Michael Irvin VS Andre Reed

[74_75_78_79_]

Who do you think is best between these HOF WRs? Yes, Irvin winning three Rings (while making the Hall first) to Reed's none, two consecutive of those against Reed's team though Reed achieved 7 Pro Bowls to Irvin's 5.

[Bryan]

As a fan of football, I never liked Irvin and thought he was a bit overrated. He had one big year, but, IMO, kind of coasted in the other years. I always thought Sterling Sharpe was much better...Sharpe was physical after the catch, Irvin was physical before the catch. People would bring up Aikman being overrated and a product of the talent around him, but I thought Aikman was much more important to Dallas' success than Irvin.

Anyways, rant over. A factor to consider in this comparison is how many times Irvin faced off against elite CBs. He'd spend half the season going against Aeneas Williams, Eric Allen, Darrell Green, etc.

[rhickok1109]

As a fan of football, I never liked Irvin and thought he was a bit overrated. He had one big year, but, IMO, kind of coasted in the other years. I always thought Sterling Sharpe was much better...Sharpe was physical after the catch, Irvin was physical before the catch. People would bring up Aikman being overrated and a product of the talent around him, but I thought Aikman was much more important to Dallas' success than Irvin.

Yet the Cowboys had a winning record when Aikman didn't play and a losing record when Irving didn't play. In fact, they started 3-0 in 1999, Irving's final season; he was injured in the first quarter of that game in Philly (when the fans cheered his injury) and the Cowboys went 5-8 the rest of the way. They had gone 10-6 the previous season with him and they went 5-11 the following season without him.

[Bryan]

As a fan of football, I never liked Irvin and thought he was a bit overrated. He had one big year, but, IMO, kind of coasted in the other years. I always thought Sterling Sharpe was much better...Sharpe was physical after the catch, Irvin was physical before the catch. People would bring up Aikman being overrated and a product of the talent around him, but I thought Aikman was much more important to Dallas' success than Irvin.

Yet the Cowboys had a winning record when Aikman didn't play and a losing record when Irving didn't play. In fact, they started 3-0 in 1999, Irving's final season; he was injured in the first quarter of that game in Philly (when the fans cheered his injury) and the Cowboys went 5-8 the rest of the way. They had gone 10-6 the previous season with him and they went 5-11 the following season without him.

I get what you are saying about Aikman...I remember Beuerlein and Garrett having success in Dallas as backups. I just don't think the Cowboys win those postseason games if Aikman doesn't play well. I could be wrong.

As for 1999, two of those first 3 wins came against bottom-feeder Falcons and Cardinals. The other win was against the Redskins, whom the Cowboys beat again later in the season without Irvin. Those late 90's Chan Gailey Cowboys were definitely not powerhouse teams, with or without Irvin. I'm not sure if its accurate to attribute the downturn of the Cowboys franchise to Irvin's injury. I think the Cowboys would have been pretty bad had Irvin stayed healthy for those 1999-2002 seasons.

[nicefellow31]

As a fan of football, I never liked Irvin and thought he was a bit overrated. He had one big year, but, IMO, kind of coasted in the other years. I always thought Sterling Sharpe was much better...Sharpe was physical after the catch, Irvin was physical before the catch. People would bring up Aikman being overrated and a product of the talent around him, but I thought Aikman was much more important to Dallas' success than Irvin.

As for 1999, two of those first 3 wins came against bottom-feeder Falcons and Cardinals. The other win was against the Redskins, whom the Cowboys beat again later in the season without Irvin. Those late 90's Chan Gailey Cowboys were definitely not powerhouse teams, with or without Irvin. I'm not sure if its accurate to attribute the downturn of the Cowboys franchise to Irvin's injury. I think the Cowboys would have been pretty bad had Irvin stayed healthy for those 1999-2002 seasons.

At the time that the Cowboys played them, the Falcons (defending NFC Champs) and Cardinals (coming off a playoff win over the Cowboys in Texas Stadium) weren't considered bottom feeders. My Redskins (6-10 0-7 start to the '98 season) was considered the bottom feeder. Then in the crazy world of football, at season end, the Skins are division champs and Falcons and Cardinals are back to eating at the bottom.

[conace21]

I'm a huge Bills fan, and as much as it pains me to say it, Irvin was better. His 1991 and 1995 seasons were better than anything Reed ever put up, although Reed was an effective receiver for a longer period of time. Reed reached 1,000 yards just four times. In Super Bowls XXVII and XXVII Reed performed just as well as Irvin. (14 receptions for 227 yards, 0 TD's vs 11 catches 180 yards, 2 TD's.)

Irvin was the emotional leader of the Cowboys. He led the party off the field, but still worked harder than any one else in practice, and in the gym. Reed had a fantastic work ethic, but he was usually quieter, leading by example. Talley, Hull, and Kelly were the more vocal leaders in the locker room. Ironically , Reed probably had more ill-timed displays of temper than Irvin. In Super Bowl XXVI, he cost the Bills three points at the end of the half by throwing his helmet down in disgust and drawing a 15 yard penalty and knocking them out of FG range. (Of course, the referees cost the Bills at least three points - maybe 7- after Brad Edwards jumped on Reed's back before the ball arrived. Edwards drew Reed's ire, but he didnt draw a flag.)

Seven years later, the Bills were down 24-14 with three minutes to play in the wild card game at Miami. On 1st and goal from the 10, Reed caught a slant, spun around inside the 5, and lunged into the end zone. The officials ruled him down at the 1 foot line. Reed got up and bumped the official who had come over to retrieve the ball. As a stubborn 16 year old, I spent many an hour in the Yahoo football chat room arguing that A- Reed got the ball over the goal line and B- the official had run over and was hovering right over Reed, so any contact was incidental. Reed was just tring to get up. Now, as a somewhat reasonable adult, I have to admit that I still can't tell if Reed made it into the end zone, and when he got up, it did seem that he gave the official a deliberate forearm. A stupid reckless move. The Bills would have had a foot to go for the TD. Pushed back to the 15, they settled for a FG, but recovered the onside kick and drove to the 5. If Reed hadn't lunged to bump the official, and Buffalo had scored a TD, they could have sent the game to OT with a FG. Instead, they had to go for the TD; Doug Flute held the ball a hair too long, and was stripped of thr ball. Game over. The Music City Miracle gets a lot of attention, for good reason, but I think this loss to Miami was just as bitter. It may get more attention because the Bills were considered to be legit Suoer Bowl contenders in 1999, and less so in 1998, with Denver and the Jets being heavy favorites.