I was being sarcastic. Anyways, weren't we talking about the athleticism of pro football players? That and a hundred other topics that were covered in this thread.
Do yourself a favor and buy some books to help you learn about 1960's football. Warfield was the deep receiver. They did not throw to him as much as they did Collins who was the short receiver. Warfield was the better receiver. Would you say that Welker is better than Moss because Welker caught more passes over the last three seasons? Clue....Get one. I comprehend what you write just fine. The problem is you seem to forget what you write. When you asked "Where did I say carter holds the majority of the blame?" I then showed you with your own quotes : "The teams he played for always disappointed in January and he was a major reason why. " It's impossible to misinterpret that. I find it hilarious that you are trying to spin that. You can't show me any evidence that Carter disappeared because he didn't disappear in big games. You were caught making stuff up and are now trying desperately to spin it.
Really? Did he ever throw interceptions in those games? Fumble the ball at all? Drop passes? Give up big plays on defense? I get it now, apparently Chris Carter was supposed to be a one man army in the playoffs. By the way, you said he was a MAJOR reason why they lost those playoff games. But I'm sure you'll find a way to twist what you said.
By many I would say 70-80%, I don't think you realize just how athletic players are today. We see 300 lb men doing the same thing 180 lb men did back then. Try to follow along, we were debating whether Art Monk belonged in the Hall. I showed how he didn't and the response I got was quotes from various coaches/players. Wouldn't you think a guy that played 16 years and was as respected as he was would make more than 3 PBs when PB voting is essentially based on name recognition? It's not that difficult of a theory to understand. That's great, if Paul warfield wa sushc an athletic freak and such a great WR then why was he not even the leading WR in Cle? why did he lead the team in rec only 2 of 7 years? Wouldn't being a super athlete on par w/ today's athletes give him such a huge advantage against his peers? I thank you for further strenghtening my case in the Carter vs. Warfield debate. Yes, I believe that the average athlete in today's game is as athletic or maore athletic than the top athletes from 30-40 years ago. Do yourself a favor and form your own opinions rather than reading one book and spouting off everything you read. But you never brought up Gary Collins until I mentioned him. Your intial excuse was that they didn't pass enough. How come you didn't mention Collins until I brought him up? Clearly you do not comprehend and if you do you are just trying to completely twist what I said. I asked you to show me where he ever stepped up in a big game or big moment in a close game, you cannot do it so you are deflecting. Yes I am making stuff up:rofl: Every time I easily prove one of your excuses incorrect you come back w/ a new one. Now you are agreeing w? funkee beats:rofl: yes A major reason why not THE major reason why. have someone explain the difference to you. Maybe funkee beats can help:rofl:
I do form my own opinions. They just don’t line up with your imagination. I didn’t mention Collins because that didn’t have any effect on Warfield being a better receiver than Carter. It is a fact that the Browns threw less passes than a majority of the teams in the NFL. Give me an example of how Carter disappeared. Just one. Did he fumble? How many passes did he drop? I’ve given plenty of examples of how Carter did show up. Go back and re-read them. You haven’t disproved any of the facts I have presented because you can’t. I post FACTS and not imagined theories like you. Carter was NOT A major reason why OR THE major reason why. You are wrong…As usual...again
I find it pathetic that you are trying to condescend the way I gather information to form my opinions with all of the reading I do while trying to make it seem like I am just spouting out other people’s information when all you do is look at a stat book and form an opinion. There’s more to the game of football than a stat book. You should really try picking up a book and read something other than the stat book.
You didn't mention collins b/c you didn't realize your first excuse wouldn't fly. I asked you to provide me w/ an example of him stepping up, you cannot do and you continue to deflect. Show me the big moment in a big spot of a big game that was close where he made the difference or made a big play to win or keep his team in the game? So you do now undrestand the difference btw "a majro reason why" and "the major reason why"? I feel good that you are learning. Do not be angry b/c I can analyze #s better than you. I do not just use stats, if I did how in the world can I prove that Brady is better than Manning?(which I have done over and over and I am STILL waiting for you to explain why Brad Johnson needs to lead and not Peyton Manning). I use many different sources to help form my opinion, do not be angry b/c I do more than provide a new excuse every time something is proven wrong.
I didn’t mention Collins because that had no effect on the discussion on whether Warfield or Carter was better. It is a fact that Warfield’s teams did not throw the ball often. I have listed the times Carter made plays to keep his team in the game. Go back and re-read this thread. How many drops has Carter had in big games? How many fumbles has Carter had in big games? I’m still waiting for your response. You’re spinning your own comments. Keep up with the childish comments. Ha. You don’t analyze numbers better than me. If you actually analyzed and researched why those numbers were those numbers then you might be on to something but you don’t and you can’t. I don’t just look at numbers. I’m more interested in facts. You have never proved Brady to be better than Manning – only in your mind. WHEN DID I EVER SAY PEYTON MANNING DOESN’T NEED TO LEAD? READ WHAT I WRITE! You clearly don’t use different sources. You look at stats only or you would have realized Warfield is clearly better than Cris Carter. I am more interested in facts than stats. I don’t make excuses; I list the facts of the events that occurred…you know, stuff that you don’t see looking at stats or box scores only. Go find a book and do some reading, you have a long way to go.
Warfield was plenty athletic. He letter in multiple sports in High School, ran track and was offered a baseball contract before heading off to college to pursue football and track. Finished 2nd in the NCAA in broad jump with a 26-foot jump. But it doesn't say that in the stat books so he must not have been athletic.
The excuse you used was Warfield didn't put up great #s b/c they didn't throw enough, I showed you Collins caught more balls in the same offense and then you started using Collins as an excuse. You haven't listed anything. You showed me when he tied the game at 7 w/ a TD rec in the FIRST QTR of an eventual blowout. I don't know how many drops or fumbles he had, I know he wasn't making big plays. he wasn't imposing his will on any big games like the best players usually do. Your excuse for Carter was to blame the QB and you said Johnson needs to lead, you never said that for peyton in all his sturggles- I wonder why? Let's move along, there's really no point in debating this any longer. I get it-Carter was great, he made big plays in big moments even though we have no evidence of that. he's the greatest EXCEPT against Paul Warfield who was even better despite putting up less production against his peers than Carter did. As we know it's not about production, it's about quotes from coaches and players and about talent- about that those players COULD do not about what they actually did. Joe namath could throw a ball better than anyone, never mind that they went mostly to opponents and he was a career under .500 QB but he could sure throw that ball!
There's that reading problem again, show me where I said Warfield was not athletic? I love it when you guys try to deflect.
It is a fact that Warfield’s teams did not throw a lot. It’s a fact that Warfield didn’t put up great numbers because they didn’t throw a lot. I looked up his HOF bio and the first sentence fits perfectly with this topic: Who cares if Collins caught more balls. He wasn’t lighting up the league in pass receptions either. The highest he finished was 7th in 1969. I have listed more than that. Go back and re-read. Carter caught a 2nd TD pass that game that got them w/in 10 as well. Carter made plays in big games. You don’t need 100 yards 3 TDs on 8 catches to be effective. There were many things that went on in those games. I have listed actual events. Things you can’t do by looking at stat sheets and box scores. Warfield’s teams threw less and he never put up the big numbers because of it. Yet, despite that he still was inducted into the HOF on the first ballot. FOOTBALL IS MORE THAN JUST STATS! Any knowledgeable football fan knows this. Hopefully someday you’ll catch up.
In those years in Cle the Browns threw on average 2 less times per game than the rest of the league. Putting that excuse aside, why didn't you bring up Collins until after I brought him up? Once the pass attempts excuse was exposed then you had the collins excuse. The #s NEVER tell the entire story of a palyers career and I have nopt said a bad word about warfield who is an all time great. it's not an insult to say Carter was better than him. he wasn't lighting up the league but he was catching more than Warfield so opportunities were there. I know it's not all about 100 yd games or even TDs, it's about making big plays in big spots. When did he do that? Please tell me. It wasn't about big #s for warfield, it was about #s compared to his peers. In Cle they That is not a huge difference. Comparing Crater vs. his peers and Warfield vs. his peers Carter gets the edge. I don't think it's a huge edge, I'm not saying Warfield wasn't great. I think Carter's career was better compared to his peers and if warfield didn't get enough opportunities those are the breaks, players are evaluated on their production not on their potential.
you brought up Collins because you looked at a stats sheet. Collins didn’t get more receptions because he was a better receiver than Warfield. Warfield’s teams threw the ball much less than the other teams in the league. His numbers weren’t great compared to his contemporaries because of that. It wouldn’t be an insult to say Carter was better than a receiver. However in this instance it would be an incorrect statement. If Carter was better than Warfield then he would have been inducted in the HOF on the first ballot like Warfield was. Warfield didn’t put up huge reception numbers, but did put up huge numbers and since you like stats (and only view stats) I’ll post them for you When he retired he ranked 6th All time in receiving yards (8,565), 8th in yds/rec of players with more than 150 career receptions at 20.1 YPC and 3rd in receiving TDs with 85 despite being 17th in receptions with 427. One of every 5 receptions he made went for a TD. there’s some stats for you to digest. Carter was the only player making plays in many of those games. I’ve proven it to you many times in this thread. Go back and re-read. Warfield put up numbers. Warfield was a great receiver. Carter was not better than Warfield.
I didn't say Collins was better, your excuse about production was about Cle not throwing enough and I was curious why Warfield wasn't even the leading receiver on his own team? It's alot harder to get into the hall now w/ so many older candidtaes backed up. B/c one guy made it 1st ballot and another didn't doesn't tell us much. Who was up for election when Warfield was on the ballot? You have told me you have proven it but you haven't showed me anything other than catching a 1st qtr TD to tie a game that eventually was a blowout. Warfield didn't put up #s in comparison to his peers the way Carter did.
