Originally Posted by Freddy_Lives
Coaches,Fans,Players don't vote in the hall of fame
The hall of Fame is voted 100% by sports writers
If you don't think there is Bias in sports writing that's crazy.
If the fans/coaches/players voted him in also I wouldn't have as big of a deal with it but voting in Michael before Irving,Criss,Andre is just pure bullshit.
my mistake; my apologies. i don't know why i thought hall of famers got a vote (i know, i was thinking of heisman voting). but still, it makes no difference. michael is in the right place.
and i do
think there is a bias; sorry if that wasn't clear. i think there is a bias against
the dallas cowboys (i know, i know, typical cowboys fan; i am what i am, chief). harvey martin, drew pearson, chuck howly, charles haley, ed jones, bill bates, i could go on, but i don't really wanna start another argument with you on each of these players.
look, i respect where your coming from; there are some slam dunkers who go in the hall, and then there are some that require more deliberation (remember, michael wasn't a first ballot). for me (please read that again: FOR ME
), michael deserves to be in the hall of fame. he was a major piece of a dynasty, he was prolific for several years, his career was ended prematurely by injury (i guess yer mad that guys like gale sayers and dwight stephenson are in the hall), he came back from two knee reconstructions at the beginning of his career, and he just fucking rocked. if it helps you, group him more with guys like steve largent, charlie joiner, fred belitnekof, john stallworth (although irvin's stats kill those latter guys). michael was on a run first team. do you realize troy aikman never busted 3500 yards in a season? never threw for more than 20 td's once? had like 11 300 yard games? meanwhile, a little 5'9" tailback racked up more yards on the ground and more rushing td's than anyone in the history of this fine game. look at things in context. i believe reed and carter belong in the hall, and i wouldn't fall apart if fryer got in, but those guys were stat munchers, man. they don't have michael's playoff resume; michael is second in yards and receptions to you know who. and his teams won, man. i'm sorry, but you can't ignore that. michael had a direct hand in his team winning 3 championships. the aggregate superbowls of your list of statistical darlings is zero, man. zero. whether you like it or not, that counts for something.
but i personally feel like we have reached an impasse. i do see where your coming from, i just don't agree. we've tried our hardest to make our cases with varying degrees of politeness, and it's cool. that's why football is so awesome, debates like this. i think michael irvin is a great, all time receiver, and i'm both biased as a cowboy fan and a pretty knowledgeable, well-rounded nfl fan. i watched all of the guys you mentioned for the entirety of their careers, and in my opinion, michael was the best of that bunch, only behind jerry rice in his era. if sterling sharpe coulda stayed healthy, if andre rison wasn't such a lunatic, if herman moore didn't inexplicably fade, i'd count them among the greats as well. and why we're at it, why no mention of rod smith from you? he had great numbers and won two superbowls.
anyway, your clearly a smart cat. let's get baked and have this conversation during an espn top ten show, kay?