[butta55]

Those were different days. None of them were in the light as much as a current player was. Alot of Irvin's problems came to light after his career. Chad has been in the public eye for a long time. Granted it is all his doing, still people are gonna remember what they saw the most. Irvin you mostly saw his play, Chad you mostly seen his name change and gold teeth. Its gonna make a difference.

[Zack_of_Steel]

butta55, on 15 August 2012 - 07:33 PM, said:

Those were different days. None of them were in the light as much as a current player was. Alot of Irvin's problems came to light after his career. Chad has been in the public eye for a long time. Granted it is all his doing, still people are gonna remember what they saw the most. Irvin you mostly saw his play, Chad you mostly seen his name change and gold teeth. Its gonna make a difference.

Does the time of release really matter? I don't think so. Cocaine is much worse than being a "character" that was once accused of domestic violence. Chad's been a clown for most of his career, but he's also notorious for reaching out to fans, inviting them to games and whatnot on his dime.

Furthermore, I don't really think that off-field shit should be held against someone when talking about the Hall of Fame. Ray Lewis was accused of murder and many still believe that he got off by rolling over on his friends. You think that's going to keep Ray out of the Hall?

[dutchff7]

Zack_of_Steel, on 15 August 2012 - 07:10 PM, said:

Razor already outlined why everyone is simply laughing at you, yet you ignored it and argued a straw man. Kudos to you on providing "healthy debate," lmao.

Otto Graham had comparable/worse statistics compared to, say, Trent Green. Does Green deserve to be in the Hall? How about Joe Flacco? His stats destroy players like Unitas, Graham, Staubach, Bradshaw, et cetera. Should he be in the hall if he keeps playing at this mediocre level?

Otto Graham:
55.8% CMP, 23,584 Yards, 174 TDs, 135 INTs

Trent Green:
60.6% CMP, 28,475 Yards, 162 TDs, 114 INTs




Irvin and most of the 90's Cowboys were cocaine fiends and they're in the Hall. Image doesn't really matter in most cases.

Hmm. One thing you left out about Otto Graham is that he led the Browns to 10 straight division crowns and won 3 title games. 10 straight years of dominating the league. He dominated the league back in that era. Really no one was playing at his level back in that day. So yeah, next time you compare ppl, especially qbs, check the resumes a lil better.

Now as far as the massive inflation in passing yards, in Michael Irvins best year which was in 1995, the league accounted for FOUR 4,000 yard passers and TWELVE 3,000 yard passers. In 2004, the league accounted for FIVE 4,000 yard passers and ELEVEN 3,000 yard passers. The total passing yardage around that time was in the mid 90,000s. Now, in 2009, the passing yardage spiked having TEN 4,000 yard passers and NINE 3,000 yard passers. The total passing yardage went over 100,000 total. You really haven't heard about this evolution of the passing game until a few years ago. The discrepancy between Irvins day and Chads day isn't all that great.

For the record, I really don't care about who's laughing at me. It's a forum. It aint that serious brah.

[Zack_of_Steel]

dutchff7, on 15 August 2012 - 07:47 PM, said:

Hmm. One thing you left out about Otto Graham is that he led the Browns to 10 straight division crowns and won 3 title games. 10 straight years of dominating the league. He dominated the league back in that era. Really no one was playing at his level back in that day. So yeah, next time you compare ppl, especially qbs, check the resumes a lil better.

Now as far as the massive inflation in passing yards, in Michael Irvins best year which was in 1995, the league accounted for FOUR 4,000 yard passers and TWELVE 3,000 yard passers. In 2004, the league accounted for FIVE 4,000 yard passers and ELEVEN 3,000 yard passers. The total passing yardage around that time was in the mid 90,000s. Now, in 2009, the passing yardage spiked having TEN 4,000 yard passers and NINE 3,000 yard passers. The total passing yardage went over 100,000 total. You really haven't heard about this evolution of the passing game until a few years ago. The discrepancy between Irvins day and Chads day isn't all that great.

For the record, I really don't care about who's laughing at me. It's a forum. It aint that serious brah.

Lmao. You are the one that has been arguing pure stats. You were the one that threw wins out the window to begin. Now you want to backpedal and talk about wins? Make up your mind, Sally.


Furthermore, you are shortsighted as all hell. Razor outlined EXACTLY how the eras are different, yet you come in and talk about yards as if this was never pointed out on page one:

RazorStar, on 14 August 2012 - 11:26 PM, said:

To further state the difference, before proration for games missed, the offenses Chad played for threw 54 more times per season on average, which is about 11% more throws than the Dallas offenses from 1988 to 1999.(Chad's offense threw about 552 times a season, while Irvin's threw about 498 times a season) When you factor in games missed, the discrepancy becomes a bit wider. Irvin faced about 411 throws a season, while Chad faced 520. In short, Irvin was a lot more impressive than just the volume stats, and they don't really tell the whole story about receivers in the hall of fame, especially now when the numbers are so inflated.

[dutchff7]

Zack_of_Steel, on 15 August 2012 - 07:55 PM, said:

Lmao. You are the one that has been arguing pure stats. You were the one that threw wins out the window to begin. Now you want to backpedal and talk about wins? Make up your mind, Sally.


Furthermore, you are shortsighted as all hell. Razor outlined EXACTLY how the eras are different, yet you come in and talk about yards as if this was never pointed out on page one:

At the end of the day, QBS are judged by their wins regardless what everyone says. QB and WR are two different positions entirely when you rate success. When teams lose the game, QBs are the 1st under the microscope.

Even with the two offenses being different, Dallas passing 498 times and Cincy passing 552 times, the only stat that would matter in that instance (as far as taking advantage of opportunities given is) is the amount of times each WR was targeted. Just like with RBs it would be attempts etc.

This post has been edited by dutchff7: 18 August 2012 - 07:38 AM

[blotsfan]

Obviously wrs are not as important to succes as qbs but that doesn't mean contributions towards championships should be disregarded. Would you rather have a receiver with 1000 yards and 7 tds in the regular season, but who averages 100 yards a game in the playoffs, or one with 1300 yards and 13 tds in the regular season but averages 30 yards a game in the playoffs? If the goal is to build a super bowl champion, the first player has to be more valuable to your team even though he definitely has worse regular season stats.