All-Time Wide Receivers Discussion

[Doctor MJ]

I'm feeling like people are stuggling a bit here with what to do so I'm going to share some more of my thoughts. Not trying to impose my opinion here, but I figure it will get the ball rolling. So here's a top 15 list with some quick analysis for the moment, and sound off on what you like and what you dislike:

1. Jerry Rice - Can't imagine him lower than #2.

2. Don Hutson - You know how dominant he was but you're probably wondering what that even means compared to modern players. Well, one raw number: Reports of his running the 100 yard dash range from 9.5 to 9.8 seconds. Extrapolate that to 100 meters, and that puts him in a 10.4 to 10.7 range. For perspective, one of the faster guys in the history of football was cornerback Darrell Green, and he ran the 100 meter in 10.57 with modern equipment. I'm not going to assert Hutson was faster than Green, but I think it's pretty clear that speed would not be an issue for him.

3. Lance Alworth - By my estimation, Alworth had 5 years in the AFL where he was probably a top 2 receiver in the game. Short of the previous two guys, there's possibly no one in history with so dominant of a prime.

4. Marvin Harrison - Here's one where I think everyone will have an opinion. It's just that guys with Harrison's kind of consistent excellence are so rare in this position.

5. Steve Largent - Virtually always called the best receiver of his generation.

6. Paul Warfield - The NFL counterpart to Alworth, generally not given quite as much praise.

7. James Lofton - Though elected to the Hall, seems largely unnoticed. Had a more decorated career than Largent.

8. Pete Pihos - Was *the* dominant receiver in the last 40s early 50s, 6 straight all-pros. Left out of Top 100, which has to be due to thoughts about the levels of different eras, but I'm not skeptical enough to not put him in here.

9. Raymond Berry - Rated extremely high by many, but didn't have the longest career.

10. Michael Irvin - Few receivers have ever meant so much to such a good team.

11. Cris Carter - Outshone by a rookie Randy Moss, but with longevity, attitude, and a still quite elite peak, Carter surpasses him easily.

12. Charley Taylor - Not all that dominant compared to some contemporaries, but quite consistent.

13. Art Monk - The great debate: Only a Pro Bowler 3 times, but incredibly consistent and a dream teammate.

14. Tim Brown - Another extremely consistent guy entering the league in the mid to late 80s. What does it mean?

15. Sterling Sharpe - Injuries disrupted his career, but when he was in the league it wasn't "Rice and everyone else", it was "Rice, Sharpe, and everyone else."

[tkb]

If you're refering to statistics, then the closest thing to basketball in the '60s in the NFL is right now.

As far as an influx of talent in the 60s, I don't think it's a coincidence that the AFL came that decade and the 60s are well represented here. Particularly because the AFL was more known for passing (and therefore receiving) than the NFL.

I do think also though, that the '60s were the formitive decade for the baby boomers, and so basically even more than other eras in the past, the '60s tend to get blown up into epic proportions.

Thanks for the response. I think i misformulated my question a little. What i was wondering was if there is an era in football that gets labeled a golden era like the 1980s of basketball, and how you guys would rate the decades against eachother in football. Lots of people rate the 80s first, 60s second etc in basketball for instance (i don't, but a lot of people do). How would you guys rate the football eras?

[bigboy1234]

Doc, not trying to go after you, it's actually nice you posted a list, so others could kind of go off of it.

But I'm just curious how you could put Sharpe ahead of Moss? Also I'm not sure were sure were suppose to factor this at all, im not, but Moss is still just turned 30.

Also, just think about this:
Torry Holt: 6 years of at least 1300 receiving yards, 2 seasons with 1600 receiving yards.
Irvin: 4 seasons over 1300 yards, 1 over 1600
Carter: only 1 season over 1300 yards, 0 over 1600
Brown: 4 seasons over 1300 yards, 0 over 1600
Harrison: 5 seasons over 1300 yards, 2 over 1600

Holt will only turn 31 in a couple of months. I don't see how the likes of Irvin, Carter, and Brown are ranked ahead of him. Holt has the better peak and will eventually without a doubt have more overall receiving yards than all 3. As of now I still have Harrison better than Holt, but it wouldn't suprise me at all if Holt catches him.

One last thought, if Chris Carter makes the list at #11, I don't see how Henry Ellard doesn't make it at, at least #12. I guess maybe Ellard is just overlooked because he doesn't have the TD receptions. Ellard also averaged 4.3 more yards per catch than Carter throughout his career.

[Basketball Jesus]

Another Rice discussion, another instance of Harry conveniently

[Doctor MJ]

-= original quote snipped =-



Thanks for the response. I think i misformulated my question a little. What i was wondering was if there is an era in football that gets labeled a golden era like the 1980s of basketball, and how you guys would rate the decades against eachother in football. Lots of people rate the 80s first, 60s second etc in basketball for instance (i don't, but a lot of people do). How would you guys rate the football eras?

I'm curious to see others thoughts on this. I would say that no, there isn't really golden eras in football. There are some trends here and there that are similar. For example, while the Pittsburgh dynasty of the 70s is very well represented, I think the 60s tends to get more glorified. This is interesting because unlike in basketball where the unappreciated 70s was the inflation era, in football the 60s was.

Now with that said, there are still laments about the modern game. First one that comes to mind is that free agency has severely damaged teamwork. This is particularly critical in positions like the offensive and defensive lines where not knowing the guys next to you really limits both strategy and ability to improvise effectively.

But yeah, I'd say that while I'll sports have some nostalgia for old time, the only sport I can think of that can think of that competes with basketball in terms of the extreme "ain't like it used to be" mantra, is boxing.

[Doctor MJ]

Doc, not trying to go after you, it's actually nice you posted a list, so others could kind of go off of it.

But I'm just curious how you could put Sharpe ahead of Moss? Also I'm not sure were sure were suppose to factor this at all, im not, but Moss is still just turned 30.

Also, just think about this:
Torry Holt: 6 years of at least 1300 receiving yards, 2 seasons with 1600 receiving yards.
Irvin: 4 seasons over 1300 yards, 1 over 1600
Carter: only 1 season over 1300 yards, 0 over 1600
Brown: 4 seasons over 1300 yards, 0 over 1600
Harrison: 5 seasons over 1300 yards, 2 over 1600

Holt will only turn 31 in a couple of months. I don't see how the likes of Irvin, Carter, and Brown are ranked ahead of him. Holt has the better peak and will eventually without a doubt have more overall receiving yards than all 3. As of now I still have Harrison better than Holt, but it wouldn't suprise me at all if Holt catches him.

One last thought, if Chris Carter makes the list at #11, I don't see how Henry Ellard doesn't make it at, at least #12. I guess maybe Ellard is just overlooked because he doesn't have the TD receptions. Ellard also averaged 4.3 more yards per catch than Carter throughout his career.

bigboy, thanks for understanding my purpose here. I'll actually be very disappointed if the vote comes back and it completely agrees with this list. I want people to have differing opinions and to show me how I'm wrong. Respectfully of course.

How is Sharpe ahead of Moss, or Owens for that matter? I knock a guy for hurting his team. I don't think it's unreasonable for people to vote for those guys, but to me given their current level of accomplishment, when you factor in the lockerroom cancer, they haven't been *that* great.

Regarding receving yards, you'll notice I've stayed away from making any arguments based on them. One of the big things for everyone to decide is how to count them given their change in prevalence between eras. I will say though, Holt on this list wouldn't seem unreasonable to me.

Re: Ellard. He simply never got the accolade love guys like Carter or Brown did. It's up to you to decide if you think that was a mistake, and to make a case for it to convince others once you decide that.

[NO-KG-AI]

So, are we actually voting on who is the "greatest", or who is actually a better player??

I would say Moss is at least 2-3 for how good of a player he is, but Greatness is another matter.

So which is it?

[Doctor MJ]

So, are we actually voting on who is the "greatest", or who is actually a better player??

I would say Moss is at least 2-3 for how good of a player he is, but Greatness is another matter.

So which is it?

Well, it is technically a "Best" list, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's only about a player's peak. I certainly don't simply go by that metric. Yes, by pure peak, Moss has an argument for greatest ever, but he's got an incomplete career, partly because he's still in it, but partly because of his spotty effort and team hurting attitude.

[NO-KG-AI]

-= original quote snipped =-



Well, it is technically a "Best" list, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's only about a player's peak. I certainly don't simply go by that metric. Yes, by pure peak, Moss has an argument for greatest ever, but he's got an incomplete career, partly because he's still in it, but partly because of his spotty effort and team hurting attitude.

is their a date for when the votes are due??

I need some time to think it over....

I might have missed it, but is it a top 10, top15??

Edit: NM I see it's 15

[Doctor MJ]

-= original quote snipped =-



is their a date for when the votes are due??

I need some time to think it over....

I might have missed it, but is it a top 10, top15??

Edit: NM I see it's 15

Tentatively, 11:59 PM Sunday the 15th.

[FreeRon]

I don't think you can put Moss in the top 2-3 WR even if we're just basing it on ability as a WR. Yes, he was great when he was in Minnesota, but now with Oakland he's nothing. It's a classic case of a great player looking like an elite player because of the system, sort of like how the Broncos have a great running back every year and the Colts always seem to have a receiver step up. If he proves he can be great in Oakland than MAYBE I'd put him top-15, but there's too many guys better than him to think of putting him in the top 5.

[Doctor MJ]

I don't think you can put Moss in the top 2-3 WR even if we're just basing it on ability as a WR. Yes, he was great when he was in Minnesota, but now with Oakland he's nothing. It's a classic case of a great player looking like an elite player because of the system, sort of like how the Broncos have a great running back every year and the Colts always seem to have a receiver step up. If he proves he can be great in Oakland than MAYBE I'd put him top-15, but there's too many guys better than him to think of putting him in the top 5.

Well yes and no. I agree with your conclusion. However, the fact is that as a wide receiver you're inherently dependent on the rest of the team 20 yards up field to get you the ball before you can do your thing.

[NO-KG-AI]

I disagree, if we are going on who is better at their peak, you are hard pressed to find better receivers than Moss, few share his physical talents, and even fewer are able to put it all together like he did early on.

I don't think we can fault him for Oakland's woeful offense.

BTW since when does the Viking's "system" make recievers look great?? Cris Carter a product of the system?

[NDaATL]

Andre Reed needs some love.

You gonna give it to him?

[UKF]

It makes me sad to see Moss and T.O and that list.

Jerry Rice is definitly the best on that list! Rice was the most talented and had class something that you dont see a lot today!

[Doctor MJ]

Questions to ask yourself and to answer for the group:

How the maturation of the game affected this position?

Could players from year X play today?

How do you compare players from different eras given the increasing reliance on passing which gives modern players hugh statistics?

Since everyone else is fighting over it: How do you rate someone like Art Monk?

Since conversation appears to have died down here, I've humbly quoted myself with question I really think everyone has an opinion about.

I'll give my take on the questions:

I do think that receiver is, or at least was early on, one of the positions more affected by an increased talent pool of athletes. At the same time, all the reports I hear about the original big time end, Hutson, say that he was an absolutely world class athlete. From these facts, and the fact that Hutson was just ridiculously dominant back then, I tend to conclude that 1) Hutson could be great today, but he he wouldn't blow the field away, 2) Other early receivers probably don't warrant much consideration.

Moving on to 60s era receivers, which tend to come up in decent numbers, I don't think any of them were as talented physically as someone like TO, but neither are Rice or Harrison, so I'm not sure how much that matters. When comparing these eras, my basis is simply how successful they were with room for tweaks for close calls.

I don't put much stock in comparing receiving stats across eras. The game is just two different. I put much more stock in relative domination of one's era.

I used to be in what'd be called I suppose the anti-Art Monk group because of his lack of true statistical domination. I've always maintained that looking at career numbers to evaluate which player was better is terribly flawed since the reality is that if that player couldn't play, it's not like his numbers would just disappear. Rather, he gets replaced. So if an average player were to some how play for 30 years, he'd break all the career records, but statistically, he'd have added nothing. What's changed my mind about Monk is the fact that a guy who was statistically near Pro Bowl level for many years, and his intangibles were through the rough. Given that, he still doesn't match up with someone with decent longevity and a truly dominant peak, but it is enough to lift him passed some other players with some chinks in their armor.

[Basketball Jesus]

My main complaint with using just statistics to make an argument against Monk is that it

[J.Kim]

Sort of off on a tangent here but, I think what will make the rankings somewhat easier for everyone is if we give some type of threshold for statistics, in which a player can be regarded as an All-Pro, and as an HOF area, from each era.

So for like the 60s Deadball era, have two sets, one for what a player would have needed to get to the All-Star game or make the All-Pro list, and one cumulative one for what a player would have needed to enter the HOF.

Then we can compare, at least somewhat more easily, over the eras, and not only that, check how one era stacked up to another statistically.

[Doctor MJ]

J. Kim: Your idea is an excellent one, unfortunately I don't have time to do it right now. Any one who can do is welcome to, and the work will be appreciated.

To the group: You can now send in your votes.

[Icness]

My thoughts:
1. Jerry Rice, and it's not close
2. Don Huston, can't argue with his numbers when compared to his contemporaries
3. Torry Holt, I don't think people appreciate how fantastic he truly is, his YPC and his picture-perfect routes outshine anyone else playing now
4. Paul Warfield, if you ever talk with older Browns fans you always hear how he was the best player they had in the 60s, and they had some great ones back then
5. Steve Largent, he was uncoverable and almost never dropped a pass
6. James Lofton, basically Largent with downfield ability, though he had the rep of taking plays off
7. Raymond Berry, great numbers before my time
8. Lance Alworth, numbers inflated by his system but still quite impressive
9. Marvin Harrison
10. Charlie Joiner
11. Andre Reed
12. Lynn Swann, forget the low catch totals; in all pro sports there might not be 5 better big-game players all-time
13. Fred Biletnikoff, the prototype for physical guys with speed
14. Cris Carter, but not one person on this list had better hands
15. Charley Taylor

One of the things I'm trying to do with WRs I've seen play (roughly late 70s-now) is strip away their QBs and their offensive systems and try to guesstimate how they would have fared in different situations. It's blatantly subjective and hard to quantify, but in my mind's eye it really helped Lofton, Reed, and Swann and hurt guys like Rod Smith (the greatest undrafted player ever), Irvin, Monk, Moss to some extent. I have a lasting fondness for Henry Ellard, who should be a no-brainer HOFer ahead of Irvin, but I can't rightfully knock any of the older guys out without having seen them play other than a few grainy films.