Just Me wrote:You're right, Jim. It did irritate me
OK - So the fact he is a possession receiver counts for nothing then? How about comparing the number of 3rd down receptions for a 1st down each made? On one hand he talks about wanting to compare the receivers to "their era" and then turns around and artificially (IMHO) creates a criteria which favors the receivers running the deep routes. TDs count for nothing then?
I warned you!
At least he acknowledged that CC was perhaps the greatest boundary receiver ever. However, he followed that with:
I get that stats/numbers count for something (and as you correctly point out, CC's TD numbers should count in a big way) but these players didn't play in an era that lacks recorded documentation or in a period most of these HOF voters never saw. They should be able to remember the performances, not just rely on the stats, and they should also have access to sufficient film to watch these players and refresh their memories of just how the players performed and what they meant to their teams. If they don't have access to film, that needs to be corrected. I saw plenty of Brown, Reed and Carter when they played and while I think all 3 have a legitimate case as a HOF candidates, I recall that even at the time, Carter was seen by many as the second best WR in the league behind Rice.Perhaps we can better understand where these players belong by taking into account each of their careers in their entirety, and comparing Carter, Brown and Reed with other hall of fame receivers with numbers that transcend eras.
Dan Pompei is a Chicago-based writer and I'm almost certain he was here, covering the Bears, during most of CC's career with the Vikings so he should definitely have a good idea of just what CC brought to the game beyond what the stats say.
