What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Skip Bayless on Michael Irvin (1 Viewer)

UlyssesNorris

Faulknerian Idiot Man-Child.
The Playmaker Gets Played

OK, Bayless is a grade A dillhole. But this is over the top even by his standards.

So, we shouldn't ding Irvin because of his off-the-field indiscretions. But he should be in the Hall because he was a locker-room leader? Got it.

 
I've never seen an idiot like Skip Bayless try so hard to be controversial.It is so deliberate it is sickening.This quote say it all:

Trust me, Aikman wasn't the MVP of those Cowboys teams. Neither was the great Emmitt Smith. No. 88 was.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not sure I agree that Irvin should have been a 1st ballot HOFer, but the bylaws state that off the field issues should not be considered. His argument is that Irvin is so qualified to be a HOFer, that his off the field transgressions must be what kept him out.

In that regard, Rae Carruth's current residence shouldn't be a factor in any consideration he were to receive either (though obviously no argues he is HOF material).

 
I'm not sure I agree that Irvin should have been a 1st ballot HOFer, but the bylaws state that off the field issues should not be considered. His argument is that Irvin is so qualified to be a HOFer, that his off the field transgressions must be what kept him out.

In that regard, Rae Carruth's current residence shouldn't be a factor in any consideration he were to receive either (though obviously no argues he is HOF material).
I completely agree. My beef with this article (well, one of them) is that you can't make that point, then immediately make the case for a player to get in based on his locker-room leadership.
 
This seems to be the main point of the article.

But of course, during his playing days, Irvin was a first-ballot, off-the-field Hall of Shamer. I wrote two books and hundreds of columns about Michael Jerome Irvin's Dallas Cowboys. I'm an expert on his after-hours life of drugs, strippers and unsavory associates.Irvin was one bad man -- in the clubs and the clutch. So flawed as a person, so all-time great as a player. And that's the ongoing problem: Irvin's behavior distorted many a fan's -- and sportswriter's -- view of Irvin's performance. Only if you can look past the cocaine and the babes can you clearly see a receiver who deserved to be in the Hall of Fame at least one year ahead of his quarterback, Aikman.The Hall's bylaws clearly state that on-field performance should be all that matters to voters. If that's the case, how can you exclude for two years in a row the most valuable player on three Super Bowl winners?
 
I'm not sure I agree that Irvin should have been a 1st ballot HOFer, but the bylaws state that off the field issues should not be considered. His argument is that Irvin is so qualified to be a HOFer, that his off the field transgressions must be what kept him out.

In that regard, Rae Carruth's current residence shouldn't be a factor in any consideration he were to receive either (though obviously no argues he is HOF material).
I completely agree. My beef with this article (well, one of them) is that you can't make that point, then immediately make the case for a player to get in based on his locker-room leadership.
Why not?
 
The Playmaker Gets Played

OK, Bayless is a grade A dillhole. But this is over the top even by his standards.

So, we shouldn't ding Irvin because of his off-the-field indiscretions. But he should be in the Hall because he was a locker-room leader? Got it.
If he would get off his lazy butt and recruit more african-american sports writers, this wouldn't be an issue.
 
Irvin as a first-balloter?

Here are all the first-ballot WRs so far:

Raymond Berry

Lance Alworth

Paul Warfield

Steve Largent

The HOF doesn't induct a lot of WRs and they certainly don't do it very often on the first ballot. No way Irvin is in that class.

 
I'm not sure I agree that Irvin should have been a 1st ballot HOFer, but the bylaws state that off the field issues should not be considered. His argument is that Irvin is so qualified to be a HOFer, that his off the field transgressions must be what kept him out.

In that regard, Rae Carruth's current residence shouldn't be a factor in any consideration he were to receive either (though obviously no argues he is HOF material).
I completely agree. My beef with this article (well, one of them) is that you can't make that point, then immediately make the case for a player to get in based on his locker-room leadership.
Why not?
Because both are off-the-field considerations. If you can't take into account a player's off-the-field distractions, why would you give them benefit because of their fiery locker room speeches?
 
I won't argue if Irvin's a frist ballot or not, but he was that team's MVP. He made it tick, in the locker room and on the field. He didn't put up the numbers like Smith but when Irvin retire this team went in the dump rather quickly. :2cents:

 
I'm not a fan of Bayless and I certainly don't agree with everything he says in this article.

But the one thing I can say about Irvin is he was without question, the leader of this team. Aikman and Emmitt were great as was the OL and the D but Irvin was the leader.

And it's not like he was lacking in talent either. IMO, as a WR, he was second only to Rice in his generation. Considering Rice was the best ever, that's not bad.

I don't know if that's enough to put him in the HOF on the first ballot but there's no question he should eventually be in.

I don't want to slam Aikman. I liked him as a player and now as an analyst. He was arguably the most accurate passer of all time but he was rarely among the league leaders in passing stats. Irvin was usually among the league leaders in receiving stats.

I know. I know. Aikman didn't need to pass often because Emmitt behind that OL was always moving the ball. I don't disagree with this. Aikman was great when he was needed.

I'm sure there are more QBs in the HOF than any other position and rightfully so. This is the most important position in football and usually the leader of the offense if not the entire team. Except not in this case. Irvin was the leader of the Dallas Cowboys Superbowl teams. Not Aikman.

Irvin wasn't a great person and remains a loudmouth to this day but he was a great player and a BIG reason the Cowboys won 3 SB in the 90's.

 
Bayless's views got old long ago. Arguing just for the sake of arguing :no:

Don't bother to read his stuff anymore. Irvin does belong in the Hall. Off the field issues is something they take into account, but it'll only delay his entry. Irvin has always wante d to be controversial......what better thing than for the voters to one up him and create a controversy of their own.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
But the one thing I can say about Irvin is he was without question, the leader of this team.
Okay, I'd never heard this before this thread. How so? I mean, other than being the loudest on the team, how was he the leader?
 
If Irvin gets in before Monk.. it's a joke.
Monk was considered a leader on the team, but he didn't yell and scream and go on TV and signal first down every time he made a catch.
 
Everyone knows who Aikman threw to - Michael Irvin. Those Super Bowl XXVII highlights of Troy Aikman will never exclude him. He was on the business end of two touchdown passes, the ones in the first half which set the tone for the Cowboys' 52-17 romp over Buffalo.

And everyone should know, that while Aikman was the undisputed leader on the field - once the game began - Irvin was the team leader in the locker room and off the field, the heart and soul of the first organization to win three Super Bowls in four years.

Two guys, polar opposites, almost from birth, never really wanted to be separated, either. How man times did we hear Irvin say in the off-seasons, if Troy Boy is throwing, I'm practicing. And he didn't just mean organized practices - those Jimmy Johnson "mandatory" voluntary workouts - but also whenever Aikman was there just throwing with the other quarterbacks.

And Aikman, definitely better than most, understood what Irvin meant to his career, especially if you look at his, and the Cowboys' success, once Irvin successfully rehabbed his reconstructed knee by the midway point of the 1990 season. Or look at their struggles when Irvin was suspended for the first five games of the 1996 season. Or what happened to a 3-0 Cowboys team in 1999 when Irvin suffered what would become a career-ending neck injury in the fourth game.

But he knew the score this time. He knew with the Cowboys, in a 10-year Hall of Fame drought, would be hard pressed to get two players selected this time, let alone three. Heck, this would have been an upset if the Cowboys advanced three players into the final six alone. The cards were stacked against him since Aikman was a no-brainer - after all - and Wright was somewhat of a sentimental choice.

Irvin would suffer the consequences.

"That's him, look at him," Cowboys owner Jerry Jones said, more fondly of Irvin than out of pity. "He was set for anything tough. He was genuinely happy for Troy.

"He's right at the cusp (of the Hall of Fame). I think he'll get there."

So do I, and so do several members of the 39-man selection committee. From what I'm told, about the only negative point made during the discussion process in the meeting was that Irvin "pushed off" his entire career. What a petty, short-sighted observation of a guy who caught 750 career passes and 65 career touchdown passes. If that were the case, then the guy should have some pretty tired arms by this stage in his life and the NFL must have some pretty poor officiating in those days to let those "infractions" take place 750 times.

Baloney.

In fact, not an off-field issue was broached, I'm told. Not once, so no reference to his latest besmirching headline. That, though, does not take into account some committee member's subconscious thoughts, or, for that matter, their less than objective way of following the Hall of Fame bylaws which implicitly implore off-field matters not be considered. As Emmitt Smith said the other day, "This is the Pro Football Hall of Fame, not the Life Hall of Fame."

Michael Irvin will get his day. Just not this day.

He was having to go to work, and had to leave. Irvin is here working for ESPN, and has a Super Bowl XL pre-game show to do Sunday. There was still prepping to do.

"I got to go up and hug my quarterback," said Irvin, who gave him a man-hug.

But unlike last year, there will be no crying himself to sleep. Irvin brought with him an emotional elixir this time: His three Super Bowls rings.

"You got 'em," I asked him.

"They're up in the room," he said.

I smiled, and he knew what that smile meant.

"And you better believe I'll wake up tomorrow and look at them," he said.

And I knew what he meant. No committee can ever take away his success with the Cowboys. Those rings are more for posterity than glittering jewelry.

So what you gonna do now Mike?

"I got to go to work," Irvin said. "I got a big show Sunday I'm worried about right now."

Life does go on.
Free membership is required to view the entire article.http://dallascowboyszone.com/forums/showth...ighlight=Irving

 
Michael Irvin

The Dallas Cowboys star fumbles his private life, and the world piles on.

By Skip Hollandworth

DALLAS FINALLY GOT ITS TRIAL OF THE CENTURY. It was a glorious farce, full of football stars, rogue cops, undercover agents posing as hit men, topless dancers arriving for court appearances in demure below-the-knee dresses, and angry lawyers debating whether African American men's eyes are naturally bloodshot or only get that way after a night of drinking and drug use. At the center of the proceedings, of course, was Cowboys wide receiver and Super Bowl hero Michael Irvin, who came to court each day in sunglasses, alligator shoes, and tailored suits, one of which was lavender. "At least the trial was held in the summer," a member of his entourage whispered, "so we didn't have to worry about him showing up in that damned mink coat."

It was Irvin's full-length mink coat, which he wore along with a diamond stud earring for his grand jury appearance last spring, that let everybody know this wasn't just a simple drug possession case; it was going to resemble a Las Vegas floor show. Courtroom employees oohed and ahhed at Irvin and the coat. One woman asked him to autograph her Bible. Irvin, who calls himself the Playmaker and parks his black Mercedes in the no-parking zone at the Cowboys' training facility, basked in the attention. He considered himself untouchable--and why shouldn't he?

On the night of March 4, police officers from the Dallas suburb of Irving didn't arrest Irvin when they found him in a hotel room celebrating his thirtieth birthday with his buddy Alfredo Roberts (a former Cowboys lineman) and two topless dancers, Angela Beck and Jasmine Nabwangu. Party favors included 10.3 grams of cocaine and more than an ounce of marijuana, assorted drug paraphernalia, and sex toys. Although a glass cigar holder containing cocaine residue was found in a small bag belonging to Irvin, the officers arrested only Beck, a doe-eyed brunette who described herself as a self-employed model. According to later testimony, Beck took the rap and claimed that all the drugs were hers because Irvin had pulled her aside while police officers were still outside the room and promised he would treat her like a "princess." Then Irvin greeted the officers and asked one of them, "Do you know who I am?" "I know who you are," the officer replied.

To many people's surprise, Mike Gillett, a lead prosecutor with the Dallas County district attorney's office, decided that Irvin, the married father of two, needed to pay for his sordid night out. Gillett got felony indictments against Irvin and the two dancers. (Roberts went free because he could not be directly linked to any evidence.) If Irvin had pleaded guilty then, he no doubt would have walked away with a probated sentence and a four-game suspension by the NFL as a first-time violator of the league's drug policy. The case would have been closed and Irvin could have gone on with his superstar life, albeit with fewer endorsements. But Irvin believed (and, according to one rumor that swept through town, was told by team owner Jerry Jones) that Cowboys don't get convicted of crimes in Dallas. He wanted to plead not guilty, and what made Irvin such a hoot to watch on the field--his ability to talk trash to defensive backs as he escaped from their clutches, to spike the ball after scoring a touchdown and then throw off his helmet so the television cameras could get a close-up--was exactly what was going to make his trial so much fun to watch.

The national news media arrived to pronounce its outrage over Irvin. William Bennett, the former Secretary of Education and self-appointed national defender of values, went so far as to contend that Irvin and the Cowboys were "hurting this country's morale." To longtime Cowboys watchers, the fact that Irvin had become a symbol of a moral meltdown was a joke. Granted, he was an amazing player, one of the hardest-working members of the team and a delightful interview who could always be counted on for a good quote. But he was also well known as a scoundrel who had had his share of paternity suits and run-ins with women. After practices and games, he regularly strolled into the exclusive Men's Club--which a disgusted Gillett called "a high-dog strip joint"--and paid white strippers who looked like former high school cheerleaders to dance for him. He often took those strippers to a hotel room or to what was known as the White House, a home near the team's training facility where Cowboys players took women other than their wives or girlfriends.

But no one thought he had a drug problem--"Michael just got the drugs for the girls," one acquaintance said--until three days after his grand jury appearance, when one of his running buddies agreed to let a Dallas television station put a hidden video camera in his car to film Irvin purchasing cocaine. The "friend," a chubby and slightly pathetic hanger-on at the Cowboys' training facility named Dennis Pedini, said he wanted to expose Irvin to help him get his life back in order. No doubt Pedini was also thrilled that he got some money and national television exposure on Hard Copy.

Then, tossing a barrel of lighter fluid on the fire, Dallas police chief Ben Click called a press conference during the middle of jury selection to announce that Dallas police officer Johnnie Hernandez, a five-year police veteran with an array of honors, had been arrested for solicitation of capital murder after giving $2,960 to an undercover agent from the Drug Enforcement Agency as a down payment for a "hit" on Irvin. Hernandez was the live-in boyfriend of Rachelle Smith, another brunette dancer from the Men's Club, who had spent a few evenings in hotel rooms with Irvin and Angela Beck. In a secret appearance before the grand jury, Smith had ratted on Irvin, saying he told her the day after Beck's arrest that the drugs in that hotel room were his. She also said Beck had told her she nearly had a heart attack when the police pulled a Hope diamond-size rock of crack cocaine that didn't belong to her from her gym bag.

According to Smith, when Irvin heard about her grand jury appearance, he had Pedini and another crony take her to an apartment, where they forced her to strip and searched her clothes and every part of her body to see if she was hiding a listening or recording device. Irvin then demanded that she go back to the grand jury and recant her story. Smith said Irvin "kept on telling me that I shouldn't be afraid of the DA's office--I should be afraid of him, because he was more powerful." She also claimed Irvin said that if she double-crossed him, "you'll never see John [Johnnie Hernandez] or the light of day again, I promise you."

How much seamier could this tale get? Plenty. The reason Hernandez was caught in the first place was because the Dallas Police Department was investigating the activities of allegedly dirty cops. The day after Hernandez's arrest, rumors spread that he hadn't wanted to kill Irvin for his threats against Smith. Well-known Dallas sportswriter Skip Bayless, the author of three books on the Cowboys, said on ESPN that sources had told him a hit had been ordered on Irvin because Irvin had made it clear that if he went down on drug charges, he would expose a scheme among local police officers to protect a drug and prostitution ring.

Like any professional sports franchise, the Cowboys had had their share of fallen heroes--from Hollywood Henderson succumbing to drugs to Lance Rentzel exposing his private parts in public. The team's image was certainly not helped when lineman Nate Newton, defending the players' White House, told one reporter, "We've got a little place over here where we're running some whores in and out, trying to be responsible, and we're criticized for that too."

But the Irvin case was a real-life combination of North Dallas Forty and Semi-Tough. In opening arguments, Gillett told the jury that Irvin's eyes were bloodshot the night of the bust, which he believed suggested Irvin was either intoxicated or in a drug-induced stupor. Royce West, an African American state senator and one of Irvin's defense attorneys, was outraged, rising to tell the jurors (only one of whom was black) that all African American men's eyes are a little bloodshot. West played a unique race-celebrity card, saying the only reason the district attorney's office had intervened in the case was because it saw a chance to put a superstar in his place--or what West called "the back of the bus."

The truth was that prosecutors never would have thought twice about reinvestigating Angela Beck's arrest if Irvin had not been in that hotel room. He was singled out, plain and simple. Yet it was difficult to find anyone who felt sorry for him: The man deserved everything coming to him. As the trial progressed, he looked more depressed, never smiling, his head hanging down. He brightened noticeably one morning when quarterback Troy Aikman arrived to sit in the front row of the spectator benches, telling the press he was there "to support a friend." The Dallas Morning News editorial board was so offended by Aikman's presence that it published a blistering editorial saying he could be sending a message to Dallas youngsters "that a reckless lifestyle is excusable."

On what turned out to be the last day of testimony, Rachelle Smith took the stand outside the presence of the jury. (The judge wanted to hear what she was going to say to determine what parts of her testimony were suitable for the jury.) Her dark hair flowed down her back, her lips were frosted with a light-colored lipstick, and her curvy body was draped in a long white pantsuit, apparently borrowed from someone because the sleeves hung way below her hands. Although she had been photographed with braces on her teeth just a couple of weeks earlier, the braces were removed for her moment in the limelight. Members of the media snickered when she insisted in a slightly indignant tone that she only went to the hotel rooms to have sex with Beck, never with Irvin. But suddenly, a pall fell over the courtroom as she described the way Irvin had her searched for listening devices. "He told me that if I didn't change my testimony, he would put everybody against me and everybody would hate me. He said that he'd make a touchdown and everyone would love him again." There was a long silence. Irvin dropped his head.

The next day that court was in session, prosecutors and Irvin's lawyers agreed to a plea bargain. Irvin pleaded no contest to cocaine possession, a second-degree felony, in exchange for four years' deferred probation, a $10,000 fine, about eight hundred hours of community service, and dismissal of the misdemeanor marijuana possession charges against him. In one respect, it was an unremarkable arrangement. Nearly everyone convicted of cocaine possession for the first time receives probation. On the other hand, Irvin escaped much greater problems. As part of the deal, Gillett agreed not to pursue felony witness-tampering charges against Irvin for his conduct with Rachelle Smith. Still, Gillett seemed satisfied. He was able to get Smith on the stand to tell her story in front of dozens of reporters from around the country. Irvin's carefully developed public reputation was ruined forever.

Or was it? On July 17, the day the trial ended, Irvin showed up with his family at the Cowboys' training facility to hold a press conference. Finally beside him was his wife, Sandi, who had never come to court. She sat expressionless, staring at their eight-month-old daughter while Irvin apologized to his family, his fans, his teammates, owner Jerry Jones, and even his dead father.

Then, at the end of the press conference--speaking without notes--Irvin dropped in a veiled suggestion that his era as a Cowboy was over. He said he was not reporting to training camp but was going to Miami to restore his relationship with his family. Of course, it didn't make any sense for Irvin to go to training camp because the NFL was going to suspend him for five games anyway after his drug conviction. No matter. Irvin gave such a masterful performance, somber and sincere, that Dallas fans suddenly stopped discussing what he had done to Rachelle Smith. Instead, they began anxiously evaluating the Cowboys' Super Bowl chances if Irvin didn't return.

Afterward, Bayless shook his head and called Irvin "the consummate con artist." But Irvin was right about one thing. He knew that all he had to do was come back to Dallas and make a touchdown and everyone would love him again.

 
In my opinion Irvin's a Hall of Famer, but we don't know for a fact that his off-the-field problems are what's kept him out so far. It seems more likley he missed this year because of a surplus of qualified candidates. Only 6 get in. White and Aikman were locks, and the two old-timer candidates, Wright and Madden, left only spots. Moon and Carson are worthy candidates as far as I'm concerned despite what Bayless thinks. Thurman Thomas is at least as deserving as Irvin, probably more, and he didn't make it. What kept him out? It was a numbers problem that's all, plus Aikman, Wright and Irvin all going in at once would have meant three Cowboys in one HOF class.

You could make a case against Irvin if you wanted to that has nothing to do with his character. Irvin was never the best receiver in the NFL at any time. Ok, he had to play at the same time as Jerry Rice (and Bayless saying Dallas wouldn't have won with Rice is one of the stupidest things he's ever written). Was Irvin the second-best receiver? He did make one All-Pro team, but Shannon Sharpe made three. Heck, Herman Moore made three! Irvin's career numbers aren't all that much better than those guys (who had even shorter careers), and they are way behind other contemporaries of his like Carter, Brown, Reed, Monk and even Andre Rison. Yes, most of those guys didn't play on repeat Super Bowl champions but Irvin's and Gary Clark's numbers are very close and Clark starred on two championship teams himself. Why doesn't his name ever come up? Sure Irvin would have much better numbers if the neck injury hadn't shortened his career, but you could say the same for Sharpe.

 
I'm not sure I agree that Irvin should have been a 1st ballot HOFer, but the bylaws state that off the field issues should not be considered. His argument is that Irvin is so qualified to be a HOFer, that his off the field transgressions must be what kept him out.

In that regard, Rae Carruth's current residence shouldn't be a factor in any consideration he were to receive either (though obviously no argues he is HOF material).
I completely agree. My beef with this article (well, one of them) is that you can't make that point, then immediately make the case for a player to get in based on his locker-room leadership.
Why not?
Because both are off-the-field considerations. If you can't take into account a player's off-the-field distractions, why would you give them benefit because of their fiery locker room speeches?
I don't consider the locker room "off-the-field." If it is how can a coach ever be considered for the HOF?
 
But the one thing I can say about Irvin is he was without question, the leader of this team.
Okay, I'd never heard this before this thread. How so? I mean, other than being the loudest on the team, how was he the leader?
The guy with the scissors stabbing his teammate in the neck gets to be the leader. Simple, right?
 
Bayless was a major jock sniffer of the Cowboys during the time Irvin played. I'm not surprised at all by his comments. I'm also one that doesn't think Bayless is fishing all the time. His tool factor is way too high for him to ever be an effective fisherman.

 
How does this pertain to FF?
What...you want another mock draft thread in Feb? How about a thread dealing with Reggie Bush? Or wait, we need a thread about the officiating last Sunday. :rolleyes:
 
Irvin belongs in the Hall as much as any skill player on that team, none of them were great, but all of them were made better by each other... and one other factor:

The entire O-Line should be first ballot period.

 
If Irvin gets in before Monk.. it's a joke.
Monk was considered a leader on the team, but he didn't yell and scream and go on TV and signal first down every time he made a catch.
Irvin should get in before Monk because he was a better playr than Monk was. Heck, it can be argued that Monk wasn't even the best WR on his team during their Super Bowl trips. Monk played 15 "real" seasons (let's forget that brief three game stay with the Eagles in 1995). Monk broke 1100 yds only 3 times, broke 6 TDs only 3 times (six TDs, mind you), and never had double-digit TDs. He made the Pro Bowl 3 times. That's it. These are not the numbers of a football immortal here.There are three major receiving catagories: receptions, receiving yards, and TDs. The "great" Art Monk finished among the top 10 in the league a mere 8 times over his 15-year career.

Receptions -- 4 times

Yards -- 3

Tds -- 1 (when he was in a five-way tie for ninth)

In contrast, Irvin played only 11 "real" seasons (his 12th cut short in the fourth game when he injured his neck). The Playmaker made 5 Pro Bowls and apeared in the top 10 15 times!

Receptions -- 4

Yards -- 6

TDs -- 5

You tell me who the better receiver was. Irvin was clearly the more dominant of the two. Monk amassed 12,721 yards and 68 TDs in 224 games. Irvin put up 11,904 and 65 TDs in a mere 159 games. Please Irvin was great. Monk was just good to very good for a looonnngg time.

 
Irvin was the better receiver, Monk simply had longevity.

In any event, Bayless is an imbecile, but the one point he brings up which I think is unimpeachable is that the Hall explicitly states off-the-field behavior and history should NOT be factored into Hall of Fame considerations. If you exclude Irvin's off-the-field issues, I can't see how someone doesn't view him as a sure fire Hall of Famer. :shrug:

 
Irvin should get in before Monk because he was a better playr than Monk was. Heck, it can be argued that Monk wasn't even the best WR on his team during their Super Bowl trips. Monk played 15 "real" seasons (let's forget that brief three game stay with the Eagles in 1995). Monk broke 1100 yds only 3 times, broke 6 TDs only 3 times (six TDs, mind you), and never had double-digit TDs. He made the Pro Bowl 3 times. That's it. These are not the numbers of a football immortal here.

There are three major receiving catagories: receptions, receiving yards, and TDs. The "great" Art Monk finished among the top 10 in the league a mere 8 times over his 15-year career.

Receptions -- 4 times

Yards -- 3

Tds -- 1 (when he was in a five-way tie for ninth)

In contrast, Irvin played only 11 "real" seasons (his 12th cut short in the fourth game when he injured his neck). The Playmaker made 5 Pro Bowls and apeared in the top 10 15 times!

Receptions -- 4

Yards -- 6

TDs -- 5

You tell me who the better receiver was. Irvin was clearly the more dominant of the two. Monk amassed 12,721 yards and 68 TDs in 224 games. Irvin put up 11,904 and 65 TDs in a mere 159 games. Please Irvin was great. Monk was just good to very good for a looonnngg time.
Irvin's numbers aren't all that impressive compared to Monk's when you consider that Monk did not have a HoF QB throwing to him, nor did he have the NFL's leading ground-gainer taking attention away from him.
 
If Irvin gets in before Monk.. it's a joke.
Just curious, why do you think it would be a "joke"? What's your argument for Monk getting in before Irvin?
:goodposting: I've long held that Monk should get the nod for the Hall because of some of the other WRs who got consideration, but Irvin is quite arguably the more deserving player.

 
Irvin was the better receiver, Monk simply had longevity.

In any event, Bayless is an imbecile, but the one point he brings up which I think is unimpeachable is that the Hall explicitly states off-the-field behavior and history should NOT be factored into Hall of Fame considerations. If you exclude Irvin's off-the-field issues, I can't see how someone doesn't view him as a sure fire Hall of Famer. :shrug:
:goodposting: Outstanding! :thumbup:

 
Let me also add Irving put up his numbers against the best CB in the NFL, D. Green, D. Sanders, just to name a few.

 
Irvin should get in before Monk because he was a better playr than Monk was.  Heck, it can be argued that Monk wasn't even the best WR on his team during their Super Bowl trips.  Monk played 15 "real" seasons (let's forget that brief three game stay with the Eagles in 1995).  Monk broke 1100 yds only 3 times, broke 6 TDs only 3 times (six TDs, mind you), and never had double-digit TDs.  He made the Pro Bowl 3 times. That's it. These are not the numbers of a football immortal here.

There are three major receiving catagories: receptions, receiving yards, and TDs.  The "great" Art Monk finished among the top 10 in the league a mere 8 times over his 15-year career.

Receptions --  4 times

Yards -- 3

Tds -- 1 (when he was in a five-way tie for ninth)

In contrast, Irvin played only 11 "real" seasons (his 12th cut short in the fourth game when he injured his neck).  The Playmaker made 5 Pro Bowls and apeared in the top 10 15 times!

Receptions -- 4

Yards -- 6

TDs -- 5

You tell me who the better receiver was.  Irvin was clearly the more dominant of the two.  Monk amassed 12,721 yards and 68 TDs in 224 games.  Irvin put up 11,904 and 65 TDs in a mere 159 games.  Please Irvin was great.  Monk was just good to very good for a looonnngg time.
Irvin's numbers aren't all that impressive compared to Monk's when you consider that Monk did not have a HoF QB throwing to him, nor did he have the NFL's leading ground-gainer taking attention away from him.
You might have a point if not for the fact that Gary Clark made more Pro Bowls, in far fewer seasons, that did Monk despite the same limitations. If you are not the best on your team, it is hard to be in the HOF. Heck, Charlie Brown beat out Monk for two Pro Bowls when they played together. Irvin was a beast. Imagine the numbers he puts up in a system that favors the pass or if the Cowboys had not been so good that they ran the ball the entire second half of most games. That balances out your criticisms.
 
Michael Irvin had the ability to dominate a football game. Playing on a Cowboys team that enjoyed a fantastic running game and good defense limited his offensive chances but he still put up big numbers. Imagine what he could have done in a high octane passing offense.

He's a Hall of Famer. There is no way around it.

 
Michael Irvin had the ability to dominate a football game. Playing on a Cowboys team that enjoyed a fantastic running game and good defense limited his offensive chances but he still put up big numbers. Imagine what he could have done in a high octane passing offense.

He's a Hall of Famer. There is no way around it.
How does a good defense hinder Irvin's performance? A good defense puts the offense on the field more often, hence giving Irvin more opportunities to catch the ball.I think Irvin's a HOFer as well, but he's a world-class jerk and he shouldn't go in before Monk (who had better numbers and has been waiting longer).

 
Michael Irvin had the ability to dominate a football game. Playing on a Cowboys team that enjoyed a fantastic running game and good defense limited his offensive chances but he still put up big numbers. Imagine what he could have done in a high octane passing offense.

He's a Hall of Famer. There is no way around it.
How does a good defense hinder Irvin's performance? A good defense puts the offense on the field more often, hence giving Irvin more opportunities to catch the ball.I think Irvin's a HOFer as well, but he's a world-class jerk and he shouldn't go in before Monk (who had better numbers and has been waiting longer).
A solid defense in combination with a strong running game enables a team to ground out victories in the 2nd half of football games. A strong defense with no running game can help a receiver though.
 
Michael Irvin had the ability to dominate a football game.  Playing on a Cowboys team that enjoyed a fantastic running game and good defense limited his offensive chances but he still put up big numbers.  Imagine what he could have done in a high octane passing offense.

He's a Hall of Famer.  There is no way around it.
How does a good defense hinder Irvin's performance? A good defense puts the offense on the field more often, hence giving Irvin more opportunities to catch the ball.I think Irvin's a HOFer as well, but he's a world-class jerk and he shouldn't go in before Monk (who had better numbers and has been waiting longer).
?!?!?! Irvin had more yards per game, more yards per season, more TDs per season, was top 10 in the league in receiving catatgories almost twice as often as Monk despite playing four fewer years, and was always the best receiver on his team. How was Monk better again? Hint: He wasn't.
 
Art Monk was a very good receiver but he shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame.

FACTS

1. He finished 1st in receptions just once in his 16-year career

2. He finished top-three in receiving yards just once

3. He had just three top-ten finishes in receiving yards

4. He never finished inside the top five in touchdown receptions

Sure he does have 940 receptions for 12,761 yards and 68 touchdowns but the per season average is mediocre at best.

I believe he compares to players such as Mushin Muhammad or an Eric Moulds. Good receivers but hardly Hall of Fame caliber...

Monk's numbers:

16 seasons

940 receptions

12,761 yards

68 touchdowns

Muhammad's numbers:

10 seasons

642 receptions

8,501 yards

48 touchdowns

Moulds' numbers:

10 seasons

675 receptions

9,091 yards

48 touchdowns

...The bottom line is Monk simply wasn't dominating enough to belong in the Hall of Fame.

 
Facts

Monk's career rankings:

Receptions: 5th

Receiving Yards: 9th

Receiving TDs: 29th (tied)

Yds. from scrimmage: 27th

Irvin's career rankings:

Receptions: 18th

Receiving Yards: 14th

Receiving TDs: 35th (tied)

Yds. from scrimmage: 38th

Yes, Monk played longer, but since when did we start holding longevity against a guy? Never.

Also, Monk never carried with him the reputation of pushing off.

 
Facts

Monk's career rankings:

Receptions: 5th

Receiving Yards: 9th

Receiving TDs: 29th (tied)

Yds. from scrimmage: 27th

Irvin's career rankings:

Receptions: 18th

Receiving Yards: 14th

Receiving TDs: 35th (tied)

Yds. from scrimmage: 38th

Yes, Monk played longer, but since when did we start holding longevity against a guy? Never.

Also, Monk never carried with him the reputation of pushing off.
FactsMonk was never great. Irvin was. By your twisted logic, and I use the term loosely here, Vinny Testaverde was a better QB than guys like Unitas, Young, and Montana. After all, her ranks above them attempts, completions, and yards, and leads all but Montana in TDs. Heck, you mut think Dave Kreig was better than Young as well. Playing a long time is nice and can help, but you have to been great at some point for the longevity to really matter.

No, Monk was a good player who played a long time. Irvin was a great to VERY good player whose career was cut short by injury. Irvin tops him in every meanigful way when you compare by game, by season, or by comparison in league leading stats.

 
Irvin will probably make it sometime. However, regardless of what the rules say, it is a ballot, with people expressing personal opinions. Irvin isn't the only one to have done things to annoy people, and to have them feel they aren't going to cut him any slack.

So his stats say he deserves it. If it were just a question of numbers, they could have a computer pick the HOF'ers. But it isn't and inevitably, there is a certain popularity aspect to it, whether you like it or not.

Tough ####, Irvin. #### on people, and some of it will stick.

 
Facts

Monk's career rankings:

Receptions: 5th

Receiving Yards: 9th

Receiving TDs: 29th (tied)

Yds. from scrimmage: 27th

Irvin's career rankings:

Receptions: 18th

Receiving Yards: 14th

Receiving TDs: 35th (tied)

Yds. from scrimmage: 38th

Yes, Monk played longer, but since when did we start holding longevity against a guy? Never.

Also, Monk never carried with him the reputation of pushing off.
Monk3-time Pro Bowler

Yards per rec: 13.5

Seasons among the league's top 10

Receptions: 1984-1, 1985-2, 1988-9t, 1989-3t

Receiving yards: 1984-4, 1985-3, 1989-10

Receiving TDs: 1991-9t

Irvin

5-time Pro Bowler

Yards per rec: 15.9

Seasons among the league's top 10

Receptions: 1991-2, 1992-7, 1993-3, 1995-5

Receiving yards: 1991-1, 1992-2, 1993-2, 1994-8, 1995-4, 1997-8t

Receiving TDs: 1991-9t, 1992-8t, 1993-9t, 1995-10t, 1997-6t

Yards from scrimmage: 1991-4, 1992-10, 1993-8, 1995-9

It's not just how long you've been in the league, but what you do while you're there. Irvin was consistant and again look at the CB he faced. ;)

 
I'm not sure I agree that Irvin should have been a 1st ballot HOFer, but the bylaws state that off the field issues should not be considered. His argument is that Irvin is so qualified to be a HOFer, that his off the field transgressions must be what kept him out.

In that regard, Rae Carruth's current residence shouldn't be a factor in any consideration he were to receive either (though obviously no argues he is HOF material).
I completely agree. My beef with this article (well, one of them) is that you can't make that point, then immediately make the case for a player to get in based on his locker-room leadership.
Why not?
Because both are off-the-field considerations. If you can't take into account a player's off-the-field distractions, why would you give them benefit because of their fiery locker room speeches?
Bingo!This argument is exactly the same as the Pete Rose argument except Rose was really one of the best players in his sport whereas Irvin is borderline top 10 all time at his position.

 
I think Monk was better than Muhammad/Moulds. I think that's selling him short.

I would compare him to Rod Smith. Smith has never been considered a "dominant" receiver....just very, very good over a long period of time. I think one day the argument for Smith will run parallel to the argument for Monk.

 
Please explain how a man who retired with the most ever of what his position is made to do - receive the ball - is not Hall of Fame worthy.

If Art Monk is not a Hall of Famer, then neither is Pete Rose (ignoring of course the gambling issue for the moment).

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top