Michael Irvin or Terrell Owens

• said_aouita

  

  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.?
• Commander of Awesome

  

  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.
• Con_Alma

  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.
• said_aouita

  

  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?
• Little Danny

  

  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.
• said_aouita

  

  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.
• Al Bundy

  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.
• Azubuike24

  

  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...
• Heretic

  

  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.
• Azubuike24

  

  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.