Michael Irvin or Terrell Owens

Home Archive Pro Sports Michael Irvin or Terrell Owens
said_aouita's avatar

said_aouita

Banned

8,532 posts
Jun 27, 2011 8:13 AM
Michael Irvin career stats
REC-750
YDS-11,904
AVG-15.9
TDS-65

Terrell Owens career stats

REC- 1,078
YDS-15,934
AVG-14.8
TDS-153

_______
Who would you take, Michael Irvin or T.O.?
Jun 27, 2011 8:13am
Commander of Awesome's avatar

Commander of Awesome

Senior Pwner

23,151 posts
Jun 27, 2011 8:19 AM
One was a major contributor and a noted heart & soul of his 3 time superbowl championship team. The other is a locker room cancer, QB killer and has been on 5 different teams.
Jun 27, 2011 8:19am
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Jun 27, 2011 8:24 AM
As a pure athlete I'd take Terrel Owens every time. When you add the personality into the mix I would never even consider Owens. He simply didn't show that he understood the game of football is one of being a servant.
Jun 27, 2011 8:24am
said_aouita's avatar

said_aouita

Banned

8,532 posts
Jun 27, 2011 8:46 AM
Con_Alma;814949 wrote:As a pure athlete I'd take Terrel Owens every time. When you add the personality into the mix I would never even consider Owens. He simply didn't show that he understood the game of football is one of being a servant.

No doubt about it. Yet T.O. put up some hella' numbers.
Is it more acceptable even knowing now that Michael Irvin had a cocaine problem?
Jun 27, 2011 8:46am
Little Danny's avatar

Little Danny

Senior Member

4,288 posts
Jun 27, 2011 8:50 AM
There's no doubt TO's numbers are much higher, but Irvin is called the Playmaker for a reason. Not captured in these stats was his ability to break a game wide open. His numbers are much ower because he played on teams that ran the ball much more effectively (hello-- Emmitt Smith) and utilized the tight end.

I am curious how often TO put his team on his back carried them to victory.
Jun 27, 2011 8:50am
said_aouita's avatar

said_aouita

Banned

8,532 posts
Jun 27, 2011 8:52 AM
Little Danny;814957 wrote:
I am curious how often TO put his team on his back carried them to victory.

Granted it was not to victory but he led the Eagles playing injured in the Super Bowl much better then a healthy McNabb.

___
(edit) I've not voted yet. Can't make up my mind. Irvin was a bad ass but T.O. also has a pretty good highlight reel of special performances.
Jun 27, 2011 8:52am
A

Al Bundy

Senior Member

4,180 posts
Jun 27, 2011 10:05 AM
TO. Irvin's numbers are lower because he played on a team that usually had the lead in the second half and just ran the ball, and his career ended early due to injury. The most important numbers weren't listed (championships). Irvin had his off the field problems, but those problems never affected his team. He made teammates better.
Jun 27, 2011 10:05am
Azubuike24's avatar

Azubuike24

Senior Member

15,933 posts
Jun 27, 2011 3:21 PM
There is a lot of ifs and buts in my next post, but if you put Terrell Owens in that Dallas offense, the way Irvin was, I think we'd be talking about the greatest wide receiver of all-time. Yes, I know about Jerry Rice, but to pretend like Owens' off-the-field issues and personality were a distraction and made teams worse while Irvin's had no effect, if not improved teams, is a farse.

I was a huge fan of those Cowboys' teams, but their success and their "stand-up personalities" overshadowed much of the negativity and off the field stuff that went on. For every Nate Newton, Deion Sanders, Michael Irvin, Leon Lett, even Jerry Jones they had, it was countered by Darren Woodson, Charles Haley, Jay Novacek, Troy Aikman, Darryl Johnston, Emmitt Smith, etc...those teams were full of dysfunction but because they won 3 Super Bowls, perception of them says otherwise.

Huge fan of the Playmaker, but Terrell Owens is the better player in just about every department/category, including off-the-field behavior. It's funny what 3 rings can cover up...
Jun 27, 2011 3:21pm
Heretic's avatar

Heretic

Son of the Sun

18,820 posts
Jun 27, 2011 3:26 PM
I'd have to go with Irvin. He seemed to have those intangibles that couldn't be measured by combine-type numbers and their career numbers would have been a lot more close if not for the career-ending injury.

Although, Azu does make a good counter-argument.
Jun 27, 2011 3:26pm
Azubuike24's avatar

Azubuike24

Senior Member

15,933 posts
Jun 27, 2011 3:44 PM
To make one final point. The responses to this are what I'd expect. However, it's clear why. Terrell Owens is an ass hole. Most people dislike him. Therefore, they will focus on that and ignore just how great his career was. They will overlook the fact that it takes more than one dysfuctional player to thwart an NFL team (evidenced by the fact that there are numerous guys who have done similar off-the-field stuff as Owens on just about every team). It's just like Barry Bonds. Because he's an ass hole, their level of criticism is always higher than the guy who has made mistakes, apologized, asked for forgiveness and tried to be a better citizen moving forward.

It's like comparing Roger Clemens vs Andy Pettitte in the court of public opinion. Or Barry Bonds to Jason Giambi. The crimes are the same, but ask most normal folks and the more-talented, bigger ass hole is usually the worse of the two offenders.
Jun 27, 2011 3:44pm