On his ESPN radio show yesterday, former Dallas Cowboy Michael Irvin said he’d trade in his three Super Bowl rings and his Hall of Fame jacket to go 19-0 one season.
I'd give them all back for perfection. Being the best for a season (Super Bowl champ) is great but being one of the greatest of all-time is something else.
For the most part, I agree with him. While I do think the luster of "undefeated" faded a bit after 2007 when the Patriots went 18-1, it would still be incredible to have the only 19-0 record out there. And you'd get a Super Bowl ring with that 19-0 season; So I guess the question is: Is 19-0 worth two Super Bowl titles?
On his ESPN radio show yesterday, former Dallas Cowboy Michael Irvin said he’d trade in his three Super Bowl rings and his Hall of Fame jacket to go 19-0 one season.
I'd give them all back for perfection. Being the best for a season (Super Bowl champ) is great but being one of the greatest of all-time is something else.
For the most part, I agree with him. While I do think the luster of "undefeated" faded a bit after 2007 when the Patriots went 18-1, it would still be incredible to have the only 19-0 record out there. And you'd get a Super Bowl ring with that 19-0 season; So I guess the question is: Is 19-0 worth two Super Bowl titles?
Still, if I had to pick between three Super Bowls or one 19-0 season, I’d go for the latter. Greatest-of-all-time or not, to do something that no one else has been able to do would be an amazing accomplishment.
Plus, we'd never have to hear from Mercury Morris again.
Which would you rather have? Three rings or one 19-0 season?
