Hall Of Fame

[BUFFALOBILLS2692]

Would you vote Michael Irvin into the Hall Of Fame even after his drug incident?

[fna0356]

Innocent til proven guilty. BTW, is drug "paraphanilia" a crime?

[sukie]

he's in... So should Pete Rose be. He had an awesome 12 yr career.

[nehemiah]

i wouldn't have voted him in before the drug bust.

he sucked.

when will you people learn? everyone who ever played for the dallas cowboys sucks a fat ***. FACT.

[Merk]

As much as I hated him and still do I would eventually put him in but not before Art Monk

[nightowltom]

As much as I hated him and still do I would eventually put him in but not before Art Monk

That's been discussed a lot but Art Monk, despite his great career numbers, never scared anyone as a receiver. Most of his numbers were accomplished with longevity and with the numbers receivers are putting up that followed him, his chances are fading quickly.

On the other hand, when Irvin was in his prime, he had that great move that was just on the edge of offensive pass interference that made him impossible to defend and allowed him to make clutch reception after clutch reception that just killed teams. He was a force to be reckoned with in his era and that's what makes a hall of famer to me, regardless of his personal conduct off the field.

[mighty peace warrior]

Reed was better than Irvin..until Reed is in Irvin can wait

[LVBillsfan]

Even though I hated him as a player, he was unstoppable and played the game like it should be. He belongs in the hall. Maybe make him wait until after Ralph and the rest of the guys get in though. :)

[BostonTim]

I voted no. But what I meant was, not right away. I make him wait one year for the act itself (if found guilty OR if he pleads out in ANY way). An additional 2 years for the really lame story (unless he can convince me that lame or not, it's true.)

I see the "innocent until proven guilty" approach elsewhere in this thread. But his constitutional right to a fair trial is ALL that old saw refers to, and has no bearing on my freedom to make my own value judgments.

Under the same constitution that protects his right to a fair trial, I have every right to suspect he's guilty. The only constraint in that regard is I can't sit on his jury.

Cheers, BostonTim

[Orange Nation]

Yeah, definetly, he's an awesome receiver. Michael Irvin definetly deserves in, James Lofton was into drugs, so was Lawrence Taylor, but they got in, and they definetly deserved it. Cry me a river if you think not, oh, he does drugs, what a terrible beast

[Merk]

That's been discussed a lot but Art Monk, despite his great career numbers, never scared anyone as a receiver. Most of his numbers were accomplished with longevity and with the numbers receivers are putting up that followed him, his chances are fading quickly.

On the other hand, when Irvin was in his prime, he had that great move that was just on the edge of offensive pass interference that made him impossible to defend and allowed him to make clutch reception after clutch reception that just killed teams. He was a force to be reckoned with in his era and that's what makes a hall of famer to me, regardless of his personal conduct off the field.


Well there is some debate in there too



For one Monk got those numbers when running was still the focus of many teams

Then on another side you have to decide what is more important, Monk had a better career than Irvin and was a very good WR so some say that sshould put him in the hall before Irvin. On the flip side IMO on there best days Irvin was a better WR than Monk.


It all depends on what the voters think career over best day or reverse