It is a fact that Warfield’s teams didn’t throw as often as some of the other teams. Is Wes Welker a better receiver than Randy Moss? Catching the most passes on your team proves nothing. Warfield was the deep threat. Deep threats don’t catch as many passes as the underneath receiver. See TJ Houshmandzadeh / Chad Johnson, Wes Welker / Randy Moss. Wow. The finalists in 1983 were: Bobby Bell (inducted), Sid Gillman (Inducted), Gene Hickerson, Paul Hornung, John Henry Johnson, Sonny Jurgensen (inducted), Don Maynard, Mike McCormack, Bobby Mitchell (inducted), Joe Namath, Johnny Robinson, Pete Rozelle, Mac Speedie, Charley Taylor and Willie Wood. The voters thought so highly of Warfield that they inducted him in his first attempt despite fewer career receptions than Charley Taylor and Don Maynard. It’s all there. You choose to ignore it. Warfield didn’t put up reception numbers. He did put up yardage and TD numbers. He was a complete receiver with breakaway speed. He was a much better receiver than Carter was. Any person knowledgeable in football history knows this. It’s not even debatable really.
Moss was still putting up big #s. Your reasoning was that Cle didn't throw enough so he wouldn't put up bigger #s, I simply showed you he had a teammate putting up bigger #s so why could he? I get that deep threats don't catch as many balls(Collins averag was 16 yds though) but was Moss still not catching a ton of balls? Maynard was an AFL player and I don't think they were inducting too many. That's great that they inducted him before those guys, still doesn't prove he was better than Carter who has much stiffer competition to get in. B/c they let undeserving players like Monk and Swann in there is a logjam waiting to get in for more deserving players. Warfield's yardage #s led him top 4 top 10 finishes in 13 seasons. I guess I don't have any knowledge of football history what can I say? Maybe someday I too can make every excuse in the book in defense of certain players. :rofl:
Collins only topped 16YPC 3 times in his 10 year career and one was in 1968 when he only played 5 games and caught only 9 passes. Cleveland was near the bottom of the league in pass attempts during Warfield’s years there. That is a fact. Warfield put up big numbers too. Averaging over 20 YPC in 4 of the 6 seasons he was in Cleveland and totaled 44 TDs. Those are big numbers. You need to dig deeper. Right. So they inducted a player over another one because they weren’t inducting AFL players. Ah-huh…Right. They inducted Warfield over the top 2 all-time leaders in receptions at the time of his retirement. Why would they do that? This is where I just have to laugh. Can someone else try to explain to junc how it’s very unlikely that a player - who doesn’t catch many passes because he plays on run oriented teams - would be in the top 10 in yards? Why don’t you pick up a book and read something on these players that you know little to nothing about. Just try it. Look at something other than a stat book. The way I see it, you don’t have any knowledge of football history, at least nothing that you can’t get out of the football encyclopedia. Give me some facts of the game. Why were his stats the way they were. What happened to cause it. That’s what I’m interested in. Not twisted versions of stats that you can’t even explain to anyone how those stats came about. Paul Warfield was a better receiver than Cris Carter.
Gary averaged 16 for his career and he was over 15 each year w/ Warfield except one. 20 Yards per is incredible, Warfield was great. That's not the issue. Warfield deserved to go in but are you saying there was not an AFL backlash? How come the great and not overrated Joe Namath didn't make it on the first ballot? Again, Cleveland averaged TWO less passes per game than the rest of the league and this wasn't about recs it was about yds. Stop deflecting. Let's move on, I am sick and tired of all the excuses and deflections. Ther's no point arguing w/ a guy who does nothing but make excuses for the guys he is defending. If you are arguing Monk or Namath it's not about numbers it's about quotes, if you are arguing manning it's all about #s, the excuses never end.
Collins only had over 16 YPC 3 times in his 10 year career. He wasn’t the deep threat. Warfield got in over the two guys who were #1 and #2 in receptions at the time of Warfield’s retirement. Why would they do that? Answer the question and stop deflecting. Warfield averaged 35 rec / year (minus the one season he missed due to injury). At 35 rec/year just to get to 1,000 yards receiving he would have needed to average 28.6 YPC. That is a nearly impossible feat. Do you now understand how receptions and yards go together? I give you facts and you mindlessly call them excuses. I provide you with factual information. Can you provide us with anything other than twisted view on stats? Re-read my comments on Namath. It might be time for you to move on from this discussion because once it got to actual events of the games you were way out of your league.
I didn't say he was the deep threat, I just pointed out a fact that his career yards per avg is 16. You make it sound like he was a welker catching dump offs. For Maynard I gave you the valid reason, for Taylor maybe b/c Warfield was on more championship teams? he won 3 titles and Taylor won zero. Me deflecting:rofl: that's pretty funny coming from you. If he's not catching enough balls therefore he's not gaining enough yards what makes him better than Carter? These comparisons are based on production not projections. You are hurting your own shaky case here. It's comical that you cannot see it. Just look at the warfield debate, no mention of the other WR until after I mentioned it then that becomes the excuse. For Manning it's his teammates, for Carter it's his teammates, for Namtah and monk the #s you always talk about w/ Manning are ignored and instead it's quotes. There's one person who is out of their league here, it's the guy making a million excuses.
He played in the era before dump off passes. He was the short range receiver while Warfield was the deep guy. No, you didn’t give me a valid reason. You gave me a weak theory and followed up by another weak theory. The fact that Warfield was a first ballot HOF’er was because he was a first ballot HOF player. Production = 20.1 YPC – 85 TDs – 1 TD catch for every 5 receptions. Get it? Probably not though. Paul Warfield was better than Cris Carter. Anyone who has a clue knows this. Those that dispute it (only 1 person in the known world) doesn’t have a clue. Why would I mention Gary Collins prior? It is a fact that Warfield’s teams did not throw as much as the majority of teams in the NFL. And despite that Warfield still put up big numbers. Just not in receptions alone. Just because Collins caught more passes than him doesn’t mean anything and doesn’t prove anything. Have you ever heard of Gary Collins before looking up the stats yesterday? I highly doubt it. Do yourself a favor and go read what I wrote about Namath. Get a clue please. You are way out of your league. If I have a stats question I'll ask you. Anything else regarding football I'll stick with everyone else.
Gotta say, you two made this into a really fantastic thread! In the end, I think Murrell is right, but the beauty of boards like this and opinions is that everyone has them!
So, Warfield, Alworth, Swann, Stallworth, and Hayes were more athletic than only about 20-30% of today's wide receivers. Okay, if you say so. I think you are off your rocker with that, but so be it. No, you try to follow along. My issue with that ridiculous statement had nothing to do with Art Monk. You could have made it about Chad Pennington, Joe Namath, Tim Brown, Russ Grimm, Phil Simms, Gus the Donkey, or Joe Mama. Here it is again for the umpteenth time. In the very same sentence you indicated a dislike for the Pro Bowl, but then used Pro Bowl appearances to knock a player. Can't you see the ridiculousness there? It'd be like Murrell2878 telling all his friends and family and co-workers how much he dislikes cats and then the next day he adopts a cat. Either use Pro Bowl appearances in your arguments or don't use them at all. Choose a side and stick with it. Don't tell us how much you think the Pro Bowl and the voting for the Pro Bowl sucks ass and then turn around and use a player's Pro Bowl appearances to either praise or knock the guy. Warfield was double teamed on a consistent basis, possibly more so than any other receiver in league history. This is just like how Wes Welker would catch more passes than Randy Moss in the same offense. Believe it or not, nyjunc, but sometimes the better receiver will have fewer catches particularly because he is the better receiver. No boxscore will tell you that. Maybe buy a coaching manual or something. Well, you distorted my question. Let's try this again. 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 was not asking about the average athlete of 2010. I was not asking about the top athletes from 30-40 years ago. I was asking about the possibility that a single player from the 1960s/1970s could have been more athletic than many of today's players. Let me mention Jim Brown. If you do not know who he is, do a Google search. Spend five minutes reading about him. Do you think he would have been a chump today?
I have not read the latest responses, I will get back to this after the Pats game in the next couple of days.
