What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Tim Brown/Cris Carter/Andre Reed (1 Viewer)

Chase Stuart

Footballguy
Over at P-F-R, we've been profiling the 25 semifinalists for induction.

John Randle

Roger Craig

Russ Grimm

Steve Tasker

Aeneas Williams

Art Modell

Terrell Davis

Dermontti Dawson

I've posted excepts of the last two guys here in the Pool: Davis Dawson

Today I looked at the three finalists who were star WRs in the 1990s: Tim Brown/Cris Carter/Andre Reed.

Over the past few decades, no position has evolved more than that of the wide receiver. It wasn't until 1986 that the NFL had its first ever 750-catch receiver (Charlie Joiner). Today, 28 players have hit that benchmark, with over half of them having begun their careers in the '90s or '00s. Wes Welker is now the fifth player with 330 receptions over a three-year span (joining Marvin Harrison, Jerry Rice, Cris Carter and Herman Moore), and he's not even the best receiver on his own team. The average first-team All-Pro WR, as selected by the Associated Press, averaged 53 receptions, 961 yards and 9.5 touchdowns in the '70s; this decade, those averages are up to 97 receptions, 1439 yards and 12.5 scores. Wide receiver records are constantly being broken, and numbers that looked terrific in the '70s looked mediocre in the '90s and are underwhelming today.

With that backdrop, it makes sense to analyze Tim Brown, Cris Carter and Andre Reed together. Each player's HOF case largely depends on how he compared to his peers during his playing days and how he now stacks up against others already in Canton. Brown's and Carter's career perfectly overlapped; both were drafted in the late '80s, were elite for most of the '90s, and were still productive at the beginning of this decade. Reed was a couple of years older, but was still a contemporary of Brown and Carter, and peaked during roughly the same time. All three made the Pro Bowl in 1993 and 1994. All had long careers and then chose to play one final season in a new uniform over retiring. Reed played for 15 seasons with the Bills and then one with the Redskins; Carter played 12 years with the Eagles and Vikings, before finishing up with the Dolphins; Brown played for Al Davis Raiders for 16 seasons before reuniting with Jon Gruden in Tampa Bay. Ultimately, at least one but not all of them will make the Hall of Fame. So who gets inducted?

Analyzing each player's Pro Bowl and All-Pro selections gets us nowhere; all have equally strong performances in those categories.

About a year ago, I came up with a formula to grade all WRs independent of era. I plan on tweaking that formula in the off-season, but it serves as a good starting point for discussion. I ranked Brown at #11, Carter at #17 and Reed at #35. That formula excluded post-season data, which we'll revisit in a few paragraphs. The table below shows how many times each receiver ranked among the top X receivers in the league, according to the metric used from the Greatest WRs ever formula referenced above.

Top 3 Top 5 Top 8 Top 12 Top 20

Brown 2 4 5 6 9

Carter 0 1 6 9 10

Reed 1 3 4 5 9

Carter had a bunch of very good seasons but no top-three ones; Reed had a few elite seasons but had a big drop-off after that; Brown had the best combination of quantity and quality, and that's why he ranked first among these receivers when I ranked them last February. Reed and Brown both played in offenses that passed a bit less frequently than the average team; Carter played on offenses that passed a bit more frequently than the average team. We'll keep that in mind as we move on to the analysis.

The problem for Reed is the lack of dominant seasons. In two years where he ranked in the top five in my WR-grading metric, they were just down years for the league where Reed wasn't great. Reed only had one excellent season, one very good one and a bunch of solid years. His best statistical year was '89, where he ranked second in receptions, fifth in receiving yards and tied with six others for sixth in receiving touchdowns. In '94 he again ranked 5th in receiving yards, and in the top ten in both receptions and receiving touchdowns. But as far as standout seasons, that was it. Only five times did Reed rank in the top five in any category whatsoever. The most damning statistic: 1989 and 1994 were the only two years where Reed topped 70 receiving yards per game. Over 120 players in NFL history have as many or more seasons like that.

Reed has great career numbers because he entered the league at age 21, left at age 36, and was at least solid for most of those years. In nine different seasons, Reed finished with between 33 and 63 receiving yards per game (I'm using yards per game so we can compare Reed to players from pre-1978). That's second in NFL history, behind Muhsin Muhammad. Art Monk also has nine such seasons and he's in Canton, but I think he had a stronger case: he was a superior blocker, he has multiple rings, and he put up his numbers with inferior QB play to Reed. You could argue that Reed was unfairly penalized by playing in Buffalo, where it was harder to catch passes than in a dome (Carter) or in California (Brown). On the other hand, Reed played with a HOF QB for most of his career. Reed caught 75% of his touchdowns from Kelly, and surely benefited from playing in the Buffalo K-Gun offense.

Reed was a solid playoff performer, but not a great one. While he had an amazing 8/136/3 against the Oilers in that famous comeback in 1993, Reed also had some playoff duds. In eight of his 19 playoff games -- all during the prime seasons of his career -- he had fewer than 50 yards and no TDs. The Bills already have six Hall of Famers from their famous teams of the '90s; Bruce Smith, Jim Kelly, James Lofton, Thurman Thomas, Marv Levy and Ralph Wilson, Jr., have been memorialized in Canton. And while I like Reed's case a lot better than Steve Tasker's, I see no overwhelming need to induct a player like Reed who did not dominate the game at a position where that should be the requirement.

Let's get to the juicier question -- Brown or Carter? I think the average fan remembers Carter as the better receiver than Brown. Is that correct? Let's start by looking at who was throwing these guys the ball. The tables below show how many receiving yards each player caught in games started by all of the below QBs. I've also listed the average age for the WR and QB in those starts.
For the rest of the analysis, along with the tables and links, click here: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=4837
 
They've all got qualities that the others lack:

- Brown was a Pro-Bowl kick returner

- Carter made 1st Team All-Pro

- Reed played on 4 Super Bowl teams

.....and they're all so close that none of them stand out. I lean toward giving a slight edge to Brown because he was productive through multiple systems with multiple quarterbacks (whereas Reed had Jim Kelly for most of his career, and Carter played under similar schemes from the mid-'90s onward).

 
CC is the 2nd best WR ever and its laughable that he didnt get in on the 1st try...
What is laughable is the bolded statement. I think Carter deserves to and will make the HOF, but he isn't close to second best.
Yes, it's clear that you can't possibly put any of these guys in your top four. Some combination of Rice, Hutson, Alworth, Moss, Harrison, Owens should be in everyone's top four. Raymond Berry and Steve Largent would probably rank ahead of these three on most lists. But yes, I think Carter deserves to and will make the HOF. Statements like the above are the ones that make me think Carter is overrated.

 
I absolutely love Andre Reed but I really am not sure that any of these guys are Hall worthy. Career numbers just do not seem to be a true measure any more. Not that my opinion matters, but to be a true HOF'er, you have to DOMINATE your era. The rules that exist now allow receivers big numbers. It took Art Monk a millennium to get elected and HE retired as the all-time leader in receptions(Did he really stand out in era?). I would like to see a Randy Moss, Elroy Hirsch, Lance Alworth, Don Maynard type of player than someone who played in an era of inflated stats.

I started to post this before Chase responded so it isn't a blatant rip-off of names, just great minds thinking alike. Any player up for election should just "stand out". There should be no "First Ballot", "maybe in a few years", "in a different era he could have been". In my view, when it comes to the HOF, a person should be able to look at an individual and just know that "yes" he is a HOF'er. If you really have to debate a players worth than you are probably over thinking it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cris Carter >>>> Tim Brown >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andre Reed

 
CC is the 2nd best WR ever and its laughable that he didnt get in on the 1st try...
What is laughable is the bolded statement. I think Carter deserves to and will make the HOF, but he isn't close to second best.
isnt close? Im guessing you dont watch football...if someone wants to say he isnt thats fine, but to say its not close is not close...you absolutely could make an arguement that he is the 2nd best WR ever...
 
its laughable that he didnt get in on the 1st try...
:confused: CC should have been in on the first try.
Stats aren't everything but c'mon. CC led the league in receptions ONCE. He led the league in TD's THREE times. He led the league in yards or Y/C ZERO times. How is he so far ahead of other receivers in his era? Just to break your stones, during the time that CC played, OJ McDuffie led the league in receptions ONCE. HOF, of course not. Obviously, TD's and career numbers are CC's strongest asset. Those numbers just do not separate him from the rest. He was a great receiver, I just do not think that he was one of the best ever.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Im guessing you dont watch football
Worst argument ever. I see it all the time in here and it is silly every single time.I will go out on a limb and say that 99% of posters in the Shark Pool watch football regularly. What the hell else would they be doing in The Shark Pool on the Footballguys website?
 
its laughable that he didnt get in on the 1st try...
:thumbup: CC should have been in on the first try.
Stats aren't everything but c'mon. CC led the league in receptions ONCE. He led the league in TD's THREE times. He led the league in yards or Y/C ZERO times. How is he so far ahead of other receivers in his era? Just to break your stones, during the time that CC played, OJ McDuffie led the league in receptions ONCE. HOF, of course not. Obviously, TD's and career numbers are CC's strongest asset. Those numbers just do not separate him from the rest. He was a great receiver, I just do not think that he was one of the best ever.
I have clashed with Chase on the issue of cumulative stats and the HOF before...IMHO, stats are more important in baseball than football.The eyeyball test should tell you that Carter and Terrel Davis were HOFers.
 
CC is the 2nd best WR ever and its laughable that he didnt get in on the 1st try...
What is laughable is the bolded statement. I think Carter deserves to and will make the HOF, but he isn't close to second best.
isnt close? Im guessing you dont watch football...if someone wants to say he isnt thats fine, but to say its not close is not close...you absolutely could make an arguement that he is the 2nd best WR ever...
No. You couldn't make such an argument. At least IMO not with a sound basis.The obvious guys that immediately come to mind are the ones Chase named: Rice, Hutson, Alworth, Moss, Harrison, Owens, Largent, and Berry. But there are a number of others who were arguably better, such as Warfield, Irvin, Lofton, Brown, and Bruce... and I'm not even sure Bruce will get in.

And, yes, I watch a lot of football, thanks. Perhaps you are just a bit biased on this topic, given you are a Vikings fan.

 
its laughable that he didnt get in on the 1st try...
:towelwave: CC should have been in on the first try.
Stats aren't everything but c'mon. CC led the league in receptions ONCE. He led the league in TD's THREE times. He led the league in yards or Y/C ZERO times. How is he so far ahead of other receivers in his era? Just to break your stones, during the time that CC played, OJ McDuffie led the league in receptions ONCE. HOF, of course not. Obviously, TD's and career numbers are CC's strongest asset. Those numbers just do not separate him from the rest. He was a great receiver, I just do not think that he was one of the best ever.
I have clashed with Chase on the issue of cumulative stats and the HOF before...IMHO, stats are more important in baseball than football.The eyeyball test should tell you that Carter and Terrel Davis were HOFers.
I'm not sure which way we clashed, but I almost never use cumulative stats. I think they're more trivia than anything; they are certainly highly correlated to the things I *would* use, but seeing as how I can just as easily those things, I never even look at career totals unless it's for trivia.
 
I'm not sure which way we clashed, but I almost never use cumulative stats. I think they're more trivia than anything; they are certainly highly correlated to the things I *would* use, but seeing as how I can just as easily those things, I never even look at career totals unless it's for trivia.
:towelwave:I thought it was you...maybe it was SSOG or one of the other "stats are everything" posters.
 
its laughable that he didnt get in on the 1st try...
:towelwave: CC should have been in on the first try.
Stats aren't everything but c'mon. CC led the league in receptions ONCE. He led the league in TD's THREE times. He led the league in yards or Y/C ZERO times. How is he so far ahead of other receivers in his era? Just to break your stones, during the time that CC played, OJ McDuffie led the league in receptions ONCE. HOF, of course not. Obviously, TD's and career numbers are CC's strongest asset. Those numbers just do not separate him from the rest. He was a great receiver, I just do not think that he was one of the best ever.
I have clashed with Chase on the issue of cumulative stats and the HOF before...IMHO, stats are more important in baseball than football.The eyeyball test should tell you that Carter and Terrel Davis were HOFers.
I must have glass eyes for I do not see. I read the TD thread from a couple of days ago, and again, he does not belong in. CC and TD were great talents but the domination that is needed for the HOF is lacking.
 
How the heck could CC not be HOF material? He finished pretty much 2nd in most categories to Mr. Rice when he retired.

The guy had a bit of a chip on his shoulder when he played, aka Steve Smith (#1), but he made hi-lite catch after hi-lite catch especially alone the sidelines, usually with ONE HAND. The only thing I didn't like about CC was all the smack he would talk, which I've heard was A LOT. He perfected the drop-the-weight-to-the-toes maneuver to get both feet inbounds, which he taught Randy Moss when they were together in Minny.

The guy should be in this year but with all the new first-timers including Rice, will most of the voters put Rice in only to put him on that pedestal among WR's? Probably. :towelwave:

 
CC is the 2nd best WR ever and its laughable that he didnt get in on the 1st try...
What is laughable is the bolded statement. I think Carter deserves to and will make the HOF, but he isn't close to second best.
isnt close? Im guessing you dont watch football...if someone wants to say he isnt thats fine, but to say its not close is not close...you absolutely could make an arguement that he is the 2nd best WR ever...
I think Cris will always have a sort of "knock" held against him for his attitude, but Cris was a fantastic WR, I personally wouldn't say 2nd best, but I think he could easily be in the conversation. That guy made so many spectacular catches it almost was expected of him, he may have had the greatest hands of any WR ever.
 
I must have glass eyes for I do not see. I read the TD thread from a couple of days ago, and again, he does not belong in. CC and TD were great talents but the domination that is needed for the HOF is lacking.
CC dominated the game.
 
CC is the 2nd best WR ever and its laughable that he didnt get in on the 1st try...
What is laughable is the bolded statement. I think Carter deserves to and will make the HOF, but he isn't close to second best.
isnt close? Im guessing you dont watch football...if someone wants to say he isnt thats fine, but to say its not close is not close...you absolutely could make an arguement that he is the 2nd best WR ever...
I think Cris will always have a sort of "knock" held against him for his attitude, but Cris was a fantastic WR, I personally wouldn't say 2nd best, but I think he could easily be in the conversation. That guy made so many spectacular catches it almost was expected of him, he may have had the greatest hands of any WR ever.
Best hands that I can recall.At his peak had Desean Jackson like quicks.

 
Cris Carter >>>> Tim Brown >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andre Reed
Why Carter over Brown?
speed, quicks, hands, special teamsBoth HOFers, but the comparison really isn't close IMHO.
Neither were fast, both were great route runners with excellent hands and Timmy was a far superior special teams player (that one really isn't even close).
 
CC is the 2nd best WR ever and its laughable that he didnt get in on the 1st try...
What is laughable is the bolded statement. I think Carter deserves to and will make the HOF, but he isn't close to second best.
isnt close? Im guessing you dont watch football...if someone wants to say he isnt thats fine, but to say its not close is not close...you absolutely could make an arguement that he is the 2nd best WR ever...
I think Cris will always have a sort of "knock" held against him for his attitude, but Cris was a fantastic WR, I personally wouldn't say 2nd best, but I think he could easily be in the conversation. That guy made so many spectacular catches it almost was expected of him, he may have had the greatest hands of any WR ever.
Best hands that I can recall.At his peak had Desean Jackson like quicks.
Is that seriously how you remember him or are you just being you?
 
How do you keep these three legit All Pro's out after a complementary WR like Art Monk got in?

:wall:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I must have glass eyes for I do not see. I read the TD thread from a couple of days ago, and again, he does not belong in. CC and TD were great talents but the domination that is needed for the HOF is lacking.
CC dominated the game.
Uh No! Three times in five years, Sterling Sharpe led the league in catches. You could argue, that is domination. Five times since 1998, Randy Moss has led the league in TD receptions. Again, you can argue that is domination. We will use the top 20 career receptions as a starting point. Out of the top 20, only 3 had careers that started before 1985. Steve Largent, career leader when he retired. Art Monk, career leader when HE retired. Irving Fryar, HOF, really??Educate me on CC's domination. It does not seem as though the history books show this domination of which you speak.
 
Why Carter over Brown?
More TDs? More dominance in his best seasons?It's interesting that they both had their peak seasons from 1993-2000. Brown averaged 88/1228/8.5 while Carter averaged 97/1182/11.
Statistically, based on dominant years, I've got Brown slightly ahead of Carter. I also think Brown had a weaker supporting cast than Carter, which is often ignored. I'm not sure if it means anything or if it's just randomness, but Brown's best years came in somewhat down years while Carter's came in somewhat up years. Regardless, I can't ignore the fact that four times in Brown's career he ranked in the top five in the NFL in receiving yards. Carter never ranked higher than seventh in the league in that category. They both have five top-ten seasons in terms of receiving yard ranks, but Brown does look more dominant that way.
 
Tim Brown was the best of the three but I think all deserve to be in the HOF. It will probably take Reed the longest though.

 
CC is the 2nd best WR ever and its laughable that he didnt get in on the 1st try...
What is laughable is the bolded statement. I think Carter deserves to and will make the HOF, but he isn't close to second best.
isnt close? Im guessing you dont watch football...if someone wants to say he isnt thats fine, but to say its not close is not close...you absolutely could make an arguement that he is the 2nd best WR ever...
I think Cris will always have a sort of "knock" held against him for his attitude, but Cris was a fantastic WR, I personally wouldn't say 2nd best, but I think he could easily be in the conversation. That guy made so many spectacular catches it almost was expected of him, he may have had the greatest hands of any WR ever.
Best hands that I can recall.At his peak had Desean Jackson like quicks.
For the first time ever I was in agreement with you till this. Deshaun Jackson like quicks? Ummm no.
 
Why Carter over Brown?
More TDs? More dominance in his best seasons?It's interesting that they both had their peak seasons from 1993-2000. Brown averaged 88/1228/8.5 while Carter averaged 97/1182/11.
Statistically, based on dominant years, I've got Brown slightly ahead of Carter. I also think Brown had a weaker supporting cast than Carter, which is often ignored. I'm not sure if it means anything or if it's just randomness, but Brown's best years came in somewhat down years while Carter's came in somewhat up years. Regardless, I can't ignore the fact that four times in Brown's career he ranked in the top five in the NFL in receiving yards. Carter never ranked higher than seventh in the league in that category. They both have five top-ten seasons in terms of receiving yard ranks, but Brown does look more dominant that way.
I may have lost sight of the thread. Are you arguing who is the best of the three or if any one of these players are Hall worthy? Of the three, I would vote for Brown as having the best career. As far as being Hall worthy, I think that all three fall short.
 
For the first time ever I was in agreement with you till this. Deshaun Jackson like quicks? Ummm no.
what's funny is that I was Desean Jackson's biggest supporter in this forum prior to the season beginning...now everybody is on that bandwagon I guess. this forum is so weak on prognosticating...people wait until a player has rushed for 2000 yards before makinga call on a player...ridiculous.This forum is filled with people that don't watch games.
 
For the first time ever I was in agreement with you till this. Deshaun Jackson like quicks? Ummm no.
what's funny is that I was Desean Jackson's biggest supporter in this forum prior to the season beginning...now everybody is on that bandwagon I guess. this forum is so weak on prognosticating...people wait until a player has rushed for 2000 yards before makinga call on a player...ridiculous.This forum is filled with people that don't watch games.
Give me the link to your website. I am sick of wasting money on FBG's. I would rather sign up with someone of superior intelligence so that I can go undefeated. Using the info on FBG's helps me dominate but if I utilize your great ability also, I may never lose. Like I said to my former cult leader, "Lead me LHUCKS, lead me".
 
CC is the 2nd best WR ever and its laughable that he didnt get in on the 1st try...
What is laughable is the bolded statement. I think Carter deserves to and will make the HOF, but he isn't close to second best.
isnt close? Im guessing you dont watch football...if someone wants to say he isnt thats fine, but to say its not close is not close...you absolutely could make an arguement that he is the 2nd best WR ever...
Sure, you could. I mean, it wouldn't be a very good argument, but you could make it. You could also argue that he wasn't even one of the top 5 WRs in the league when he was playing. In fact, that would be a much better and easier argument to make.Cris Carter was not the 2nd best WR to ever play. He's nowhere *NEAR* either Jerry Rice or Don Hutson, and you cannot even debate the point. Jerry Rice was Jerry Rice, and Don Hutson led the league in receiving yards SEVEN TIMES, in receptions EIGHT TIMES, and receiving TDs NINE TIMES. He never finished lower than 2nd in TDs, only once finished lower than 2nd in yards (a 3rd place finish as a rookie), and only once finished lower than 2nd in receptions (a 6th place finish as a rookie). He was also a 2-time league MVP and an 8-time first team AP All Pro (would have been more, the AP only handed out All Pro recognitions for the last 8 years of his career). His 1942 season STILL ranks among the top 10 single season ypg totals (STILL!), and ranks 5th in NFL history in terms of receiving TDs. Oh yeah, he also invented the concept of routes. Arguing that Carter belongs above either Hutson or Rice is ludicrous beyond the point of absurdity. Trying to put him over Alworth is only slightly less insane. Heck, even if you started watching football 20 years ago, how on earth could you put him over his OWN TEAMMATE, Randy Moss?

:lmao:

I thought it was you...maybe it was SSOG or one of the other "stats are everything" posters.
I'm a peak-over-longevity guy, too. And stats aren't everything.
I must have glass eyes for I do not see. I read the TD thread from a couple of days ago, and again, he does not belong in. CC and TD were great talents but the domination that is needed for the HOF is lacking.
That's a new one. Congratulations, I've never before heard anyone argue that Terrell Davis shouldn't be in the hall of fame because he lacked DOMINANCE. That's definitely a new one.
 
"I must have glass eyes for I do not see. I read the TD thread from a couple of days ago, and again, he does not belong in. CC and TD were great talents but the domination that is needed for the HOF is lacking.

That's a new one. Congratulations, I've never before heard anyone argue that Terrell Davis shouldn't be in the hall of fame because he lacked DOMINANCE. That's definitely a new one.

I should have been more clear. When I think of that time period I think of Emmitt, Barry, Thurman, and Marshall. Right, wrong or indifferent, I just do not equate TD with others of his era. I think of the two Super Bowl years Denver had but everything else is a blur.

You mention Barry, pretty much everyone gets the same vision. You mention Emmitt, all-time rusher. Thurman Thomas, Marshall Faulk before there was a Marshall Faulk.

 
Sure, you could. I mean, it wouldn't be a very good argument, but you could make it. You could also argue that he wasn't even one of the top 5 WRs in the league when he was playing. In fact, that would be a much better and easier argument to make.
How would you rank the three?
 
I don't recall Reed or Carter as returnmen. How do you quantify Brown's return prowess here?

Reed was "money" and is easily my fave here.

 
Hey Chase IIRC Jake Reed and later Moss were better than Carter at times. Not being the best WR on your team, does that matter? I notice several teams with 2 very good WRs now but in the 90s? Will that affect Carter at all?

 
Hey Chase IIRC Jake Reed and later Moss were better than Carter at times. Not being the best WR on your team, does that matter? I notice several teams with 2 very good WRs now but in the 90s? Will that affect Carter at all?
Carter led the Vikings in receptions every single year from 1991 to 2000, and he led them in receiving yards every year from 1991-1995. Jake Reed never posted better stats than Carter.
 
Hey Chase IIRC Jake Reed and later Moss were better than Carter at times. Not being the best WR on your team, does that matter? I notice several teams with 2 very good WRs now but in the 90s? Will that affect Carter at all?
Carter led the Vikings in receptions every single year from 1991 to 2000, and he led them in receiving yards every year from 1991-1995. Jake Reed never posted better stats than Carter.
I don't understand the last sentence following the previous where you stopped at 95
 
Hey Chase IIRC Jake Reed and later Moss were better than Carter at times. Not being the best WR on your team, does that matter? I notice several teams with 2 very good WRs now but in the 90s? Will that affect Carter at all?
Carter led the Vikings in receptions every single year from 1991 to 2000, and he led them in receiving yards every year from 1991-1995. Jake Reed never posted better stats than Carter.
I don't understand the last sentence following the previous where you stopped at 95
well the 95 thing had me curious96 Carter 96 1163 1096 Reed 72 1320 7Carter 9th and Reed 10th at PFR.
 
Hey Chase IIRC Jake Reed and later Moss were better than Carter at times. Not being the best WR on your team, does that matter? I notice several teams with 2 very good WRs now but in the 90s? Will that affect Carter at all?
Carter led the Vikings in receptions every single year from 1991 to 2000, and he led them in receiving yards every year from 1991-1995. Jake Reed never posted better stats than Carter.
I don't understand the last sentence following the previous where you stopped at 95
well the 95 thing had me curious96 Carter 96 1163 1096 Reed 72 1320 7Carter 9th and Reed 10th at PFR.
:thumbdown:There were a couple seasons where Reed had a more yards, but Carter had more receptions, more targets, and more touchdowns.
 
People discount Carter because he wasn't a deep threat. He hardly ever ran a route more than 15 yards downfield and as a result he never had those HUGE seasons from a yardage standpoint. However, that doesn't mean he wasn't one of the best WRs in the game during his prime. Look at Welker right now. He can absolutely take over games at times and seems to go under the radar when talking about the game's best WRs. Carter was Welker with better hands and better route running ability. If you gave Carter a HOF QB to play his whole career with he might have challenged Rice in terms of career numbers.

On top of all of this, there isn't a receiver in NFL history that I would want on my team in a crucial third down situation more than Carter. He never dropped a ball. In fact, if he was double covered and the QB threw anyway, I was still amazed when he didn't come down with it. That's how good at catching the ball he was. Larry Fitzgerald credits working with Carter during his teenage years as the reason he developed such good hands. He is hands down the best WR of these three guys and it's a crime he wasn't inducted last year.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top