Rumor: Why Cris Carter was denied the HOF (2 Viewers)

[SacramentoBob]

Not much of a counterpoint offered by you here.Please list all the HOF WRs that had their first 1000 yard season in their seventh season or later. Thank you

Charlie Joiner.Lynn Swann never had a 1000 yard season.

Another point: So what when his numbers came? What if Carter's career were turned upside down, with his 2002 season being his rookie year, and his 2001 being the first time he got significant playing time (73/871/6), followed by 8 years with 1000+ yards, two All-Pros, leading the league in receiving TDs 3 times, and then 6 years of declining production, resulting in exactly his current career totals. Would that make him more worth of HOF inclusion? I can't imagine why.

I do think it would. I think people tend to discard the last so much time as when a player's career is winding down. Maybe there's a year or two to develop that's brushed off. I've never seen six years brushed off by you guys before. I'm not sure how to reply. TD and Priest and LJ and others have been brushed off for only being great for a short time...I don't know here. Half the guy's career was not good. This thread's like a half full half empty debate.My original reply was about Tim Brown versus Carter and I still think Brown was the complete package and better than Carter. I don't see all that many top WRs returning kicks and punts regularly anymore. I do think the WR position was changing then and teams would phase out top WRs from their return games in fear of them getting hurt. I'm not even sure if there was the same fair catch rules when Brown was playing. He was good from day one and returned kicks and punts. I like Brown better.

By the way, you know Tim Brown didn't have his first 1000 yard season until his 6th season, right?

yep so he returned punts and kicks and made himself useful.

In the history of bad arguments made in the Shark Pool, this might be top 5 all time AKA Cris Carter quality.

 

[jim k]

a few things stick in HOF voter's minds and taint his career.

his college scandal (illegal signing w/agent, missing senior year, letting college team down)

Why should what he did in college matter for the NFL Hall of Fame???

IT'S NOT CALLED THE NFL HALL OF FAME! OOOOOF!

he was a supplemental draft pick: due to his scandal he was taken in fourth round of supplemental draft - he would be first HOF taken in supplemental draft

Where you were picked in the draft is taken into consideration for the Hall of Fame???

YES

he was CUT from his first NFL team due to scandal - Eagles did not TRADE him, they DROPPED him due to substance abuse.

Shouldn't this help his cause? He could have just faded away, but he went on to put up Hall of Fame numbers. This should help his cause, not hurt it. Hell Michael Irvin did coke off of hookers asses and he got in and everyone is A-OK with that.

YES!!!

Here is an excellent and easy to read breakdown.

Cris Carter, other rejects simply need to wait their turn to enter Hall of Fame

 

[Tau837]

Here is an excellent and easy to read breakdown.

Cris Carter, other rejects simply need to wait their turn to enter Hall of Fame

 

[Chairshot]

Here is an excellent and easy to read breakdown.

Cris Carter, other rejects simply need to wait their turn to enter Hall of Fame

There are some really great points made in that article. And a fairly good argument made about why it's totally appropriate that Carter hasn't made it yet.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

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.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Not much of a counterpoint offered by you here.Please list all the HOF WRs that had their first 1000 yard season in their seventh season or later. Thank you

Charlie Joiner.Lynn Swann never had a 1000 yard season.

 

[cstu]

Here is an excellent and easy to read breakdown.

Cris Carter, other rejects simply need to wait their turn to enter Hall of Fame

There are some really great points made in that article. And a fairly good argument made about why it's totally appropriate that Carter hasn't made it yet.

This one is ridiculous though:

Like Monk, Carter may never have been the best receiver on his own team in a given year.

For four of the first five years of that run, Carter had Jake Reed on the other side, a guy who had at least 1,000 yards each season as well and averaged 16 yards a catch.

Carter put up a 86/1071/9 without Reed and I don't think Reed would have been a 1000 yard receiver without Carter. He opened things up for Carter but Carter made both Reed and Moss better (see Moss' YPC and TD's when Carter retired).

 

[cstu]

Not much of a counterpoint offered by you here.Please list all the HOF WRs that had their first 1000 yard season in their seventh season or later. Thank you

Charlie Joiner.Lynn Swann never had a 1000 yard season.

Some people would say that Joiner doesn't belong there. In his single All-Pro season he was behind teammates Kellen Winslow and John Jefferson in every receiving category. Find me another All-Pro player that has happened to.

 

[sn0mm1s]

Here is an excellent and easy to read breakdown.

Cris Carter, other rejects simply need to wait their turn to enter Hall of Fame

There are some really great points made in that article. And a fairly good argument made about why it's totally appropriate that Carter hasn't made it yet.

Not really. The fact that he compares Carter to Martin, Carter to Monk, and then mentions playoff performances basically invalidates anything the guy has to say.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

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.

Hey, that's pretty damn hard to do. Two thoughts:

1) Nice stat Chase, but there needs to be some playoff/Rings value in there as it pretty clearly affects the voters and is why Reed is mentioned with (and finished ahead of) Brown and Carter over the last several years.

2) Keeping it like it is, I'm happy to see Reed ahead of Monk, Joiner, Stallworth and is Swann even on the list? My guess is that Reed gets in eventually like a Monk or Joiner. It will just take awhile.

Edit to add #3: Good to see Winslow as the top TE. Gonzo is close but I remember hearing about how much better Christensen was than Winslow.

 

[Chairshot]

Here is an excellent and easy to read breakdown.

Cris Carter, other rejects simply need to wait their turn to enter Hall of Fame

There are some really great points made in that article. And a fairly good argument made about why it's totally appropriate that Carter hasn't made it yet.

Not really. The fact that he compares Carter to Martin, Carter to Monk, and then mentions playoff performances basically invalidates anything the guy has to say.

You don't agree with him so anything he has to say is invalid. Got it.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

It's so hard to compare players from different eras as the game has changed so much. You can use stats but football fans would be wise to listen to people who saw the player live rather than just look at stats.

Cris Carter is borderline HoFer, if a gun was to my head before the induction process I would have said he doesn't get in.

Is Cris Carter better than Michael Irvin? I'd say no but I'm biased. Irvin in his prime was a more dominant player than Carter.

 

[sn0mm1s]

Not really. The fact that he compares Carter to Martin, Carter to Monk, and then mentions playoff performances basically invalidates anything the guy has to say.

You don't agree with him so anything he has to say is invalid. Got it.

No one should agree with him - not with those 3 talking points.

 

[Tau837]

It's so hard to compare players from different eras as the game has changed so much. You can use stats but football fans would be wise to listen to people who saw the player live rather than just look at stats.Cris Carter is borderline HoFer, if a gun was to my head before the induction process I would have said he doesn't get in.Is Cris Carter better than Michael Irvin? I'd say no but I'm biased. Irvin in his prime was a more dominant player than Carter.

I agree on Irvin. Irvin's best 5 year run > Carter's best 8 year run. That said, I don't think that means Carter is not deserving, I think he is.

 

[sn0mm1s]

It's so hard to compare players from different eras as the game has changed so much. You can use stats but football fans would be wise to listen to people who saw the player live rather than just look at stats.Cris Carter is borderline HoFer, if a gun was to my head before the induction process I would have said he doesn't get in.Is Cris Carter better than Michael Irvin? I'd say no but I'm biased. Irvin in his prime was a more dominant player than Carter.

I agree on Irvin. Irvin's best 5 year run > Carter's best 8 year run. That said, I don't think that means Carter is not deserving, I think he is.

I am not sure about that. When comparing their best 5 year runs, Irvin has 1200 more yards while Carter has 27 more TDs. I think I would trade the 1200 yards for 27 TDs.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

It's so hard to compare players from different eras as the game has changed so much. You can use stats but football fans would be wise to listen to people who saw the player live rather than just look at stats.Cris Carter is borderline HoFer, if a gun was to my head before the induction process I would have said he doesn't get in.Is Cris Carter better than Michael Irvin? I'd say no but I'm biased. Irvin in his prime was a more dominant player than Carter.

2 completely different styles.. I think I'd like both of these guys on my team, but I'll take the extra points rather than the extra yards.. Carter > Irvin in TD's..

 

[Tau837]

It's so hard to compare players from different eras as the game has changed so much. You can use stats but football fans would be wise to listen to people who saw the player live rather than just look at stats.Cris Carter is borderline HoFer, if a gun was to my head before the induction process I would have said he doesn't get in.Is Cris Carter better than Michael Irvin? I'd say no but I'm biased. Irvin in his prime was a more dominant player than Carter.

I agree on Irvin. Irvin's best 5 year run > Carter's best 8 year run. That said, I don't think that means Carter is not deserving, I think he is.

I am not sure about that. When comparing their best 5 year runs, Irvin has 1200 more yards while Carter has 27 more TDs. I think I would trade the 1200 yards for 27 TDs.

We're talking NFL value, not fantasy value. Context is required to properly make this comparison.Irvin had 449/7093/38 (15.80 ypr) from 1991 to 1995. Carter had 475/5855/65 (12.33 ypr) from 1995 to 1999. Yes, it's a big advantage for Carter in TDs, but a big difference for Irvin in receiving yards and yards per reception.Now consider:1. Minnesota attempted 2802 passes from 1995 to 1999, compared to 2407 passes for Dallas from 1991 to 1995.2. How well the other primary Minnesota receivers performed - Reed 1995-1997 and Moss 1998-1999 combined for 361/6351/50 over the same time period as Carter. Irvin was the #1 WR on his team throughout his stretch; Carter was not.3. Dallas had Emmitt Smith and quite reasonably relied upon him heavily in the red zone; Minnesota had no such threat. Dallas had 108 rushing TDs from 1991 to 1995, whereas Minnesota had 63 rushing TDs from 1995 to 1999. IMO that stuff reasonably explains Carter's only advantage.Now consider that Irvin was a strong contributor to 3 Super Bowl wins during his 5 year stretch. It's certainly not Carter's fault, but at the same time it is a credit to Irvin.Both made the Pro Bowl every year of their 5 year stretches and made 1st team All Pro once. Irvin had one more 2nd team All Pro selection in his stretch (2 to 1).I think it's clear Irvin's 5 year stretch was better than Carter's. However, it is closer than I realized when I posted.

 

[sn0mm1s]

We're talking NFL value, not fantasy value. Context is required to properly make this comparison.

I agree, in context I would take Irvin. In a vacuum, just looking at the stats, I would say it is pretty close (and I prefer receiving TDs over yards so I would give the nod to Carter).

Irvin had 449/7093/38 (15.80 ypr) from 1991 to 1995. Carter had 475/5855/65 (12.33 ypr) from 1995 to 1999. Yes, it's a big advantage for Carter in TDs, but a big difference for Irvin in receiving yards and yards per reception.Now consider:1. Minnesota attempted 2802 passes from 1995 to 1999, compared to 2407 passes for Dallas from 1991 to 1995.2. How well the other primary Minnesota receivers performed - Reed 1995-1997 and Moss 1998-1999 combined for 361/6351/50 over the same time period as Carter. Irvin was the #1 WR on his team throughout his stretch; Carter was not.3. Dallas had Emmitt Smith and quite reasonably relied upon him heavily in the red zone; Minnesota had no such threat. Dallas had 108 rushing TDs from 1991 to 1995, whereas Minnesota had 63 rushing TDs from 1995 to 1999. IMO that stuff reasonably explains Carter's only advantage.Now consider that Irvin was a strong contributor to 3 Super Bowl wins during his 5 year stretch. It's certainly not Carter's fault, but at the same time it is a credit to Irvin.Both made the Pro Bowl every year of their 5 year stretches and made 1st team All Pro once. Irvin had one more 2nd team All Pro selection in his stretch (2 to 1).I think it's clear Irvin's 5 year stretch was better than Carter's. However, it is closer than I realized when I posted.

Not to hijack the thread - but this is also why I think Aikman is severely underrated as a QB (despite making it into the HOF) and I have a hard time ranking Michael Irvin as a WR without a huge argument. Statswise, Irvin rarely gets recognized as a top 10 WR. Rice, Hutson, Moss, Owens, Harrison, Largent, and Alsworth almost always get ranked above him. Then you have Maynard, Berry, Carter, Brown, and Holt that will often get ranked above him. In reality, I don't think he should be lower than 7th on any list.

 

[cobalt_27]

We're talking NFL value, not fantasy value. Context is required to properly make this comparison.

I agree, in context I would take Irvin. In a vacuum, just looking at the stats, I would say it is pretty close (and I prefer receiving TDs over yards so I would give the nod to Carter).

Irvin had 449/7093/38 (15.80 ypr) from 1991 to 1995. Carter had 475/5855/65 (12.33 ypr) from 1995 to 1999. Yes, it's a big advantage for Carter in TDs, but a big difference for Irvin in receiving yards and yards per reception.Now consider:1. Minnesota attempted 2802 passes from 1995 to 1999, compared to 2407 passes for Dallas from 1991 to 1995.2. How well the other primary Minnesota receivers performed - Reed 1995-1997 and Moss 1998-1999 combined for 361/6351/50 over the same time period as Carter. Irvin was the #1 WR on his team throughout his stretch; Carter was not.3. Dallas had Emmitt Smith and quite reasonably relied upon him heavily in the red zone; Minnesota had no such threat. Dallas had 108 rushing TDs from 1991 to 1995, whereas Minnesota had 63 rushing TDs from 1995 to 1999. IMO that stuff reasonably explains Carter's only advantage.Now consider that Irvin was a strong contributor to 3 Super Bowl wins during his 5 year stretch. It's certainly not Carter's fault, but at the same time it is a credit to Irvin.Both made the Pro Bowl every year of their 5 year stretches and made 1st team All Pro once. Irvin had one more 2nd team All Pro selection in his stretch (2 to 1).I think it's clear Irvin's 5 year stretch was better than Carter's. However, it is closer than I realized when I posted.

Not to hijack the thread - but this is also why I think Aikman is severely underrated as a QB (despite making it into the HOF) and I have a hard time ranking Michael Irvin as a WR without a huge argument. Statswise, Irvin rarely gets recognized as a top 10 WR. Rice, Hutson, Moss, Owens, Harrison, Largent, and Alsworth almost always get ranked above him. Then you have Maynard, Berry, Carter, Brown, and Holt that will often get ranked above him. In reality, I don't think he should be lower than 7th on any list.

Exactly. Michael Irvin >>> Cris Carter. Seriously. Let's not go there. Cris Carter was a fine possession receiver. Nifty hands on the sidelines. But, among the most dominant receivers of his era...no, he was not that. Irvin was.

 

[Jason Wood]

We're talking NFL value, not fantasy value. Context is required to properly make this comparison.

I agree, in context I would take Irvin. In a vacuum, just looking at the stats, I would say it is pretty close (and I prefer receiving TDs over yards so I would give the nod to Carter).

Irvin had 449/7093/38 (15.80 ypr) from 1991 to 1995. Carter had 475/5855/65 (12.33 ypr) from 1995 to 1999. Yes, it's a big advantage for Carter in TDs, but a big difference for Irvin in receiving yards and yards per reception.Now consider:1. Minnesota attempted 2802 passes from 1995 to 1999, compared to 2407 passes for Dallas from 1991 to 1995.2. How well the other primary Minnesota receivers performed - Reed 1995-1997 and Moss 1998-1999 combined for 361/6351/50 over the same time period as Carter. Irvin was the #1 WR on his team throughout his stretch; Carter was not.3. Dallas had Emmitt Smith and quite reasonably relied upon him heavily in the red zone; Minnesota had no such threat. Dallas had 108 rushing TDs from 1991 to 1995, whereas Minnesota had 63 rushing TDs from 1995 to 1999. IMO that stuff reasonably explains Carter's only advantage.Now consider that Irvin was a strong contributor to 3 Super Bowl wins during his 5 year stretch. It's certainly not Carter's fault, but at the same time it is a credit to Irvin.Both made the Pro Bowl every year of their 5 year stretches and made 1st team All Pro once. Irvin had one more 2nd team All Pro selection in his stretch (2 to 1).I think it's clear Irvin's 5 year stretch was better than Carter's. However, it is closer than I realized when I posted.

Not to hijack the thread - but this is also why I think Aikman is severely underrated as a QB (despite making it into the HOF) and I have a hard time ranking Michael Irvin as a WR without a huge argument. Statswise, Irvin rarely gets recognized as a top 10 WR. Rice, Hutson, Moss, Owens, Harrison, Largent, and Alsworth almost always get ranked above him. Then you have Maynard, Berry, Carter, Brown, and Holt that will often get ranked above him. In reality, I don't think he should be lower than 7th on any list.

Exactly. Michael Irvin >>> Chris Carter. Seriously. Let's not go there. Chris Carter was a fine possession receiver. Nifty hands on the sidelines. But, among the most dominant receivers of his era...no, he was not that. Irvin was.

I agree Irvin is greater than Chris Carter. I'm not so sure he's better than CRIS Carter though.

 

[cobalt_27]

We're talking NFL value, not fantasy value. Context is required to properly make this comparison.

I agree, in context I would take Irvin. In a vacuum, just looking at the stats, I would say it is pretty close (and I prefer receiving TDs over yards so I would give the nod to Carter).

Irvin had 449/7093/38 (15.80 ypr) from 1991 to 1995. Carter had 475/5855/65 (12.33 ypr) from 1995 to 1999. Yes, it's a big advantage for Carter in TDs, but a big difference for Irvin in receiving yards and yards per reception.Now consider:1. Minnesota attempted 2802 passes from 1995 to 1999, compared to 2407 passes for Dallas from 1991 to 1995.2. How well the other primary Minnesota receivers performed - Reed 1995-1997 and Moss 1998-1999 combined for 361/6351/50 over the same time period as Carter. Irvin was the #1 WR on his team throughout his stretch; Carter was not.3. Dallas had Emmitt Smith and quite reasonably relied upon him heavily in the red zone; Minnesota had no such threat. Dallas had 108 rushing TDs from 1991 to 1995, whereas Minnesota had 63 rushing TDs from 1995 to 1999. IMO that stuff reasonably explains Carter's only advantage.Now consider that Irvin was a strong contributor to 3 Super Bowl wins during his 5 year stretch. It's certainly not Carter's fault, but at the same time it is a credit to Irvin.Both made the Pro Bowl every year of their 5 year stretches and made 1st team All Pro once. Irvin had one more 2nd team All Pro selection in his stretch (2 to 1).I think it's clear Irvin's 5 year stretch was better than Carter's. However, it is closer than I realized when I posted.

Not to hijack the thread - but this is also why I think Aikman is severely underrated as a QB (despite making it into the HOF) and I have a hard time ranking Michael Irvin as a WR without a huge argument. Statswise, Irvin rarely gets recognized as a top 10 WR. Rice, Hutson, Moss, Owens, Harrison, Largent, and Alsworth almost always get ranked above him. Then you have Maynard, Berry, Carter, Brown, and Holt that will often get ranked above him. In reality, I don't think he should be lower than 7th on any list.

Exactly. Michael Irvin >>> Chris Carter. Seriously. Let's not go there. Chris Carter was a fine possession receiver. Nifty hands on the sidelines. But, among the most dominant receivers of his era...no, he was not that. Irvin was.

I agree Irvin is greater than Chris Carter. I'm not so sure he's better than CRIS Carter though.

I've misspelled his name forever. Get corrected every time, and it never sticks.

 

[Bri]

Not much of a counterpoint offered by you here.Please list all the HOF WRs that had their first 1000 yard season in their seventh season or later. Thank you

Charlie Joiner.Lynn Swann never had a 1000 yard season.

Another point: So what when his numbers came? What if Carter's career were turned upside down, with his 2002 season being his rookie year, and his 2001 being the first time he got significant playing time (73/871/6), followed by 8 years with 1000+ yards, two All-Pros, leading the league in receiving TDs 3 times, and then 6 years of declining production, resulting in exactly his current career totals. Would that make him more worth of HOF inclusion? I can't imagine why.

I do think it would. I think people tend to discard the last so much time as when a player's career is winding down. Maybe there's a year or two to develop that's brushed off. I've never seen six years brushed off by you guys before. I'm not sure how to reply. TD and Priest and LJ and others have been brushed off for only being great for a short time...I don't know here. Half the guy's career was not good. This thread's like a half full half empty debate.My original reply was about Tim Brown versus Carter and I still think Brown was the complete package and better than Carter. I don't see all that many top WRs returning kicks and punts regularly anymore. I do think the WR position was changing then and teams would phase out top WRs from their return games in fear of them getting hurt. I'm not even sure if there was the same fair catch rules when Brown was playing. He was good from day one and returned kicks and punts. I like Brown better.

By the way, you know Tim Brown didn't have his first 1000 yard season until his 6th season, right?

yep so he returned punts and kicks and made himself useful.

In the history of bad arguments made in the Shark Pool, this might be top 5 all time AKA Cris Carter quality.

How so?

 

[Ministry of Pain]

I only can remember Carter catching pass after pass, making sideline catches that set the bar for a lot of other receivers to follow. He was definitely one of the elite WRs of his era and I could not explain why he did not get voted in when at the time of his retirement everyone said he would get in. He did, took a few times on the ballot and I'm sure he will let everyone know about it but I do think he is a HoF WR, however you want to define it. And the consistency week in week out after he was run out of Philly and faced his alcohol problem and abuse. He turned it around big time and was highly entertaining to watch. As a Bucs fan I despised him early on when the Bucs were playing the Vikes twice a season but over time you simply respected him. Big vote for me on Carter.

 

[3nOut]

So it was a unanimous vote except for her and her one vote kept him out?

 

[DropKick]

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.

But that's all he did.. catch touchdowns.Carter was a stud, incredibly consistent.

 

[DropKick]

Exactly. Michael Irvin >>> Cris Carter. Seriously. Let's not go there. Cris Carter was a fine possession receiver. Nifty hands on the sidelines. But, among the most dominant receivers of his era...no, he was not that. Irvin was.

I think you're nit picking when you try to rank players of this caliber. Irvin was a key cog on a better team than Carter and, as a result, won multiple SBs. But let's not dismiss Carter with the "possession receiver" moniker. Over the course of their careers, Carter had more yardage and twice as many TDs.

 

[5Rings]

Why does every very good player need to get in? How many years was he even the best wr on his own team?

 

[DropKick]

Looks like he is Canton bound. OK, old thread but congrats Cris, you well deserved it!http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/bill-parcells-cris-carter-warren-sapp-headline-pro-233806855--nfl.htmlhttp://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/257539/group/homepage/

 

[DropKick]

It's so hard to compare players from different eras as the game has changed so much. You can use stats but football fans would be wise to listen to people who saw the player live rather than just look at stats.Cris Carter is borderline HoFer, if a gun was to my head before the induction process I would have said he doesn't get in.Is Cris Carter better than Michael Irvin? I'd say no but I'm biased. Irvin in his prime was a more dominant player than Carter.

I agree on Irvin. Irvin's best 5 year run > Carter's best 8 year run. That said, I don't think that means Carter is not deserving, I think he is.

I am not sure about that. When comparing their best 5 year runs, Irvin has 1200 more yards while Carter has 27 more TDs. I think I would trade the 1200 yards for 27 TDs.

We're talking NFL value, not fantasy value. Context is required to properly make this comparison.Irvin had 449/7093/38 (15.80 ypr) from 1991 to 1995. Carter had 475/5855/65 (12.33 ypr) from 1995 to 1999. Yes, it's a big advantage for Carter in TDs, but a big difference for Irvin in receiving yards and yards per reception.Now consider:1. Minnesota attempted 2802 passes from 1995 to 1999, compared to 2407 passes for Dallas from 1991 to 1995.2. How well the other primary Minnesota receivers performed - Reed 1995-1997 and Moss 1998-1999 combined for 361/6351/50 over the same time period as Carter. Irvin was the #1 WR on his team throughout his stretch; Carter was not.3. Dallas had Emmitt Smith and quite reasonably relied upon him heavily in the red zone; Minnesota had no such threat. Dallas had 108 rushing TDs from 1991 to 1995, whereas Minnesota had 63 rushing TDs from 1995 to 1999. IMO that stuff reasonably explains Carter's only advantage.Now consider that Irvin was a strong contributor to 3 Super Bowl wins during his 5 year stretch. It's certainly not Carter's fault, but at the same time it is a credit to Irvin.Both made the Pro Bowl every year of their 5 year stretches and made 1st team All Pro once. Irvin had one more 2nd team All Pro selection in his stretch (2 to 1).I think it's clear Irvin's 5 year stretch was better than Carter's. However, it is closer than I realized when I posted.

There's two sides to everything. Did Carter benefit because he didn't have to compete with an "Emmitt Smith"? Or did Irvin benefit because the defense had to respect Emmitt Smith?

 

[ConnSKINS26]

Is this wrong? Looks like he is Canton bound.http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/bill-parcells-cris-carter-warren-sapp-headline-pro-233806855--nfl.htmlhttp://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/257539/group/homepage/

Old thread.

 

[finito]

How many years was he even the best wr on his own team?

Most of them.

 

[az_prof]

How many years was he even the best wr on his own team?

Most of them.

And he played most of his career with bad to average to good QBs. The only great QB he played with was Warren Moon, and that was at the very end of Moon's career.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Now consider:

1. Minnesota attempted 2802 passes from 1995 to 1999, compared to 2407 passes for Dallas from 1991 to 1995.

2. How well the other primary Minnesota receivers performed - Reed 1995-1997 and Moss 1998-1999 combined for 361/6351/50 over the same time period as Carter. Irvin was the #1 WR on his team throughout his stretch; Carter was not.

3. Dallas had Emmitt Smith and quite reasonably relied upon him heavily in the red zone; Minnesota had no such threat. Dallas had 108 rushing TDs from 1991 to 1995, whereas Minnesota had 63 rushing TDs from 1995 to 1999.

I just want to point out that Robert Smith, when healthy, was pretty great from 1997-2000. 4,989 rushing yards in those four season at 5.0 YPC is nothing to overlook or dismiss.

 

[cobalt_27]

Exactly. Michael Irvin >>> Cris Carter. Seriously. Let's not go there. Cris Carter was a fine possession receiver. Nifty hands on the sidelines. But, among the most dominant receivers of his era...no, he was not that. Irvin was.

I think you're nit picking when you try to rank players of this caliber. Irvin was a key cog on a better team than Carter and, as a result, won multiple SBs. But let's not dismiss Carter with the "possession receiver" moniker. Over the course of their careers, Carter had more yardage and twice as many TDs.

Well, i should sure hope so. He played in 75 more games than Irvin.

 

[DropKick]

Exactly. Michael Irvin >>> Cris Carter. Seriously. Let's not go there. Cris Carter was a fine possession receiver. Nifty hands on the sidelines. But, among the most dominant receivers of his era...no, he was not that. Irvin was.

I think you're nit picking when you try to rank players of this caliber. Irvin was a key cog on a better team than Carter and, as a result, won multiple SBs. But let's not dismiss Carter with the "possession receiver" moniker. Over the course of their careers, Carter had more yardage and twice as many TDs.

Well, i should sure hope so. He played in 75 more games than Irvin.

Longevity/durability is part of the discussion. 65 more TDs in 75 games is impressive too.Again, two great receivers in different situations - no real reason to rank one above the other.

 

[cobalt_27]

Exactly. Michael Irvin >>> Cris Carter. Seriously. Let's not go there. Cris Carter was a fine possession receiver. Nifty hands on the sidelines. But, among the most dominant receivers of his era...no, he was not that. Irvin was.

I think you're nit picking when you try to rank players of this caliber. Irvin was a key cog on a better team than Carter and, as a result, won multiple SBs. But let's not dismiss Carter with the "possession receiver" moniker. Over the course of their careers, Carter had more yardage and twice as many TDs.

Well, i should sure hope so. He played in 75 more games than Irvin.

Longevity/durability is part of the discussion. 65 more TDs in 75 games is impressive too.Again, two great receivers in different situations - no real reason to rank one above the other.

Sure there is. That's what we do here. And, in no way was Cris Carter on the same level as Irvin. He didn't sustain a career ending neck injury. Good for him. That doesn't mean he was the better receiver than Irvin was.

 

[DropKick]

Exactly. Michael Irvin >>> Cris Carter. Seriously. Let's not go there. Cris Carter was a fine possession receiver. Nifty hands on the sidelines. But, among the most dominant receivers of his era...no, he was not that. Irvin was.

I think you're nit picking when you try to rank players of this caliber. Irvin was a key cog on a better team than Carter and, as a result, won multiple SBs. But let's not dismiss Carter with the "possession receiver" moniker. Over the course of their careers, Carter had more yardage and twice as many TDs.

Well, i should sure hope so. He played in 75 more games than Irvin.

Longevity/durability is part of the discussion. 65 more TDs in 75 games is impressive too.Again, two great receivers in different situations - no real reason to rank one above the other.

Sure there is. That's what we do here. And, in no way was Cris Carter on the same level as Irvin. He didn't sustain a career ending neck injury. Good for him. That doesn't mean he was the better receiver than Irvin was.

350 more receptions; Twice as many TDs (130 - 65), 7 seasons with 80+ catches (3 for Irvin), 6 seasons with double digit TDs (1 for Irvin)... I think this says he is on the same level.