Better Panthers receiver: Smitty or Moose?

[Mr. Scot]

Would Smith have become the receiver he was without Moose?

Flipside Question: Would Moose have had as much production if not for the attention teams had to pay to Smith?

If you figure in the "fear factor" (i.e. who scared opposing DCs more) you'd have to give Smith a big advantage.

Overall though, this is kind of a "chicken and the egg" question.

[Fiz]

Flipside Question: Would Moose have had as much production if not for the attention teams had to pay to Smith?

he had his best season without smith

[Swarly]

I really hope Gettis/LaFell can become as good as Smitty/Moose

[KillerKat]

Flipside Question: Would Moose have had as much production if not for the attention teams had to pay to Smith?

If you figure in the "fear factor" (i.e. who scared opposing DCs more) you'd have to give Smith a big advantage.

Overall though, this is kind of a "chicken and the egg" question.

He did in 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2004 without Smith. When Smith became the receiver he was at the same time Moose was here, it was only for 3 years (2002, 2003, and 2008).

[YourMomsLover]

Steve Smith and IDGAF about his troubles. The fire he has captured my vote.

[Mr. Scot]

Both 1999 and 2000 were WCO years. I always think you have to adjust those stats down a little.

Valid point on 2004, but I'm never sure just how seriously to take that season statwise.

Take it at face value and you could argue that Delhomme was better without Smith and Nick Goings was a viable workhorse runningback. I don't think either of those things is objectively true.

When I think of that year, I think of a half-season long run of "pissed off" and facing some fairly crappy teams. Taking nothing away from what they accomplished mind you, but I think that year was something of an anomaly.

[panthers55]

Both 1999 and 2000 were WCO years. I always think you have to adjust those stats down a little.

Valid point on 2004, but I'm never sure just how seriously to take that season statwise.

Take it at face value and you could argue that Delhomme was better without Smith and Nick Goings was a viable workhorse runningback. I don't think either of those things is objectively true.

When I think of that year, I think of a half-season long run of "pissed off" and facing some fairly crappy teams. Taking nothing away from what they accomplished mind you, but I think that year was something of an anomaly.

Actually if you look at Moose in 2004 and then Smitty in 2005 you would decide that Delhomme made them both good and that Henning's feed the stud mentality helped put up big numbers.

2004 to me was taking backups and largely unproven guys and gelling them into a team that other teams were glad we didn't make the playoffs. After going 1-7 in the first half, going 6-2 without 13 starters was a terrific feat no matter the level of competition. That year was Fox's best coaching job and Jake's emergence as more than a 1 year wonder.

[Mr. Scot]

I honestly think the 2005 team was better than the 2003 team, but didn't get the breaks (especially in the injury department).

[Dpantherman]

Judging by the poll results, this is going to be a close race

[panthersphan]

"WHICH" is the best?

I think they are people...WHO?

And is this seriously even a question???

#89 in a landslide..

[Mr. Scot]

I'd probably agree that it's Smith, but I don't know that I'd say "landslide".

Moose is no scrub.

[TheWiz]

cmon.... i mean... we all love moose... but seriously??

89 son!

[SirPanther]

Smitty is the best player to we've ever had.

How is this even a question?

[DC Amp]

Steve Smith, YAC was looking for a touchdown every time he had the ball.