Better Wide Receiver? Cris Carter or Michael Irvin

[mdonnelly21]

I think this is rather close. 

[Uncle Buck]

Homer vote for Carter, but mdonnelly21 is right, this one is pretty close.

[Forge]

I think I'd take Carter

[Malik]

Michael Irvin's stats are insane factoring in his QB and the fact that they constantly ran it with Emmitt when they got into the redzone. Like Warren Moon threw the ball over 600 times TWICE with the Vikings. Troy Aikman's career high was 519 and the next closest was 479. Imagine if Irvin was on a pass heavy team like Cris Carter got to be?

[tom cody]

Both were good but this is Cris Carter

[tyler735]

I'll take Cris Carter. His hands were crazy good and likely the best I've ever seen in the NFL. 

[NFLExpert49]

Irvin. One-on-one, he was virtually unstoppable. Made Darrell Green his *****. He could separate in the route, he could separate by pushing off, and when he was covered, he wasn't, because the ball in the air was his. And he was the toughest traffic receiver of the last 30 years, at least. 

Carter made the flashiest catches but he wasn't the one-on-one force Irvin was. He caught a lot more easy underneath crap. 

[vikingsrule]

7 hours ago, Malik said:

Michael Irvin's stats are insane factoring in his QB and the fact that they constantly ran it with Emmitt when they got into the redzone. Like Warren Moon threw the ball over 600 times TWICE with the Vikings. Troy Aikman's career high was 519 and the next closest was 479. Imagine if Irvin was on a pass heavy team like Cris Carter got to be?

Carter had journeymen QB most of his career at the of their careers. I'd take Carter. The Vikings teams were fairly mediocre until Moss arrived but Carter was already well established by then.

[SeanTaylorsaPIMP]

I went with Michael Irvin. Out of the big 3 (him, Aikmen, and Smith) he truly was the locker room leader of those great Dallas teams. If you read the book "Boys Will Be Boys" by Jeff Pearlman (and I highly recommend you do), you'll see how important Irvin was to that team. Both him and Carter are very similar in terms of talent but with his intangibles along with the SB rings, I take Irvin.  

[Heinz D.]

Can't believe this is even a comparison topic. Cris Carter is great and all, but Michael Irvin is a Mt. Rushmore of receivers kind of guy. 

[///mcompact]

Irvin.  He manhandled corners so bad that the league started enforcing offensive pass interference.  When the team absolutely needed him to run a inside slant, knowing he'd take the hit, he'd do it fearlessly.  He was the heart and soul of the '90s Cowboys, not Aikman or Emmitt.

 

Cris Carter was the quintessential possession receiver in my mind, played longer than Irvin, had more bulk stats, but when it came to big time plays in big time games, give me the "Playmaker".

[Forge]

3 hours ago, SeanTaylorsaPIMP said:

I went with Michael Irvin. Out of the big 3 (him, Aikmen, and Smith) he truly was the locker room leader of those great Dallas teams. If you read the book "Boys Will Be Boys" by Jeff Pearlman (and I highly recommend you do), you'll see how important Irvin was to that team. Both him and Carter are very similar in terms of talent but with his intangibles along with the SB rings, I take Irvin.  

Stabbing a teammate is certainly an interesting leadership tactic. 

[bootsy]

1 hour ago, Forge said:

Stabbing a teammate is certainly an interesting leadership tactic. 

One incident deems him not a leader out of the many times he demonstrated leadership. Stop. Ask anyone on those championship teams and not some bum like McIver how much a leader Irvin was and they will all rave about him. He practiced hard and played hard and backed up his play on the field with success. That's a leader. You want to nitpick about one incident and glorify it. That's your problem.

[Livewire]

Cris Carter.

[NFLExpert49]

52 minutes ago, bootsy said:

One incident deems him not a leader out of the many times he demonstrated leadership. Stop. Ask anyone on those championship teams and not some bum like McIver how much a leader Irvin was and they will all rave about him. He practiced hard and played hard and backed up his play on the field with success. That's a leader. You want to nitpick about one incident and glorify it. That's your problem.

Pffft. I agree that Irvin was better than Carter, but let's be real: If the Cowboys hadn't won Super Bowls (thanks to utterly stacked teams), nobody would be calling Irvin a "great leader."

"Intangibles" in football such as "chemistry" and "leadership" are utter nonsense. Show me a team that fails to meet its expectations where players say they have great leadership and their "locker room" is great. 

When you win, supposed intangibles get praised, and when you lose, negativity spawns from that.