He was part of the problem, the blame is never on one player w/ that many playoff failures. He was one of the biggest culprits b/c you expect your best players to step up in big games but they had many more problems than him. Nothing surprises me b/c people tend to interpret my posts rather than read what I post. The excuse making comes from blaming everyone but Cris just as Murrell blames everyone but manning. isn't it funny he talks about how Brad Johnson and the Vikes QBs needed to lead those teams yet when presented w/ all of Peyton's failures he makes excuses about other players and units? He still hasn't addressed this. Carter had the better overall career than irvin but if I need to win a big game I'm taking Irvin b/c he wasn't afraid of the big moment.
The 70s Steelers, the 80s Niners, and the 90s Cowboys were all stacked on both sides of the ball. It is easy to be a "clutch" player in the post season when you play for an all-starteam. By your definition of clutch, John Taylor should be taken ahead of Carter as well. The other problem with post season stats is that you are dealing with a much samller sample size. A couple good games (or bad) can make the player look much better (or worse) than he would have been if he played 100 more games under similar circumstances. With 22 starting players it is much harder to give an NFL player most of the credit or blame for a win or loss than an NBA player who is 20% of the starting lineup.
Those are valid points but w/ the offensive weapons on Minnesota shouldn't it have been easier to be clutch too? John taylor was a good WR who benefitted from playing w/ Montana and opposite Rice. People obviously remember the SB winning catch but he didn't do much in postseason besides that catch where Cincy was destroyed by Rice all game long and assumed he'd be getting the ball in that spot. I don't put 100% emphasis on postseason but it is a major factor when I evaluate players. I want guys that can perform on the biggest stage and I never felt that watching Carter so while I still know he was a great player he gets knocked down a peg in my book. Your big time players need to play like big time players in big games, he didn't and I give him more blame than someone like jake Reed.
Why would people side w/ someone who is inventing points, none of which are based in fact? Um....His YPC were extremely low. His highest YPC during those 8 years was 13.8. He only had 13 YPC or higher 3 times. Thus he was not a Yards guy. Get it? Defenses lined up to stop Emmitt. Irvin was a great receiver, but he was not the main focus of the defenses that went up against him. He played a role, but not a major role. He wasn't the reason the Bucs won the SB and Dilfer wasn't the reason the Ravens won the SB. They played a part, but the reason was the defenses. I wouldn't blame Carter because I live in reality and like to make my opinions on fact and not my imagination. Moss was a major reason and so was Carter. Brad was an average QB. Carter didn't disappear when his QBs needed him the most, but your imagination keeps telling you that. Carter was not better than Warfield. Please stop. At this point your making yourself look silly with that argument. Collins was a great receiver. Warfield was the deep threat and the Browns threw the ball the 4th least amount of times during Warfield's time there PLEASE READ WHAT I WROTE! I said prior to 1978 the Steelers did not throw the ball much. And when they did the passes were split amongst Swann and Stallworth. Stallworth's production dropped a bit at the end of his career when age and injuries caught up to him and the main receiving weapon went to Louis Lipps. Harper wasn't the same receiver w/o Aikman. WHERE DID I SAY HE WAS GREAT? READ WHAT I WROTE! Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I did with two of your quotes. Lunacy. They didn't even have the ball for 20 minutes. And when they did the QB only completed 6 passes (3 of which went to C. Carter for 77 of the QBs 113 passing yards. What more do you want from him? Salisbury played terribly in that game. Oh right. That's Carter's fault. You can't be serious. Are you? You must be fucking w/ all of us.
The funniest thing about this, is I have proven over and over again that Carter did not disappear in the playoffs and junc refuses to acknowledge it and continues to live in an imaginary world.
I am not interested in another Namath debate. All I was doing in that post was hinting that Funkee Beatz is probably a regular's 2nd account. It is either that or the guy has been lurking for a while.
I mentioned five specific players. I was not writing in generalities. You originally wrote, "All the WRs of this past generation are more athletic than guys from the 50-70s/80s." I replied, "Alworth, Warfield, Hayes, Stallworth, and Swann were more athletic than many WRs of this past generation." Watch the following video and then try to tell me Warfield was not more athletic than Wayne Chrebet, Marty Booker, Antonio Freeman, Amani Toomer, Ike Hilliard, Justin McCareins, James Thrash, Derrick Mason, Jabar Gaffney, T.J. Houshmandzadeh, and Jerricho Cotchery just to name a few WRs from the current generation. [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KP4Y4aYtR2s[/YOUTUBE]
Warfield had more than two All-Pro seasons. 1964 All-NFL 1st team NE 1968 All-NFL 2nd team AP, 1st team UP, 1st team NE, 1st team PW 1969 All-Pro 1st team HF, 2nd team FW, 1st team NE 1969 All-NFL 1st team NE, 1st team PW, 2nd team NY 1970 All-NFL 2nd team NE 1971 All-NFL 1st team AP, 1st team FW, 1st team NE, 1st team PW 1972 All-NFL 2nd team AP, 1st team NE 1973 All-NFL 1st team AP, 2nd team FW, 2nd team NE NE- Newspaper Enterprise Association AP-Associated Press UP- United Press International PW- Pro Football Weekly HF- Pro Football Hall of Fame FW- Professional Football Writers of America NY- New York Daily News Today, the Associated Press All-Pro team is the most popular one. That was not the case in Warfield's time. Back then the NEA selections were prestigious. The Hall of Fame selected the first combined NFL-AFL all-pro team in 1969. The Professional Football Writers Association were in charge of selecting the NFL's official all-pro teams in 1970 and 1971.
I've been reading up on this site for a couple of years now and just barely joined. I've read a lot of Junc's posts and he just makes stuff up half the time. Sometimes I wonder if he really watches games or if he just goes off of boxscores and stats. I enjoy it when you guys call him out on his bullshit though. Cakes, Murrell and Hasty, you guys know football. Thanks for the read.
Nah, they should side w/ people making up excuse after excuse. He had 13 or better Yards per 8 times not 3 times. Why are you narrowing it down to 8 years? I can do that too, from '98 to 2000 he was over 13 yards per EVERY year! Irvin was the main focus of the passing game. I didn't say Brad was THE reason tampa won, the won first b/c they had a great D but great D alone does not win. if that was the case those Tampa teams and the Baltimore teams on the 00s would have won multiple titles. Bal thought it was going to be easy to win another SB when they dumped Dilfer for Grbac- how did that work out? TB was never close again. You don't blame Carter b/c it hurts your argument just like Peyton doesn't get blame. Moss was THE main reason why that offense ws so great. Brad was a good QB, Carter always disappeared in big games that were close. he was great when those big games were blowouts though. :rofl: It's beyond embarrassing how you can call warfield better than Carter. The browns threw the 4th least amount of times according to you, why wasn't Warfield the leading receiver more than 2 of his years in Cleveland? Now the excuse is gary Collins was a great WR, Randy Moss was great too, right? jake Reed was very good. How come Carter still put up #s in comparison to his peers? I don't care about pre-1978, you made the comment Swann and stallworth were superstar WRs so they took away opps from each other. Why didn't Stallworth's #s go up after Swann retired? Ohhh it was Aikman not Irvin why Harper stunk when he left Dallas.:rofl: You are saying he was developing, he was w/ the Cards for 5 years and couldn't beat out 2 bums. How was he developing? he goes to dallas and all of a sudden he's really good, come on. if Carter was making plays would the QB have completed more than 6 passes? Again, it's not all his fault but Keyshawn made Ray Lucas look like an NFL QB, heck Keyshawn even made Tom Tupa look like an NFL QB so why couldn't Carter help out his struggling QB? It's funny how w/ Manning all the blame goes to the WRs and everyone besides the QB and w/ Carter all the blame goes to the QB and every else besides Carter. I wonder why that is? It's clear as day, maybe you should go back to school? If you do not understand the difference btw those quotes I can't help you. You haven't proven a thing. You have shown he had good #s in blowout games and you have provided excuses after excuse. I keep asking this and you keep avoiding it. You blamed Brad Johnson saying the QB has to lead, why does this not apply to peyton Manning? I cannot see videos at work and you are comparing elite WRs of the past w/ average guys now? and you have to also keep in mind that the players they p[layed against made those guys look alot more athletic. put any of those recent WRs you mentioned in the 60s and 70s and they'd look alot more athletic too. :rofl::rofl::rofl:
The points I have presented are facts not excuses. I know that it’s tough for to understand only reading the box score. You mentioned his 1,000 yard seasons and I pointed out that only 3 times during those years he had a 13.0 ypc or better. Get it?! He wasn’t the main focus of the offense. And when defenses tried to stop him Aikman made them pay by going to Harper, Novacek or Emmitt out of the backfield. The defense was the reason. Brad was there years after as well. How did that work out? I presented the facts. You choose to live in fantasy land. Carter was not to blame. Carter was a main reason as well. Untrue. Brad was average at best and Carter did not disappear in big games. Anyone with a clue KNOWS Warfield was a better WR than Carter. Anyone that doesn’t believe that is clueless.PERIOD. Gary Collins WAS a great receiver. Warfield was the deep threat. I’m not going to explain to you 1960’s football or 1960’s Cleveland Browns football. Go pick up a book and read so you can have a clue. Stallworth’s numbers did go up after Swann retired. Of course you don’t care about pre-1978 because you don’t understand pre 1978. In fact I’m not sure you understand football pre 1990. I said that prior to 1978 the Steelers did not throw much and when they did Stallworth and Swann split the few passes that were thrown which is why their numbers were down versus receivers of that era. Why don’t you go back and read what I wrote. It’s plain as day. Oh right, going from a superstar QB to garbage QBs isn’t going to make a bit of difference Novacek was developing. I’ve already explained what happened that day. C. Carter was the only one making plays for Salisbury. Why don’t you go and find a newspaper article or find some highlights to help you understand why Carter did not disappear. Do something other than look at box scores. I’m not the one who needs to go back to school. You’re clearly spinning here. I’m embarrassed for you. No, I have provided you with enough information. Go learn something please. Dig deeper.
There is just no point in continuing this, I cannot take the excuses anymore. W/ each new response that I shoot down I get a new excuse. Nowhere did you mention Collins, I bring up that he led the team in recs as much as Warfield and now Gary was GREAT and that's why Warfield's #s weren't as good. W/ Pitt they had two "superstar" WRs so that's why their #s were down, did Carter's #s really suffer much when they got Randy Moss? Randy Moss late 90s was better than any WR not named Jerry Rice or Don Hutson. Now you are resorting to childish attacks. It figures, the new excuses run out some time so you need something to deflect the fact that you are wrong again.
You haven't shot anything down because you're points aren't in reality. i didn't mention Collins because that didn't have any effect on Warfield being better than Carter. but yes, Collins was a great receiver and single-handeldy defeated the Colts in the 1964 NFL Championship Game. You're trying to bring stats in to prove a point that anyone with a clue would point out as false. I am not wrong. Carter did not disappear in big games and was not overrated. My points are based in fact and reality while yours are imagined and invented. I don't resort to childish attacks. Just read a book, it might help you.
That's great but Moss was better. TO 1996-1999: 222 recs, 3307 yds, 30 TDs Moss 1998-199(I am using 2 LESS seasons) 149 recs, 2726 yds, 28 TDs TO's first huge season was 2000, he's not better overall but at least you would have had a chance if we were discussing the 2000s. Let's just move on. You are right, it was everyone's fault but Carter, it was everyone's fault but Manning. Swann/Stallworth kept each other down, gary Collins kept Paul Warfield down. You are right, I tip my cap The way you read my posts you expect to have any credibility b/c you read some books w/ the OPINIONS of those particular authors?
When did I say Gary Collins kept Warfield down? Warfield was the deep threat and the playmaker. Collins caught more passes than Warfield, but wasn't the better receiver. Warfield was a much better receiver than Carter. Yes, I am right, because my points are based on fact and not by looking at box scores. I absolutely take the opinions of respected football historians over your opinions which you get from looking at box scores and stat sheets. Yes, I do. I form my own opinions based on the amount I read and the amount I watch. I spend very little amount of time memorizing stats because I realize that stats only tell a small portion of the entire story. Why you haven't figured that out yet is the bigger mystery. I understand that when Carter's QB is getting beat up all game long that Carter isn't going to have a big day. You look at a stat sheet that says 3 rec 77 yds = bad day. Do you understand the difference? The interesting this is Carter had 50% of the receptions and 68% of the passing yards that day. But, you're right...I should just accept your theory that Carter disappeared that day . ETA - Please read what I wrote. I said the Steelers prior to 1978 did not pass much and when they did they split the passes between Swann and Stallworth resulting in fewer receptions for each. This is fact.
Your excuse why Warfield only led Cle 2 of 5 years in recs was Gary Collins(who you didn't bring up originally, the original excuse was pass attempts) I don't memorize stats, I form my opinions on players of the past 20-30 years based on what I saw and I form my opinions based on what I have read and seen as well. I don't use one book or one show or one set of highlights. It's funny how stats only tell part of the story when you are arguing for a guy w/ lesser stats yet that is all you have for Manning to defend him. Big time players step up more often than not in big games, show me the big games(non blowouts) where Carter stepped up?
It is a fact that the Browns threw the ball less than most teams.. I don't believe you when you say you read other books and watch highlights. All you do is look at stats and box scores. Show me how Carter didn't show up in big games. It's going to be difficult, but don't use stats. Did he drop many passes? Did he fumble the ball away? Just because you don't have 100 yards receiving doesn't mean you disappeared.
TO was a much better blocker than Moss. He was more help when RBs or other WRs had the ball. Also, just as Carter benefited from playing across from Moss, Moss had the benefit of playing across from Carter. It is possible that Moss got off to a better start than TO but despite his reputation, TO has had the better career.
Funkee, Good observation. I just put junc on ignore. The guys who argue with him just have more patience for that crap than I do. Heh.
