--- Scott McDaniel wrote:

> If you've read a sports page over the last few days,
> you've probably seen an article with a title that
> reads something like "Marino and Young headline Hall
> of Fame Nominees". Among the other finalists
> listed in fine print is none other than the
> Playmaker, Michael Irvin.
>
> OK, Marino I'll give you, he was pretty good. But
> to list Steve Young as somehow being a better player
> than Michael Irvin is absolutely ridiculous.
> That's like saying WHAM was a better band than the
> Rolling Stones. It's just another example of the
> revisionist history of football, wherein these West
> Coast offense quarterbacks who dumped the ball off
> to their running backs, or 10 yard crossing patterns
> by receivers running free on a pick play, made
> easier by the linemen taught to leg-whip onrushing
> defenders, are somehow as good as the true immortal
> quarterbacks, such as Marino, who could throw the
> ball downfield further than 15 yards. Montana,
> Favre, Garcia, Young, the list of feeble armed QB's
> who made their name by benefiting from the true
> genius of Bill Walsh goes on and on.
>
> Irvin, on the other hand, was easily the first or
> second best player on arguably the best team ever,
> in fact the only team to win 3 of 4 Super Bowls, at
> least until February 6, 2005. If anyone really
> thinks he wasn't a better player than Steve Young, then you just don't know football.



Dear Scott,

Michael Irvin better than Steve Young? Why even compare? They played different positions. So you get an unbalanced result, which is clearly the case in your analysis, which more clearly demonstrates apples and oranges than actually simply saying, "That is like comparing apples and oranges."

The quarterback is more important because he is the one guy who needs to let the ball fly. There are then five other guys who can catch it. As a primary receiver, and main target then, he is very much like a bishop or knight in chess when the game has gone on for a while. He is your point man down the field. But, only rarely does he singularly beat the other team. If you can shut down such a receiver, you can still score and win by taking advantage of the weaknesses caused by the likely overcompensation by the defense. Stop a quarterback in his tracks, with sacks and interceptions, well, you are pretty much fucked, unless you have Barry Sanders out there running for 200 yards.

A running, gunning quarterback is, well, sorry to say, very much like a queen in chess. Steve Young is the ultimate queen, then.

I do think that Michael Irvin is the finest commentator who no longer plays the game. While I also admire Steve Young's ability to hand off into a seque with the other talking heads, as well as his feined passion when analyzing a team defenses, or, when going into commercial, he can preen with the cool confidence of a Mormon patriarch who knows that, no matter what happens after the show, he's going to be able to get some pussy at least twice, if not more, later in the day.

Michael Irvin has those same qualities. In fact, his charisma is perhaps the most powerful that has ever been seen, this side of Ali (Deion, smeon, give me Leon). Of that, there is no match. In terms of persona, on field or off, which is really what life is about, Michael Irvin in the man. He is why people play football to begin with. It's all about penetration.

Hope this clears up your confusion.

Cordially,

Sun Tse the Greek

--- Scott McDaniel wrote:

> If you've read a sports page over the last few days,
> you've probably seen an article with a title that
> reads something like "Marino and Young headline Hall
> of Fame Nominees". Among the other finalists
> listed in fine print is none other than the
> Playmaker, Michael Irvin.
>
> OK, Marino I'll give you, he was pretty good. But
> to list Steve Young as somehow being a better player
> than Michael Irvin is absolutely ridiculous.
> That's like saying WHAM was a better band than the
> Rolling Stones. It's just another example of the
> revisionist history of football, wherein these West
> Coast offense quarterbacks who dumped the ball off
> to their running backs, or 10 yard crossing patterns
> by receivers running free on a pick play, made
> easier by the linemen taught to leg-whip onrushing
> defenders, are somehow as good as the true immortal
> quarterbacks, such as Marino, who could throw the
> ball downfield further than 15 yards. Montana,
> Favre, Garcia, Young, the list of feeble armed QB's
> who made their name by benefiting from the true
> genius of Bill Walsh goes on and on.
>
> Irvin, on the other hand, was easily the first or
> second best player on arguably the best team ever,
> in fact the only team to win 3 of 4 Super Bowls, at
> least until February 6, 2005. If anyone really
> thinks he wasn't a better player than Steve Youngthen you just don't know football.