Michael Irvin

Fuck him for being a dumb crack head.

 

He should be in, if for no other reason than perfecting the modern push-off techniques which have served so many, so well, for so long.

 

What are you, 8? Come on, you've made enough good points in the past that it seems clear you don't need to use this dumb logic of, "Well Irvin and Brown are tied in one statistic, so then you must be saying they're equal." You haven't squashed the three-rings argument.

I said the rings are just another stat with the rest. Judge Irvin on all of his stats, which includes being the leader of a three-time Super Bowl winner. Compare Troy Brown's rings with the other stats. He clearly isn't on Irvin's level.

I said voters lose their credibility because many state they haven't voted him in because of off-the-field issues. If that's the reason, they lose their credibility. If they claim another reason, that's hard to believe.

Saying Irvin was the team's leader is nothing Aikman and Smith haven't said before. They don't win those titles with only two of those three. All three belong in the Hall of Fame.

 

Why do rings count? Does this mean Dan Marino is not a Hall of Famer? Or Conrad Dobler? Or .. shit, name 95% of the players who played in the NFL. But does it mean that the backup left guard should be in the Hall?

Look, the NFL is about as team a game as there is - you have separate "teams" on offense and defense and have 53 players total. It takes a lot to win a Super Bowl and every player is a piece of that. Saying one player led a team to a Super Bowl is ridiculous.

A player needs to stand out on his own merits, regardless of "rings." Having those rings might push him more to the forefront, but that shouldn't be the ultimate determining factor, else you'll be saying Trent Dilfer and Mark Rypien should be in.

 

And that's despite perfecting the modern push-off techniques, like Ben Hecht already said above. He sure taught Alvin Harper well when he was there.

 

Michael Irvin should've went in before Troy Aikman.

 

Wow. Hey people, I simply said the rings are a contributing factor. I said it's one of many statistics to take into account. Ellis discounted titles as counting at all.

I never said if you win a ring, you're in. I never said anything near that. I simply said it counts for something.

Saying I must mean Trent Dilfer and Mark Rypien belong in is as idiotic as saying my logic puts Troy Brown in.

Rings alone do nothing, but for a player like Irvin, they count as another stat on his resume.

The names mentioned and lantaur's 95% statement contradict lantaur's own statement of "Having those rings might push him more to the forefront, but that shouldn't be the ultimate determining factor." Dilfer and Rypien have the rings, but no other credentials.

 

Uh, no. Quarterback > wide receiver in importance. Just ask Randy Moss what a good quarterback would mean to him these days.

 

Uh, he was the leader of that team. Troy got in because of the Super Bowls.

 

Funny, when Smith got in, I read he was the leader of that team. Then when Aikman got in, I read he was the leader of that team. And now that Irvin needs HOF votes, the same line's being used again.

 

Uh, no. People were saying that before Aikman got in.
Michael Irvin was the leader of that team.