WTF? Why is Michael Irvin a HOFer???

After watching the 2009 Hall of Fame coverage, and seeing that Chris Carter is not in the Hall of Fame, I got to wondering why Michael Irvin is because he was part of the NFL network coverage. After looking at his numbers, now I am even more appalled that he is in and Chris Carter isn't. He isn't even in the top 10 of Wideouts for Receptions, TDs, or Career Receiving yards. Total BS. I take the Hall a lot less seriously now.

3 super bowl rings.


Go look at Lynn Swann's stats.

Originally posted by jojomellon:
3 super bowl rings.


Go look at Lynn Swann's stats.

that about sums it up.

I think Super Bowls shouldn't be a determining factor for the Hall. It should be based on individual accomplishments. That's like saying Marino or Moon shouldn't be in the Hall. If they have a recognition for great teams enshrined in the Hall, then fine. But Irvin's stats aren't exactly eye-popping compared to his peers who aren't in the Hall. Damn Cowboys...

Originally posted by jojomellon:
3 super bowl rings.


Go look at Lynn Swann's stats.

Part of it's because his career was cut short. He's 8th all-time in receiving yards per game, and I believe he has the 3rd most 100 yard games of all time.

I can understand why he is in HOF. Not every receiver in Hall is going to have the numbers that Jerry Rice put up. Remember, Irvin was in an offense that was run first with the all time leading rusher in Emmett Smith. Here a few reasons why I can buy into him being in the Hall:

1) He played his entire career with Dallas and won 3 SB rings
2) In an 8 year stretch he averaged 83 catches and 1286 yards
3) He was the #1 WR for this great Dallas team
4) He was on pro bowl team for 5 years
5) The guy was a great blocker - very physical

I can name 2 guys that are much more undeserving of the Hall. John Stallworth who had only 3 years over 1000 yards and 1 year ever over 80 catches and of course the worst.. Lynn Swann who had a TOTAL of 336 catches in his career with just one year over 60 catches. However, both had the SB rings, played entire careers with one team, and played on run first teams as well.

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
I can understand why he is in HOF. Not every receiver in Hall is going to have the numbers that Jerry Rice put up. Remember, Irvin was in an offense that was run first with the all time leading rusher in Emmett Smith. Here a few reasons why I can buy into him being in the Hall:

1) He played his entire career with Dallas and won 3 SB rings
2) In an 8 year stretch he averaged 83 catches and 1286 yards
3) He was the #1 WR for this great Dallas team
4) He was on pro bowl team for 5 years
5) The guy was a great blocker - very physical

I can name 2 guys that are much more undeserving of the Hall. John Stallworth who had only 3 years over 1000 yards and 1 year ever over 80 catches and of course the worst.. Lynn Swann who had a TOTAL of 336 catches in his career with just one year over 60 catches. However, both had the SB rings, played entire careers with one team, and played on run first teams as well.

I don't think the debate was whether or not he was a good to great WR, he was. But, to go in ahead of some of the receivers that are top 10 all-time in several categories is what surprises me.

Originally posted by jerryricefan80:

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
I can understand why he is in HOF. Not every receiver in Hall is going to have the numbers that Jerry Rice put up. Remember, Irvin was in an offense that was run first with the all time leading rusher in Emmett Smith. Here a few reasons why I can buy into him being in the Hall:

1) He played his entire career with Dallas and won 3 SB rings
2) In an 8 year stretch he averaged 83 catches and 1286 yards
3) He was the #1 WR for this great Dallas team
4) He was on pro bowl team for 5 years
5) The guy was a great blocker - very physical

I can name 2 guys that are much more undeserving of the Hall. John Stallworth who had only 3 years over 1000 yards and 1 year ever over 80 catches and of course the worst.. Lynn Swann who had a TOTAL of 336 catches in his career with just one year over 60 catches. However, both had the SB rings, played entire careers with one team, and played on run first teams as well.

I don't think the debate was whether or not he was a good to great WR, he was. But, to go in ahead of some of the receivers that are top 10 all-time in several categories is what surprises me.

even though he was in a league a while, can't really go by his career totals because his career got ended early on Philly's cement turf.

but his yearly stats are solid, especially during the cowboys run.

[ Edited by 49erfeeeever808 on Aug 11, 2009 at 12:51:23 ]

Originally posted by jerryricefan80:

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
I can understand why he is in HOF. Not every receiver in Hall is going to have the numbers that Jerry Rice put up. Remember, Irvin was in an offense that was run first with the all time leading rusher in Emmett Smith. Here a few reasons why I can buy into him being in the Hall:

1) He played his entire career with Dallas and won 3 SB rings
2) In an 8 year stretch he averaged 83 catches and 1286 yards
3) He was the #1 WR for this great Dallas team
4) He was on pro bowl team for 5 years
5) The guy was a great blocker - very physical

I can name 2 guys that are much more undeserving of the Hall. John Stallworth who had only 3 years over 1000 yards and 1 year ever over 80 catches and of course the worst.. Lynn Swann who had a TOTAL of 336 catches in his career with just one year over 60 catches. However, both had the SB rings, played entire careers with one team, and played on run first teams as well.

I don't think the debate was whether or not he was a good to great WR, he was. But, to go in ahead of some of the receivers that are top 10 all-time in several categories is what surprises me.

I think that stats can be misleading when it comes to receivers. For example, Henry Ellard had 13,777 yards and Irving Fryar 12,785. Both are higher than Irvin's total of 11,904 but no one would ever put them ahead of Irvin as a WR.
SO much depends on injuries, the type of offense they played in,etc...

I do believe that Chris Carter should be in HOF and that he will be soon.

Originally posted by jerryricefan80:
I think Super Bowls shouldn't be a determining factor for the Hall. It should be based on individual accomplishments. That's like saying Marino or Moon shouldn't be in the Hall. If they have a recognition for great teams enshrined in the Hall, then fine. But Irvin's stats aren't exactly eye-popping compared to his peers who aren't in the Hall. Damn Cowboys...

if he were some smaller role player on the team like Moose or Novajeck then yeah the rings shouldn't be a determining factor in whether or not he makes the HoF. but he was one of the primary contributors to their superbowl run.

people talk about what the determining factors are for the HoF all the time. To me, what they're looking for is just if the players did something consistantly to make them stand out from the rest of the crowd..... well espescially in irvins case, stand out on the field. lol.

Very good 8 year stretch + Dallas Cowboys ( America's Team) + 3 Super Bowls

Originally posted by blizzuntz:
Very good 8 year stretch + Dallas Cowboys ( America's Team) + 3 Super Bowls

OK. Now explain to me why Roger Craig isn't in the HoF?

He deserved it IMO. Irvin was a beast at WR and his career ended early.

The big question i have is who gets in 1st Tim Brown, or Cris Carter?