Rumor: Why Cris Carter was denied the HOF (1 Viewer)

[identikit]

Report: Female Voter's "Personal Problem" With Cris Carter Kept Him Out



Many a theory has been put forth to explain why Cris Carter was once again snubbed for the Hall of Fame. These include the ever-popular split vote hypothesis, which holds that, with Andre Reed and Tim Brown also on the ballot, voters can't agree on which receiver to include. Or it could be that receivers are simply not valued as highly as men at other positions.

There is also a more sinister possibility: that Carter is being kept out of the Hall for some personal reason. Many have theorized that Carter's prickly relationship with the press over the years might be playing a role. That notion gained more credibility today thanks to a tweet from Philadelphia radio host Howard Eskin.

Eskin's tweet reads, "WR Cris Carter didn't make the Pro Football HOF I was told b cause female voter has personal problem w CC. Cost 4 votes. Missed by 1."

The female voter with the CC problem isn't identified. Only two women are listed as Hall of Fame voters at the present time: Nancy Gay of FoxSports.com and Charean Williams of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. A Google search unearthed nothing that would shed light on why either of those women would have a personal issue with Carter.

Without more information, it's impossible to know the real nature of this personal issue or even which voter has the gripe with Carter. It's not fair to jump to the conclusion that Carter did or said something sexist to create this issue either, though Eskin's tweet might lead some to assume this. At best, the tweet opens a small window on how much politics and (possibly petty) personal grudges play into the HOF selection process.

The conclusion? If a personal issue can keep a deserving candidate out of the Hall of Fame, then the process needs to change. Cris Carter may be a bit of a jerk but that doesn't alter the fact that he is top 5 in history at his position. And if there's a voter who has some issue with Carter that casts his character in a negative light? They should have the guts to come out and say so. Why the entire thing is so shrouded in secrecy to begin with is beyond me. It's Hall of Fame voting, not a secret ballot to pick the new emperor of the galaxy. The media can be so self-important sometimes.

http://thevikingage....him-out-of-hof/

 

[JohnnyU]

It's a crying shame he didn't get in. CC was the best I ever saw at sideline catches. The guy always got his feet in bounds.

 

[TheJewru]

It's a crying shame he didn't get in. CC was the best I ever saw at sideline catches. The guy always got his feet in bounds.

Exactly. There is no reason Cris Carter shouldnt have been a first ballot HOFer in my opinion.

 

[CalBear]

The conclusion? If a personal issue can keep a deserving candidate out of the Hall of Fame, then the process needs to change.

As long as there's voting, there will be politics. This is one reason we watch football instead of ice skating.

Cris Carter may be a bit of a jerk but that doesn't alter the fact that he is top 5 in history at his position.

I think Carter should be in the Hall, but there's no way he's top 5 in history at his position, unless you define his position as "possession receiver."

 

[Truman]

This is why women shouldn't be allowed to vote.

 

[finito]

This is why women shouldn't be allowed to vote.

lol

 

[cstu]

It's a crying shame he didn't get in. CC was the best I ever saw at sideline catches. The guy always got his feet in bounds.

Lines were never a problem for him.

 

[identikit]

It's a crying shame he didn't get in. CC was the best I ever saw at sideline catches. The guy always got his feet in bounds.

Lines were never a problem for him.

 

[Amused to Death]

It's a crying shame he didn't get in. CC was the best I ever saw at sideline catches. The guy always got his feet in bounds.

Lines were never a problem for him.

And that could be his biggest HoF issue. Although it didn't keep LT out.Oh, and Eskin's an idiot. Not sure I trust a 2nd hand, anonymous tweet from a recently-fired Philly sports radio host.

 

[DeCleater]

The conclusion? If a personal issue can keep a deserving candidate out of the Hall of Fame, then the process needs to change.

As long as there's voting, there will be politics. This is one reason we watch football instead of ice skating.

Cris Carter may be a bit of a jerk but that doesn't alter the fact that he is top 5 in history at his position.

I think Carter should be in the Hall, but there's no way he's top 5 in history at his position, unless you define his position as "possession receiver."

His stats say he is.

 

[cstu]

with Andre Reed and Tim Brown also on the ballot, voters can't agree on which receiver to include.

Who in their right mind thinks either of these guys deserves to get in over Carter?

 

[cstu]

The conclusion? If a personal issue can keep a deserving candidate out of the Hall of Fame, then the process needs to change.

As long as there's voting, there will be politics. This is one reason we watch football instead of ice skating.

Cris Carter may be a bit of a jerk but that doesn't alter the fact that he is top 5 in history at his position.

I think Carter should be in the Hall, but there's no way he's top 5 in history at his position, unless you define his position as "possession receiver."

He's 5th all-time in TD receptions, pretty good for just a possession receiver.

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

A Google search unearthed nothing

Hard-hitting journalism right here.

 

[dehaven123]

Report: Female Voter's "Personal Problem" With Cris Carter Kept Him Out



Many a theory has been put forth to explain why Cris Carter was once again snubbed for the Hall of Fame. These include the ever-popular split vote hypothesis, which holds that, with Andre Reed and Tim Brown also on the ballot, voters can't agree on which receiver to include. Or it could be that receivers are simply not valued as highly as men at other positions.

There is also a more sinister possibility: that Carter is being kept out of the Hall for some personal reason. Many have theorized that Carter's prickly relationship with the press over the years might be playing a role. That notion gained more credibility today thanks to a tweet from Philadelphia radio host Howard Eskin.

Eskin's tweet reads, "WR Cris Carter didn't make the Pro Football HOF I was told b cause female voter has personal problem w CC. Cost 4 votes. Missed by 1."

The female voter with the CC problem isn't identified. Only two women are listed as Hall of Fame voters at the present time: Nancy Gay of FoxSports.com and Charean Williams of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. A Google search unearthed nothing that would shed light on why either of those women would have a personal issue with Carter.

Without more information, it's impossible to know the real nature of this personal issue or even which voter has the gripe with Carter. It's not fair to jump to the conclusion that Carter did or said something sexist to create this issue either, though Eskin's tweet might lead some to assume this. At best, the tweet opens a small window on how much politics and (possibly petty) personal grudges play into the HOF selection process.

The conclusion? If a personal issue can keep a deserving candidate out of the Hall of Fame, then the process needs to change. Cris Carter may be a bit of a jerk but that doesn't alter the fact that he is top 5 in history at his position. And if there's a voter who has some issue with Carter that casts his character in a negative light? They should have the guts to come out and say so. Why the entire thing is so shrouded in secrecy to begin with is beyond me. It's Hall of Fame voting, not a secret ballot to pick the new emperor of the galaxy. The media can be so self-important sometimes.

http://thevikingage....him-out-of-hof/

best hands i ever saw, sure many agree.

i remember many of his reaching stabs at the ball. the ball just seemed to stick every time.

many of those were toe tapping sideline and endzone catches too.

shuda got in, 1st time.

#3 in catches, #8 in rec. yds, and #4 in rec. TD's all time.

top 5 all time wr, imo.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/history/leaders/_/stat/receivers

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/330608-the-100-greatest-wide-receivers-in-nfl-history-nos-25-1#/articles/330608-the-100-greatest-wide-receivers-in-nfl-history-nos-25-1/page/21

 

[Tau837]

IMO it would be appropriate for all ballots to be made public. I also think it would be appropriate to require each voter to give some explanation on their votes on the finalists every year.

 

[Drop]

The HOF should have peers voting, not newspaper people. People who played with and against the players would be more knowledgeable I think. I don't know who those two nice ladies mentioned are, but I would like to know how much coaches film they have studied. Seriously. How much of the full game, the full career have they actually seen? The wrong people are deciding who is worthy of being enshrined for eternity. Popularity Contest of Fame.

 

[CalBear]

I think Carter should be in the Hall, but there's no way he's top 5 in history at his position, unless you define his position as "possession receiver."

He's 5th all-time in TD receptions, pretty good for just a possession receiver.

Yes, and do you really think that makes him better than, say, Lance Alworth, who played in 100 fewer games and averaged 6 yards per reception more than Carter? Or Steve Largent, who played in 34 fewer games in a less pass-happy era, still has almost as much yardage, and is #6 on the TD list?

 

[Heatman]

I think Carter should be in the Hall, but there's no way he's top 5 in history at his position, unless you define his position as "possession receiver."

He's 5th all-time in TD receptions, pretty good for just a possession receiver.

Yes, and do you really think that makes him better than, say, Lance Alworth, who played in 100 fewer games and averaged 6 yards per reception more than Carter? Or Steve Largent, who played in 34 fewer games in a less pass-happy era, still has almost as much yardage, and is #6 on the TD list?

Yes, easily.

 

[Bankerguy]

I've never understood why sports writers vote and not the mmbers of the HOF - guys who know what a HOFer is.

 

[Thunderlips]

He's not in because all he ever did was catch TDs.

To be fair though......Carter does credit Buddy Ryan with saving his life.

 

[snellman]

I've never understood why sports writers vote and not the mmbers of the HOF - guys who know what a HOFer is.

 

[Boston]

IMO it would be appropriate for all ballots to be made public. I also think it would be appropriate to require each voter to give some explanation on their votes on the finalists every year.

Could not agree more...H-o-F balloting or any awards voting for any sport should be public and require a detailed explaination for this vote...if you vote or don't vote for someone and have a valid reason that's your perogative...yet, if you're not voting for a guy because he wouldn't give you an interview or just don't like him than you should lose your vote...Also, why do some people look at being a possession WR as a bad thing...it's like someone saying that while the guy had 300 career wins I don't think he's good because he didn't throw a 95 MPH fastball...

 

[Chadstroma]

That tweet is either sexist or is alluding to some sexual misconduct. Why else make sure to add that it was a female reporter?

I got to think though that one person with a personal issue with an individual should not be the only reason to keep someone out.

 

[Boston]

I've never understood why sports writers vote and not the mmbers of the HOF - guys who know what a HOFer is.

I think the fear is it will turn into Pro-Bowl voting where there's not a lot of thought put into it or guys are voting for their buddy...not saying I agree or disagree but that's the explaination I have heard...

 

[Chairshot]

Maybe I'm missing something but the tweet doesn't make sense. One voter does not equal 4 votes. Even if both ladies had an axe to grind, that's still only 2 votes. That still means another 6 or 7 male voters didn't vote for Carter so he didn't make the 80% needed to get in. Unless he sexually harassed some dudes, too, then there is still a bunch of guys who don't think he belongs.

 

[Bankerguy]

I've never understood why sports writers vote and not the mmbers of the HOF - guys who know what a HOFer is.

I think the fear is it will turn into Pro-Bowl voting where there's not a lot of thought put into it or guys are voting for their buddy...not saying I agree or disagree but that's the explaination I have heard...

I can understand the argument. I just think the vast majority of the members would/will protect the integrity of the establishment and ensure only worthy candidadtes join the ranks. It's like peeing in your own pool otherwise.

 

[identikit]

Maybe I'm missing something but the tweet doesn't make sense. One voter does not equal 4 votes. Even if both ladies had an axe to grind, that's still only 2 votes. That still means another 6 or 7 male voters didn't vote for Carter so he didn't make the 80% needed to get in. Unless he sexually harassed some dudes, too, then there is still a bunch of guys who don't think he belongs.

IIRC the HOF voting works on a percentage ('yes' votes vs total voters present). 80% gets you in. So 1 vote could be a 4% swing? Maybe that's what was meant.Just a guess.

 

[az_prof]

Carter was a great possession receiver, but also a great EndZone receiver. He mastered the fade pass to the corner of the end zone. He also never played with a great QB in their prime. I would love to see a full list of his QBs but suffice it to say they are not Joe Montana, Steve Young, types. He did have a couple of years with Warren Moon in the waning years of Moon's career. And he had a couple of years with Dante Culpepper, who was a good but not great QB.

 

[Tau837]

I think Carter should be in the Hall, but there's no way he's top 5 in history at his position, unless you define his position as "possession receiver."

He's 5th all-time in TD receptions, pretty good for just a possession receiver.

Yes, and do you really think that makes him better than, say, Lance Alworth, who played in 100 fewer games and averaged 6 yards per reception more than Carter? Or Steve Largent, who played in 34 fewer games in a less pass-happy era, still has almost as much yardage, and is #6 on the TD list?

Absolutely no way he was better than Largent. I didn't get to see Alworth play enough to say for sure, but I'd expect Alworth was better.

 

[Tau837]

I think Carter should be in the Hall, but there's no way he's top 5 in history at his position, unless you define his position as "possession receiver."

He's 5th all-time in TD receptions, pretty good for just a possession receiver.

Yes, and do you really think that makes him better than, say, Lance Alworth, who played in 100 fewer games and averaged 6 yards per reception more than Carter? Or Steve Largent, who played in 34 fewer games in a less pass-happy era, still has almost as much yardage, and is #6 on the TD list?

Yes, easily.

If you think Carter was better than Largent, you must not have seen Largent play. Largent was better, and it's not close.

 

[DeCleater]

I think Carter should be in the Hall, but there's no way he's top 5 in history at his position, unless you define his position as "possession receiver."

He's 5th all-time in TD receptions, pretty good for just a possession receiver.

Yes, and do you really think that makes him better than, say, Lance Alworth, who played in 100 fewer games and averaged 6 yards per reception more than Carter? Or Steve Largent, who played in 34 fewer games in a less pass-happy era, still has almost as much yardage, and is #6 on the TD list?

Since when did possession receiver become a negative. By definition a possession receiver CATCHES the ball, isn't that the object of the forward pass, to have the receiver catch it. There are plenty of homerun speed receivers in the game today but how many of them catch the ball over the middle. Give me CC and Tim Brown with a good QB and they will kick your ### every week.

 

[cstu]

I think Carter should be in the Hall, but there's no way he's top 5 in history at his position, unless you define his position as "possession receiver."

He's 5th all-time in TD receptions, pretty good for just a possession receiver.

Yes, and do you really think that makes him better than, say, Lance Alworth, who played in 100 fewer games and averaged 6 yards per reception more than Carter? Or Steve Largent, who played in 34 fewer games in a less pass-happy era, still has almost as much yardage, and is #6 on the TD list?

Largent and Alworth were both great and easily belong in the HOF. I'm not sure what either have to do with Cris Carter. If the idea is that Carter is simply a compiler, I disagree and 8 straight years of top 10 numbers (9 or more TD's in 7 out of 8 of those) and two All-Pro's seems to indicate he wasn't either.

 

[Tau837]

I think Carter should be in the Hall, but there's no way he's top 5 in history at his position, unless you define his position as "possession receiver."

He's 5th all-time in TD receptions, pretty good for just a possession receiver.

Yes, and do you really think that makes him better than, say, Lance Alworth, who played in 100 fewer games and averaged 6 yards per reception more than Carter? Or Steve Largent, who played in 34 fewer games in a less pass-happy era, still has almost as much yardage, and is #6 on the TD list?

Largent and Alworth were both great and easily belong in the HOF. I'm not sure what either have to do with Cris Carter. If the idea is that Carter is simply a compiler, I disagree and 8 straight years of top 10 numbers (9 or more TD's in 7 out of 8 of those) and two All-Pro's seems to indicate he wasn't either.

This tangent of discussion originated from someone's claim that Carter is a top 5 all time WR. It has nothing to do with whether or not he was a compiler.To be top 5, Carter would have to have been better than Largent and Alworth, among many others, and he wasn't.

 

[Phenix]

Not a fan of Cris Carters attitude. Dont mind if I never see him get in because of that.

 

[cstu]

I think Carter should be in the Hall, but there's no way he's top 5 in history at his position, unless you define his position as "possession receiver."

He's 5th all-time in TD receptions, pretty good for just a possession receiver.

Yes, and do you really think that makes him better than, say, Lance Alworth, who played in 100 fewer games and averaged 6 yards per reception more than Carter? Or Steve Largent, who played in 34 fewer games in a less pass-happy era, still has almost as much yardage, and is #6 on the TD list?

Largent and Alworth were both great and easily belong in the HOF. I'm not sure what either have to do with Cris Carter. If the idea is that Carter is simply a compiler, I disagree and 8 straight years of top 10 numbers (9 or more TD's in 7 out of 8 of those) and two All-Pro's seems to indicate he wasn't either.

This tangent of discussion originated from someone's claim that Carter is a top 5 all time WR. It has nothing to do with whether or not he was a compiler.To be top 5, Carter would have to have been better than Largent and Alworth, among many others, and he wasn't.

I missed that. He's not close to top 5 IMO, but I can see him at about 20. My view is that once you've watered down the HOF with Lofton and Monk you have to let Carter in.

 

[GregR]

I've never understood why sports writers vote and not the mmbers of the HOF - guys who know what a HOFer is.

I think the fear is it will turn into Pro-Bowl voting where there's not a lot of thought put into it or guys are voting for their buddy...not saying I agree or disagree but that's the explaination I have heard...

I can understand the argument. I just think the vast majority of the members would/will protect the integrity of the establishment and ensure only worthy candidadtes join the ranks. It's like peeing in your own pool otherwise.

I don't think the results would be as good as you think.I was listening to one of the voters discuss the process on sports radio. He mentioned that each year some of the members of the hall are invited in to discuss the players up for selection. He said some of them come in well prepared to discuss the topic, but a lot of them show up totally unprepared for the discussion.There was also some discussion about the amount of knowledge displayed by the players who do come in. One thing I thought was interesting was that they said there is a noticeable trend in how knowledgeable players are by defensive positions. Safeties tend to understand all of the defensive positions and their impact on the game better than D-lineman, since safeties are seeing everyone else in front of them and having to react accordingly. I'd never thought of that angle. Just an aside.Anyway, if the choice to do the voting is media only or HoF only I'd stick with the media. Better would be media and a select group of HoF members that includes those who truly are students of the game who are good judges of others as opposed to just those who had great athletic ability and instincts.

 

[GregR]

I'm not going to get up in arms about this rumor because at this point it's just a rumor as far as I'm concerned and I have no idea how much, if any, truth there is to it.

I do think Carter deserves to get in. At the time he retired he was 2nd all time in receptions and TDs. He was 4th all time in receiving yards. And when it came to most receptions in a single season, he had the 2nd and 3rd best seasons of all time (since dropped to 4th and 5th all time).

While you could say Carter was more of a compiler than some other elite receivers, I don't think he was enough so that I would disregard where he ended up due to it. If he had a career like Derrick Mason I could see disregarding his all-time ranks. I think he's far better than that though versus his peers.

 

[sn0mm1s]

This tangent of discussion originated from someone's claim that Carter is a top 5 all time WR. It has nothing to do with whether or not he was a compiler.To be top 5, Carter would have to have been better than Largent and Alworth, among many others, and he wasn't.

For me Carter is a mixed bag. On one hand, most of his numbers he put up at age 30+; on the other, he drank/snorted away the first half of his career. After 30+ the only guys that were really more productive than him are Rice and Owens. I judge TDs as the best single stat to evaluate a WR since they require the WR to either beat a team deep or beat them when the field is short and there isn't much room to operate. I definitely have him behind Rice, Hutson, Moss, and Owens. I see him in the next group with Largent, Alworth, and Harrison. I can see someone saying he isn't 5th... but I would seriously question someone placing him outside the top 10 all time.

 

[CalBear]

. I see him in the next group with Largent, Alworth, and Harrison. I can see someone saying he isn't 5th... but I would seriously question someone placing him outside the top 10 all time.

I'd put Harrison as clearly ahead of him (he has more yardage and just 2 fewer TDs in 44 fewer games), but other than that I agree. He certainly belongs in the Hall, and it's plausible that off-field issues have kept him out thus far.

 

[Tau837]

. I see him in the next group with Largent, Alworth, and Harrison. I can see someone saying he isn't 5th... but I would seriously question someone placing him outside the top 10 all time.

I'd put Harrison as clearly ahead of him (he has more yardage and just 2 fewer TDs in 44 fewer games), but other than that I agree. He certainly belongs in the Hall, and it's plausible that off-field issues have kept him out thus far.

I'd also put Largent clearly ahead of him, for these reasons:1. Largent was 1st or 2nd team All Pro 5 times, compared to Carter's 3 times.2. Largent had a huge edge over Carter in ypr (16.0 for Largent, 12.6 for Carter).3. Largent didn't score as many TDs as Carter, but a higher percentage of his receptions were TDs (12.2% for Largent, 11.8% for Carter).4. Largent also played the first 2 years of his career before the change in pass coverage rules (the Mel Blount rule); Carter never had to deal with that, although it is a minor difference since it was only 2 years for Largent.5. Largent played his entire career for Seattle. His first season was Seattle's first year as an expansion franchise. That makes it safe to say that he likely had less talent around him in his career than Carter did. That also could imply that Largent was more deserving of honors and awards but didn't get them due to playing for a losing franchise, east coast bias, and/or lack of coverage/exposure.6. When Largent retired, he was the all time leader in receptions, receiving yards, and receiving TDs and held the all time record for consecutive games with a reception (177 games). Carter didn't retire with any such accomplishments.ETA: And I agree on Harrison also.

 

[cstu]

This tangent of discussion originated from someone's claim that Carter is a top 5 all time WR. It has nothing to do with whether or not he was a compiler.To be top 5, Carter would have to have been better than Largent and Alworth, among many others, and he wasn't.

For me Carter is a mixed bag. On one hand, most of his numbers he put up at age 30+; on the other, he drank/snorted away the first half of his career. After 30+ the only guys that were really more productive than him are Rice and Owens. I judge TDs as the best single stat to evaluate a WR since they require the WR to either beat a team deep or beat them when the field is short and there isn't much room to operate. I definitely have him behind Rice, Hutson, Moss, and Owens. I see him in the next group with Largent, Alworth, and Harrison. I can see someone saying he isn't 5th... but I would seriously question someone placing him outside the top 10 all time.

I think all those guys were better than Carter. I would also put Irvin, Holt and Raymond Berry ahead of him. I don't have much problem with him at #10 though.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Cris Carter never ranked in the top five in receiving yards in any season, despite eight straight years of good health while playing for a pass-happy team. He's nowhere near being a top five receiver in NFL history, as he's well behind Rice and Hutson, and still a tier behind Moss, Alworth, Largent, Harrison and Owens.

Carter had 8 big seasons. Here were the numbers from his 8 best years: 779-9456-90.

How about Jimmy Smith? His best 8 years were 716-10171-54. Now obviously the TD numbers give Carter a huge edge, but consider that over those 8 years, the Jaguars averaged 514 pass attempts while the Vikings averaged 563. That's like an extra 3/4 of a season over 8 years, which would prorate Smith to 783-11124-59.

 

[Jason Wood]

Not having Carter in the Hall if absurd. We all know that. Well, anyone that really is objective about the situation knows that. He'll get in, it's just a shame that some personal grudge may be keeping him out for a bit.

 

[Kenny Powers]

Rice

Moss

Owens

Harrison

Carter

One of these things is not like the other, one of these things does not belong....

 

[Chase Stuart]

Grading receivers is very tricky. Stats can help, but comparing across eras requires advanced statistical analysis. Here's what I was thinking:

1) Convert receptions and receiving touchdowns into yards, so that we only need to use one statistic. I gave receptions a value of 5 yards and receiving touchdowns a value of 25 yards. So Jerry Rice has the most adjusted yards (2833) ever in a season, with 122 receptions, 1,848 yards and 17 TDs in 1995. Do this for every player ever.

2) Only give receivers credit for finishing among the top N in adjusted yards, where N is the number of teams. So if you rank 33rd in adjusted yards today, you get 0, just like if you ranked 11th back in the days of the 10-team NFL.

3) For all receivers who finish inside the top N in adjusted yards, give them only credit for the adjusted yards over baseline. So if you ranked 4th in adjusted yards, you get credit for the difference between your number of adjusted yards and the number of adjusted yards by the #33 receiver. Or, in 1949, you get credit for the difference between your yards and the #11 receiver's yards. Finally, pro-rated the number for a 16-game schedule in all years.

4) Every year a receiver finishes below the baseline he gets a zero. Sum up every season of the player's career to get a career grade.

Here are the top 100, through the end of last year:

VALUE	Player12607	Jerry Rice12216	Don Hutson7511	Marvin Harrison7418	Randy Moss6555	Terrell Owens6084	Torry Holt5847	Lance Alworth5600	Steve Largent5363	Cris Carter5149	Tim Brown4985	Don Maynard4919	Isaac Bruce4757	Michael Irvin4671	Jimmy Smith4561	Art Powell4470	Jim Benton4443	Reggie Wayne4432	Chad Ochocinco4397	Sterling Sharpe4362	James Lofton4112	Rod Smith3948	Herman Moore3848	Raymond Berry3719	Larry Fitzgerald3642	Lionel Taylor3629	Andre Johnson3544	Gary Clark3482	Charley Taylor3438	Andre Rison3436	Mac Speedie3396	Henry Ellard3388	Mark Clayton3350	Del Shofner3334	Harold Jackson3312	Charley Hennigan3257	Billy Howton3251	Wes Chandler3233	Hines Ward3216	Andre Reed3175	Joe Horn3145	Harold Carmichael3134	Steve Smith3132	Bobby Mitchell3111	Bob Hayes3088	Fred Biletnikoff3054	Derrick Mason3017	Tommy McDonald2995	Art Monk2954	Elroy Hirsch2929	Cliff Branch2874	Kellen Winslow2867	Anquan Boldin2847	John Gilliam2823	Tony Gonzalez2769	Pete Pihos2758	Gary Garrison2757	Tom Fears2755	Charlie Joiner2751	Drew Hill2663	Otis Taylor2659	Billy Wilson2653	John Stallworth2652	Anthony Miller2585	Mike Quick2552	Donald Driver2533	Roddy White2464	Keenan McCardell2457	Gene A. Washington2440	Harlon Hill2417	Todd Christensen2411	Roy Green2410	Dwight Clark2343	Eric Moulds2338	Irving Fryar2321	Dante Lavelli2289	Paul Warfield2285	Warren Wells2257	Carl Pickens2236	Cris Collinsworth2222	Drew Pearson2221	Lenny Moore2202	John Jefferson2158	Joey Galloway2141	Muhsin Muhammad2126	Mal Kutner2123	Keyshawn Johnson2113	Hugh Taylor2065	Mark Duper2061	Stanley Morgan2057	George Sauer2044	Buddy Dial2043	Santana Moss2041	Brandon Marshall2010	Sonny Randle2009	Roy Jefferson1967	Antonio Freeman1948	Wes Welker1941	Bill Groman1875	Steve Watson1860	Plaxico Burress

 

[Tau837]

Grading receivers is very tricky. Stats can help, but comparing across eras requires advanced statistical analysis. Here's what I was thinking:1) Convert receptions and receiving touchdowns into yards, so that we only need to use one statistic. I gave receptions a value of 5 yards and receiving touchdowns a value of 25 yards. So Jerry Rice has the most adjusted yards (2833) ever in a season, with 122 receptions, 1,848 yards and 17 TDs in 1995. Do this for every player ever.

Can you explain the rationale for giving 5 yards for a reception?You are already giving credit for the receiving yards for that reception and, if applicable, the TD. Certainly many non-TD receptions are first downs or are for enough yards given down and distance to be considered successful plays... but not all receptions. It is not intuitive to me that this makes sense.

 

[Tau837]

5363	Cris Carter5149	Tim Brown[28 Players]3216	Andre Reed

This is pretty interesting.

 

[CalBear]

5363	Cris Carter5149	Tim Brown[28 Players]3216	Andre Reed

This is pretty interesting.

Shouldn't be surprising; Reed does not have impressive statistics. He only had 4 1000-yard seasons and only scored 10 TDs once. His best argument for making the Hall is that he lost in the Super Bowl four times.

 

[Tau837]

5363	Cris Carter5149	Tim Brown[28 Players]3216	Andre Reed

This is pretty interesting.

Shouldn't be surprising; Reed does not have impressive statistics. He only had 4 1000-yard seasons and only scored 10 TDs once. His best argument for making the Hall is that he lost in the Super Bowl four times.

Understood, but this does a nice job of putting that into an easy perspective by distilling it to a single number that shows how big the gap is between Reed and Carter/Brown. (Even if it isn't exactly the right formula.)

 

[Kenny Powers]

5363	Cris Carter5149	Tim Brown[28 Players]3216	Andre Reed

This is pretty interesting.

Hines Ward right above Andre Reed is interesting as well