brennus Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 I was having an arguement with a friend yesterday, so I ask, who was better, Michael Irvin, or Steve Largent?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OB33 Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 Largent IMO.Largent has better stats and he was on a team where he was the only option. Irvin had Troy Aikman throwing to him, who did Steve have? Irvin was a better gamebreaker WR but Largent was better overall.There's my $0.02 #CHOMPCHOMPCHOMP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plaid Paint Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 Irvin ia loudmouth, whoremongering, drugaddicted punk.In other words, a total scumhound, who's game never even came close to living up to his endless shrieking and bleating.Largent is a class act who let his performance on the field speak for itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJTank Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Largent was better when he rteired he held 4 major reciving records including career receptions yards and TD. www.sportsecyclopedia.com For the best in sports history go to the Sports E-Cyclopedia at http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejroll Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Irvin is a suprisingly good basketball player as well. And so is Adam Sandler on that note. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quantum Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Irvin may have been more athletically gifted, but Largent's character gives him the edge. "One of my concerns is shysters show up and take advantage of people's good will and generosity". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stampman Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Largent IMO.Largent has better stats and he was on a team where he was the only option. Irvin had Troy Aikman throwing to him, who did Steve have? Irvin was a better gamebreaker WR but Largent was better overall.There's my $0.02 That says it very well--I also choose Largent... Comic Sans walks into a bar, and the bartender says, "Sorry, we don't serve your type here." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cujo Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Stave Largent: First-ballot Hall of Famer.Michael Irvin: Not in the Hall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJTank Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Irvin will get in it was his chekered past that kept him out for a year. www.sportsecyclopedia.com For the best in sports history go to the Sports E-Cyclopedia at http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brennus Posted June 1, 2005 Author Share Posted June 1, 2005 You are ALL cool in my book... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian in Boston Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Largent.Of course, as a die-hard Seahawks fan for life, I'm just a bit prejudiced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaolinaJoe Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 If I was picking a team and had to pick one, give me Irvin. "It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of thepress. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom ofspeech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given usthe freedom to demonstrate. And it is the soldier who salutes theflag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, andwho allows the protester to burn the flag."Marine Chaplain Dennis Edward O' Brien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brennus Posted June 1, 2005 Author Share Posted June 1, 2005 Of course, as a die-hard Seahawks fan for life, I'm just a bit prejudiced. You are my new best friend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lost_limey Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 Largent. Irvin is a punk-ass scumbag who played on the most drug-fuelled team of all time. He better not get in the Hall before Art Monk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fiasco! Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 who's a better person, or who was the better receiver?sure, largent may have better character attributes, but let's look at this objectively (which i'm sure you upstanding citizens already did).season averages (career)irvin: 1082.82 receiving yards, 68.18 catches, 5.9 touchdowns, 15.872 yards per catchlargent: 1006.85 yards, 63 catches, 7.69 touchdowns, 15.98 yards per catchpretty close.except for one thing.3 super bowls and a .750 postseason winning percentage versus 0 super bowls and a .429 postseason winning percentage.i don't make it a habit to support anything to do with the cowboys, but i'd say irvin was the better receiver. LinkedIn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brennus Posted June 2, 2005 Author Share Posted June 2, 2005 who's a better person, or who was the better receiver?sure, largent may have better character attributes, but let's look at this objectively (which i'm sure you upstanding citizens already did).season averages (career)irvin: 1082.82 receiving yards, 68.18 catches, 5.9 touchdowns, 15.872 yards per catchlargent: 1006.85 yards, 63 catches, 7.69 touchdowns, 15.98 yards per catchpretty close.except for one thing.3 super bowls and a .750 postseason winning percentage versus 0 super bowls and a .429 postseason winning percentage.i don't make it a habit to support anything to do with the cowboys, but i'd say irvin was the better receiver. Largent had less yards and receptions... But more touchdowns and yards per catch, which to me, makes you better. Doesn't matter about the 3 Super Bowls or whatever... Irvin wasn't the only great person on the team, where as Largent was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Buffalo Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 I think just about everyone's opinion is being clouded by who they LIKE more. Irvin was a better WR hands down. Some of the arguments for Largent was that he was the only weapon in Seattle at the time... think about that for a moment, if Irvin was on a team and was the ONLY weapon his stats would have been even higher but he loses touches to the All time leading Rusher in NFL history Emmitt Smith, one of the best pass catching Tight Ends of his time Jay Novacek. I hate Irvin and everything to do with the Dallas Cowboys (like any self respecting Buffalo Bills fan should) but the question at hand is who is the better WR not who would you rather date your daughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fiasco! Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 who's a better person, or who was the better receiver?sure, largent may have better character attributes, but let's look at this objectively (which i'm sure you upstanding citizens already did).season averages (career)irvin: 1082.82 receiving yards, 68.18 catches, 5.9 touchdowns, 15.872 yards per catchlargent: 1006.85 yards, 63 catches, 7.69 touchdowns, 15.98 yards per catchpretty close.except for one thing.3 super bowls and a .750 postseason winning percentage versus 0 super bowls and a .429 postseason winning percentage.i don't make it a habit to support anything to do with the cowboys, but i'd say irvin was the better receiver. Largent had less yards and receptions... But more touchdowns and yards per catch, which to me, makes you better. Doesn't matter about the 3 Super Bowls or whatever... Irvin wasn't the only great person on the team, where as Largent was. so...you pose a question, with a subjective answer, yet won't accept an answer that agrees with your preconceived notion?i know your type. LinkedIn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brennus Posted June 2, 2005 Author Share Posted June 2, 2005 who's a better person, or who was the better receiver?sure, largent may have better character attributes, but let's look at this objectively (which i'm sure you upstanding citizens already did).season averages (career)irvin: 1082.82 receiving yards, 68.18 catches, 5.9 touchdowns, 15.872 yards per catchlargent: 1006.85 yards, 63 catches, 7.69 touchdowns, 15.98 yards per catchpretty close.except for one thing.3 super bowls and a .750 postseason winning percentage versus 0 super bowls and a .429 postseason winning percentage.i don't make it a habit to support anything to do with the cowboys, but i'd say irvin was the better receiver. Largent had less yards and receptions... But more touchdowns and yards per catch, which to me, makes you better. Doesn't matter about the 3 Super Bowls or whatever... Irvin wasn't the only great person on the team, where as Largent was. so...you pose a question, with a subjective answer, yet won't accept an answer that agrees with your preconceived notion?i know your type. What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJTank Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Irvin is great and should be in the Hall first ballot the reason he was held out was stupid. Largent, however may be the second best WR of all time. www.sportsecyclopedia.com For the best in sports history go to the Sports E-Cyclopedia at http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.