the 96 Divisional playoff against Carolina, watch how the Cowboys fell apart after his injury in Philly. It wasn't just the fact that when it came down to the line he was always the one to get in position to make the plays. Irvin was the emotional and spiritual leader of that franchise. When he left the Cowboys the heart of the team went with him, and the franchise STILL hasn't recovered from the gap in leadership that he left. He was a very important part of that Dynasty, as important as either Aikman or Smith. All three deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. Moose Johnson was an incredible fullback and he was also important to the Dynasty. May have been the best fullback playing in his decade. Sadly, you don't get in the Hall of Fame for blocking. See how long it takes most Offensive Linemen to get in. Irvin did in fact define the agressive, forceful posession reciever that is so popular in the NFL these days. Again, you can listen to any commentator today and hear them use the words "Michael Irvin like" or "Michael Irvin style" reciever. That is what is called defining. No one is a Jerry Rice like reciever. Only Jerry Rice is a Jerry Rice like reciever. He can't define anything because the man wasn't human. He was the greatest reciever ever to play the game, possibly the greatest football player ever. There won't be anyone like him again in our lifetimes.
I think if Marvin Harrison continues to play like he has for another 5 years he can easily be talked about in the same breath as Jerry Rice. Of course, that's a big if. AND the Colts will need to win another championship or two to make it a fair comparison.
And I'm not saying that cocaine and hookers disqualifies Irvin from the Hall of Fame. (I'm just using them to idly provoke you.) I'm saying that without three rings he'd never have gotten in. The Hall of Fame committee weighs championships heavily in their assessment of players as Hall-worthy, and if I was fantasy drafting that era I'd take Andre Reed over Michael Irvin every single time.
Because of our own personal biases I'm likely underrating Irvin and you're likly overrating him, so he's probably somewhere inbetween.
Dunno if I'd put Harrison in the same league as Rice. He's the best playing right now, but no one is Jerry Rice, even when you discount that he played at a high level till he was like 80. Yeah, I know you're getting my goat. But excuses to talk football are fun. Would Irvin had gone to the hall with no rings? I have no clue. I know that Lance Alworth, Charlie Joiner and Paul Warfield all had similar stats to Irvin and went. Andre Reed will go in with no rings, and his stats, while better than Irvin's, aren't phenomenanly better, especially when you consider Reed played six years longer. Pure stat wise Irvin is in the top 10 in nearly every category, and only trails Rice when you get into playoff records. You are correct though we're both overrating and underrating him. As a triplet, he's like a minor deity to me, so my views are always going to be colored. I'm just happy he's in the Hall of Fame.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-04 01:40 am (UTC)Oh wait...That is totally unrelated.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-04 01:49 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-05 05:20 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-05 05:30 am (UTC)The truth is (a) while he was a premier receiver, he owes those three rings and thus his enshrinement to Emmit and Troy. He is comparable to a modern reciever like Chad Johnson who puts up good numbers but doesn't have a shot at the Hall unless he wins some rings.
(B) Andre Reed was a better reciever than Michael Irvin, he just never won any Super Bowls. (Though as much as I hate to admit it, Emmit was better than Thurman Thomas, who I think is a much better man.)
(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-05 06:02 am (UTC)I love the argument that one of the triplets owes his success to the others. People who harbor an anti-Cowboys bais make it all the time, though more often against Emmitt Smith in my experience. Someone at one point has argued to me about all three that they owe their success to the others and therefore do not deserve enshrinement in the hall. So by that logic, none of the 90's Cowboys should go, and actually the entire success of the Cowboys team was really hollow and no one should give it any creedence in football history.
Andre Reed was a great reciever, and he will be in the Hall of Fame. And yeah he's not in right now because A) Has no rings and B) did not define the position the way that Irvin did.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-05 06:09 am (UTC)I think Troy and Emmit could have held their own on any team and put up amazing numbers and won playoff games (though they wouldn't have dominated like the Cowboys teams did). I do not think Michael Irvin did. Heck, I think Moose Johnston was a better tight end in the same era than Irvin was a reciever.
And Irvin only defined the position in the sense that he created the look-at-me prima donna variation of the position that exists now. His on-field skills were not revolutionary. Jerry Rice TRULY defines the position as a player.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-05 02:41 pm (UTC)And yet every time that Michael Irvin was removed from the triplet mix, Aikman and Smith weren't able to hold their own. Look how much the team suffered during his suspension, look how they collapsed when he was injured in the 96 Divisional playoff against Carolina, watch how the Cowboys fell apart after his injury in Philly. It wasn't just the fact that when it came down to the line he was always the one to get in position to make the plays. Irvin was the emotional and spiritual leader of that franchise. When he left the Cowboys the heart of the team went with him, and the franchise STILL hasn't recovered from the gap in leadership that he left. He was a very important part of that Dynasty, as important as either Aikman or Smith. All three deserve to be in the Hall of Fame.
Moose Johnson was an incredible fullback and he was also important to the Dynasty. May have been the best fullback playing in his decade. Sadly, you don't get in the Hall of Fame for blocking. See how long it takes most Offensive Linemen to get in.
Irvin did in fact define the agressive, forceful posession reciever that is so popular in the NFL these days. Again, you can listen to any commentator today and hear them use the words "Michael Irvin like" or "Michael Irvin style" reciever. That is what is called defining.
No one is a Jerry Rice like reciever. Only Jerry Rice is a Jerry Rice like reciever. He can't define anything because the man wasn't human. He was the greatest reciever ever to play the game, possibly the greatest football player ever. There won't be anyone like him again in our lifetimes.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-05 08:13 pm (UTC)And I'm not saying that cocaine and hookers disqualifies Irvin from the Hall of Fame. (I'm just using them to idly provoke you.) I'm saying that without three rings he'd never have gotten in. The Hall of Fame committee weighs championships heavily in their assessment of players as Hall-worthy, and if I was fantasy drafting that era I'd take Andre Reed over Michael Irvin every single time.
Because of our own personal biases I'm likely underrating Irvin and you're likly overrating him, so he's probably somewhere inbetween.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-05 08:40 pm (UTC)Yeah, I know you're getting my goat. But excuses to talk football are fun.
Would Irvin had gone to the hall with no rings? I have no clue. I know that Lance Alworth, Charlie Joiner and Paul Warfield all had similar stats to Irvin and went. Andre Reed will go in with no rings, and his stats, while better than Irvin's, aren't phenomenanly better, especially when you consider Reed played six years longer. Pure stat wise Irvin is in the top 10 in nearly every category, and only trails Rice when you get into playoff records.
You are correct though we're both overrating and underrating him. As a triplet, he's like a minor deity to me, so my views are always going to be colored. I'm just happy he's in the Hall of Fame.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-05 06:10 am (UTC)Not tight end. Fullback.
Dunno what came over me.