Better Wide Receiver? Cris Carter or Michael Irvin

[TENINCH]

Carter was better. The guy put up numbers with 20 different QB's that Minnesota had. Carter was an elite blocker and had arguably the best hands that we've seen in the NFL. He perfected the sideline grab and you can see receivers copying his toe drag today.

[SeanTaylorsaPIMP]

On ‎8‎/‎30‎/‎2018 at 12:10 AM, NFLExpert49 said:

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. 

 

You need to read this book: https://www.amazon.com/Boys-Will-Be-Cowboys-Dynasty/dp/0061256811

The first chapter starts with Irvin stabbing his teammate in the team barber chair. You're hooked after that. Obviously, that's an insane thing to happen and hard to defend (you can't). But this book goes deep into the locker room of those Cowboys teams. Charles Haley being the most interesting one. What really comes clear early on is that Irvin is the heart of the locker room much like a Ray Lewis role. It shows that Irvin was the first one on the practice field and the last one to leave. He was the vocal leader in the locker room and the leader by example  on the field. He partied all night long and still came in at 6am to catch balls from the jugs machine. To wipe aside his "Intangibles" and "leadership" is ridiculous. Read about him and those teams and you'll realize how important he was to that dynasty. I agree all teams have great leaders in their locker room but Irvin was truly one of the best. And this is coming from a Redskins fan.

[TecmoSuperJoe]

Both were great. I liked the attitude Irvin brought though to the gridiron. Just seemed like a real tough dude. 

[sparkyjoe1]

Really not even close. Irvin isn't in the same class as Carter.

[bootsy]

8 hours ago, sparkyjoe1 said:

Really not even close. Irvin isn't in the same class as Carter.

How! You will have to explain this one and not just come on here with a blanket, silly statement like this. Irvin had 4 seasons of over 1300 receiving yards, Carter had 1. Let's not forget Michael's playoff number where he ranks 2nd behind Jerry Rice in receptions and receiving yards in 16 games, Carter played in 14 playoff games  if you want to nitpick about how many games each played.

The only thing Carter has over Michael is longevity and TDs. We know the reason for both, Michael was forced into retirement due to a career threatening injury and had many TDs taken away from him due to the style of offense the Cowboys played with Emmitt Smith getting the majority of the TDs. So you will need some explanation on how this isn't even close.

[bootsy]

On 8/30/2018 at 12:10 AM, NFLExpert49 said:

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. 

 

And Irvin was a very key part of those stacked. You act like he was going along for ride like he was Keyshawn or something. No Michael was a key reason those teams won. Cris Carter also played on some stacked teams and came up small. i.e. 98 and 00.

[NFLExpert49]

10 hours ago, bootsy said:

And Irvin was a very key part of those stacked. You act like he was going along for ride like he was Keyshawn or something. No Michael was a key reason those teams won. Cris Carter also played on some stacked teams and came up small. i.e. 98 and 00.

Huh? I said that he was still better than Carter. But put him on less stacked teams and he doesn't win any Super Bowls.

You know how many Super Bowl rings a great WR is worth in and of himself? 0.

How do we know this? Well, because the 2008 Lions had Calvin Johnson in his prime and they went 0-16. 

And the Vikings' defenses sucked those years you mentioned. Plus the QBs were mediocre; the best example of a receiver making QBs look way better than they are (Randy Moss). 

[bootsy]

On 9/2/2018 at 12:11 AM, NFLExpert49 said:

Huh? I said that he was still better than Carter. But put him on less stacked teams and he doesn't win any Super Bowls.

You know how many Super Bowl rings a great WR is worth in and of himself? 0.

How do we know this? Well, because the 2008 Lions had Calvin Johnson in his prime and they went 0-16. 

And the Vikings' defenses sucked those years you mentioned. Plus the QBs were mediocre; the best example of a receiver making QBs look way better than they are (Randy Moss). 

What do you mean huh? Let me respond with a huh? If he's on less stacked teams he doesn't win any Super Bowls? SO what. He wasn't. He joined a team that was built the right way and figured out how to win. He wasn't freaking Kevin Durant or more comparable Deion Sanders joining a ready made championship team. He and his teammates learned to win in progression. I hate this argument if he wasn't on stacked teams or if this or if that. The fact is he wasn't so going by if's is such a weak non-argument. 

[NFLExpert49]

On 9/3/2018 at 1:00 PM, bootsy said:

What do you mean huh? Let me respond with a huh? If he's on less stacked teams he doesn't win any Super Bowls? SO what. He wasn't. He joined a team that was built the right way and figured out how to win. He wasn't freaking Kevin Durant or more comparable Deion Sanders joining a ready made championship team. He and his teammates learned to win in progression. I hate this argument if he wasn't on stacked teams or if this or if that. The fact is he wasn't so going by if's is such a weak non-argument. 

What I'm saying is using championships as an argument/measurement for an individual player's greatness is stupid. 

I'm not saying he wasn't great. I'm saying it's stupid to rave about his leadership, blah blah blah, in the context of his teams winning Super Bowls. 

Put Cris Carter on the Cowboys in Irvin's place, they might not win any of those Super Bowls, but it would be because Irvin was the better receiver, and Aikman + Smith + Irvin + line + defense, etc., features a better collection of football players than Aikman + Smith + Carter + line + defense. 

But put Calvin Johnson on those Cowboys in Irvin's place instead of Carter? I'd be willing to bet they still win those 3 Super Bowls.

Super Bowl wins they were a part of have nothing to do with why Irvin of the Cowboys was better than Carter of the Vikings. It's the fact that Carter was more limited going one-on-one with corners. 

[bootsy]

2 hours ago, NFLExpert49 said:

What I'm saying is using championships as an argument/measurement for an individual player's greatness is stupid. 

I'm not saying he wasn't great. I'm saying it's stupid to rave about his leadership, blah blah blah, in the context of his teams winning Super Bowls. 

Put Cris Carter on the Cowboys in Irvin's place, they might not win any of those Super Bowls, but it would be because Irvin was the better receiver, and Aikman + Smith + Irvin + line + defense, etc., features a better collection of football players than Aikman + Smith + Carter + line + defense. 

But put Calvin Johnson on those Cowboys in Irvin's place instead of Carter? I'd be willing to bet they still win those 3 Super Bowls.

Super Bowl wins they were a part of have nothing to do with why Irvin of the Cowboys was better than Carter of the Vikings. It's the fact that Carter was more limited going one-on-one with corners. 

Using championships for an argument is not stupid. It's a factor period. It's not the most important factor. Way down on the list but winning does matter especially if you are a star player or part of a core of star players on a particular team. People that say that are usually the people that didn't win ****. Put Cris Carter on the Cowboys and that offense isn't the same. Irvin was a down the field threat also and blocked very well for a WR. Carter may not fit that criteria in that offense. The silly argument is when someone goes 'put this player on this team and they would be just the same'. I mean hell Carter played with freaking Randy Moss and Jake Reed at certain points in his career. Irvin never had anyone close to that opposite him.

You have to be a certain fit especially in the NFL. The way Carter played may not mesh well with the type of offense. Irvin was very vocal, Carter not as much. You maybe could say it would work but me personally I can't see it. And furthermore as I said before the hypothetical argument is equally bad. I can't go by if's. I can only go by what actually happened.

[NFLExpert49]

On 9/4/2018 at 6:57 PM, bootsy said:

Using championships for an argument is not stupid. It's a factor period. It's not the most important factor. Way down on the list but winning does matter especially if you are a star player or part of a core of star players on a particular team. People that say that are usually the people that didn't win ****. Put Cris Carter on the Cowboys and that offense isn't the same. Irvin was a down the field threat also and blocked very well for a WR. Carter may not fit that criteria in that offense. The silly argument is when someone goes 'put this player on this team and they would be just the same'. I mean hell Carter played with freaking Randy Moss and Jake Reed at certain points in his career. Irvin never had anyone close to that opposite him.

You have to be a certain fit especially in the NFL. The way Carter played may not mesh well with the type of offense. Irvin was very vocal, Carter not as much. You maybe could say it would work but me personally I can't see it. And furthermore as I said before the hypothetical argument is equally bad. I can't go by if's. I can only go by what actually happened.

Yeah, it isn't the same because Carter wasn't as good a wide receiver. Championships have nothing to do with it.

Put Calvin Johnson there and they're still pulling in 3 rings, despite the fact that Johnson was part of an 0-16 Lions team. Put Irvin on the 2008 Lions and they're still 0-16.

Yeah, Carter played with better complimentary receivers. That's not nearly as important as playing with a better QB, RB, line, and way better defense.