I still don't understand how Chris Carter is a MAJOR part of why Minnesota did not have success in the postseason. Can someone explain that, besides Junc? 'Cause I know Chris Carter never played QB or RB and I'm pretty sure I never saw him on defense, but I guess I could be wrong.
That is great that they threw less than most teams, so why didn't that keep Collins from catching more balls? Believe what you want, the facts back me up. You struggle comprehending what I write, why should I trust anything you take out of a book? I asked you first, show me the big games where he stepped up and took over? Again, in non blowout big games. Are we judging them in the run game or the pass game? TO did learn from the best, Jerry Rice, and he played w/ him for 5 years. I think TO is an underrated guy b/c of the other nonsense but Randy Moss at his peak was better than TO at his peak. When Randy tries he's up there w/ Jerry Rice. It wouldn't shock me if funkee was big blockhead.
When your best players don't play their best in the biggest games it hurts your team. There were many reasons why Minny couldn't win playoff games and Cris was one of those reasons.
Cle 1964-1969: 2149 pass attempts The 13 other NFL teams from 1964-1969(I used the 13 other teams that were in the league in '64) averaged 2372 pass attempts during those 6 years. Cle passed 26 times per game the league average besides Cle was 28 times per game Are the 2 extra pass attempts really that big of a deal?
Most players put up their best numbers when they are playing a bad team in the regular season. The teams that make the playoffs have fewer holes and the yards and scores against them require much more effort and skill. Given that the level of competition is higher the stats will be lower unless the focus is on stopping the run or other receivers. Also, good teams turn the ball over less frequently leaving less opportunities to pad one's stats. To say that a receiver putting up 150 yards against one team in the playoffs is better than a different receiver putting up 75 yards in a different playoff game against a different team ten years later is not always accurate. If those 75 yards were against the 86 Giants or the 2000 Ravens, they were much harder to come by than 150 yards against some 8-8 team in a wild card game. Just because Cris Carter didn't put on a red cape and score at will in the playoffs did not mean that he didn't bring his A game. If you want to win this point, please provide specific examples of games where he could have done better.
It's not the stats, where are the game changing plays? Do you recall one single playoff game where Carter did anything special in a meaningful spot? You brought up TO, I can give you 3 off the top of my head for him- 98 vs. GB, the great comeback vs. the Giants and his SB app. In Cris' playoff career his team lost to an eventual SB champ ONCE, he wasn'tfacing the '86 Giants or 2000 Ravens.
No, you made the comparison. Do I need to produce your quote a second time? I did so last night. Do I really need to do it again? You wrote that all receivers of this current era were more athletic than receivers of earlier eras. Based on what you wrote, you believe Warfield was less athletic than Chrebet, McCareins, Toomer, Frank Sanders, Brian Finneran, Matthew Hatchette, etc. Wowwwwwwwww. Warfield did not look athletic because of who he was playing against. He was athletic because he was athletic. Do I need to produce Warfield's numbers in the long jump? Would that help at all? Or would you come back and write something like, "Oh, they measured poorly back then. The rulers were not made as well as they are today. Can't trust those numbers." Bob Hayes, one of the five specific players I mentioned, won the 100 meters in the 1964 Olympics and tied the world record in 10 seconds flat. "But, but, but he wasn't athletic. He played in the 1960s and 1970s. Wayne Chrebet was more athletic. He played in the 1990s and 2000s." C'mon, junc. You are trolling with this garbage. Alworth, Warfield, Hayes, Stallworth, and Swann were more athletic than many WRs of this generation. C'mon, say it with me. You can do it. Alworth, Warfield, Hayes, Stallworth, and Swann were more athletic than many WRs of this past generation.
I may do the same. With me it is no longer about patience. Now it is about time. He has really wasted my time here. I thought the comment he made earlier this year in a Monk debate was cuckoo. In the very same sentence, he implied that Pro Bowls are garbage but then used Monk's small number of Pro Bowl appearances to knock the guy! How can somebody write something like that and be taken seriously? As I wrote back in that thread- you cannot have it both ways, nyjunc. Either Pro Bowls suck and you should not use them in your arguments OR Pro Bowls are great and you should use them in your arguments. You have to pick a side. I think he has topped the Pro Bowl comment with what he has done in this thread.
It's amazing how you guys always take every word literally. I didn't say Warfield wasn't athletic but if you put guys like Chrebet and co. in that era they'd look a heck of alot more athletic than they looekd in their era. Speed and athleticism are two different things, i hope you know that. Those guys were not more athletic than many of the WRs in this generation. :rofl: You guys amaze me. When did I use PBs? please post the context of that argument. If I remember correctly I brought up PBs b/c they are a popularity contest and Monk still couldn't make it. Guys who are as good as Mink supposedly was usually make it on name recognition. That was the context of the discussion and i was right- as usual. I'm sorry to insult your heroes of yesterday but the athleticism of players from the 60s and 70s does not compare to today. lineman are as athletic today as WRs were way back when. When you agree w/ big blockhead you know you have no chance in an argument.
I know what the word means. Athleticism is more than just speed. I noted that Warfield was an excellent long jumper. Sorry, but I do not have bench press numbers for Warfield. Define "many" for me. Absolutely no context is needed. The sentence is in my sig. How could you have written such a thing? Who were you trying to kid with that? It was not a Monk issue at all. You could have made a similar comment about Chad Pennington and it would have been just as ridiculous. In general- yes. Again, I was not talking in generalities earlier. I made mention of SPECIFIC players. Do you really believe that someone who played in the first decade of the Super Bowl era could not possibly have been more athletic than many current players? Do you really believe that?
I make it a point not to waste time reading these debates, so fill me in real quick. Are you guys arguing over the "athleticism" of guys you never saw play?
Look, I'm not going to get involved in an argument wherein the athleticism of Roger Carr is being compared to the athleticism of Ed McCaffrey, but we're talking about Paul Warfield, Bob Hayes, Lynn Swann, John Stallworth, and Lance Alworth here.
I see you did not get my point. I have seen two of the five play in games. With the other three I am relegated to NFL Films footage- and a lot of it. I have certainly seen enough to say with confidence that Warfield, Hayes, and Alworth were athletic. Two people want to fight me on this. Amazing.
I have no freakin' clue if Willie Mays was athletic. He played before I was born. All those trips to Cooperstown, all the old baseball footage, all the books- none of that helped for I did not see him live on TV or in person at a ballpark. How the heck should I know how athletic he was.
I think Willie was athletic. I believe there is a strong consensus around that fact. Although, the only time I saw him play he was drooling on himself in the outfield for the Mets, but nevermind that. You think he was more athletic than Mickey Mantle? What about Rickey Henderson?
Yeah, but, but, but, I didn't see Mays play. On a similar note, I cannot comment on all the great presidential decisions of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt because I was not alive when they were presidentin'.
