PDA

View Full Version : 2nd Best WR in NFL History


TACKLE
08-06-2008, 09:34 PM
Obviously Jerry Rice is the unanimous #1 WR of all-time. But after him, there is no clear cut 2nd best Reciever. In your opinion, who is the 2nd best WR in NFL history?

Discuss.

619
08-06-2008, 09:36 PM
Oh, I thought it was already known to be Moss.

locseti
08-06-2008, 09:38 PM
easily Moss.

neko4
08-06-2008, 09:41 PM
DON HUTSON!!!!!!!

He dominated his era as well if not better than Jerry Rice.


As of the end of the 2007 NFL season, Hutson still holds the following records: Most seasons leading league in pass receptions (, Most seasons leading league in pass receiving yards gained (7), Most seasons leading league in pass receiving touchdowns (9), Most seasons leading league in scoring (5),

Hutson played in an era where the run dominated the game, the pass interference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pass_interference) rule favored defenses, and players played both offense and defense. However, Hutson rarely saw the double and triple team coverages that Rice did

Matthew Jones
08-06-2008, 09:44 PM
DON HUTSON!!!!!!!

He dominated his era as well if not better than Jerry Rice.

Hutson is #1 of all time. Rice is #2. Hutson had statistics three times better than anyone else in his generation. The guy caught 74 passes when the second guy in the league caught 28 or so in 1942. He had 17 touchdowns, the runner up had something like four. Besides, he had added value as a cornerback (and a very good one, too.) Rice played in a time when receivers got tons of opportunities to run their routes - Hutson didn't have the wimpy rules the NFL has in place now. Besides, Rice also played in a fairly gimmicky offense with two Hall of Fame quarterbacks (three if you count Rich Gannon, who might get in.)

Brent
08-06-2008, 09:47 PM
I'll throw one out there: Lance Alworth.

Receptions - 542
Receiving Yards - 10,266
Touchdowns - 85

that is 18.94 yards per reception.

neko4
08-06-2008, 09:48 PM
Hutson is #1 of all time. Rice is #2. Hutson had statistics three times better than anyone else in his generation. The guy caught 74 passes when the second guy in the league caught 28 or so in 1942. He had 17 touchdowns, the runner up had something like four. Besides, he had added value as a cornerback (and a very good one, too.) Rice played in a time when receivers got tons of opportunities to run their routes - Hutson didn't have the wimpy rules the NFL has in place now. Besides, Rice also played in a fairly gimmicky offense with two Hall of Fame quarterbacks (three if you count Rich Gannon, who might get in.)

I agree completly.

Very good article comparing the two:

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/11_402_You_take_Rice,_we'll_take_Hutson.html

(Also I doubt Gannon gets in, but had he played longer then maybe)

neko4
08-06-2008, 09:49 PM
I'll throw one out there: Lance Alworth.

Receptions - 542
Receiving Yards - 10,266
Touchdowns - 85

that is 18.94 yards per reception.

He was definitly one of the best big play threats. But was his offense gimmicky?

bored of education
08-06-2008, 09:51 PM
Dwayne Bowe

yo123
08-06-2008, 09:52 PM
It's Moss. He made Daunte Culpepper look like a hall of fame QB. Now he's making Tom Brady look like the best QB of all time.

Xonraider
08-06-2008, 10:00 PM
Tim Brown..

BlindSite
08-06-2008, 10:01 PM
A receiver who played in the 40s despite his numbers is not as good as Jerry Rice or Moss.

Best player from their era, probably from all time, not a chance.

diabsoule
08-06-2008, 10:02 PM
Don Hutson
Chris Carter
Tim Brown
Marvin Harrison

Go_Eagles77
08-06-2008, 10:09 PM
Randy Moss may be the most physically gifted receiver to ever play the game.

neko4
08-06-2008, 10:10 PM
A receiver who played in the 40s despite his numbers is not as good as Jerry Rice or Moss.

Best player from their era, probably from all time, not a chance.

How so? Rules were tougher on WR's back then and on top of that he totally revolutionized the passing game and his numbers were WAY better than anyone in his time.

Staubach12
08-06-2008, 11:05 PM
It's Moss. He made Daunte Culpepper look like a hall of fame QB. Now he's making Tom Brady look like the best QB of all time.

This is a big misconception.

Culpepper's best year as a Viking (2004: 4717 Yds, 39 TDs, nearly 70% comp) was Moss' worst as a Viking (49 Rec, 767 yds).

Anyway, yes, Moss has been fantastic lately, but he's got to last a lot longer in my eyes to be considered the 2nd best ever. He's 20th in career reception behind Holt (who is SO OVERRATED!!!11!1!one). My pick is Chris Carter.

doingthisinsteadofwork
08-06-2008, 11:07 PM
Tim Brown for me.

yo123
08-06-2008, 11:11 PM
This is a big misconception.

Culpepper's best year as a Viking (2004: 4717 Yds, 39 TDs, nearly 70% comp) was Moss' worst as a Viking (49 Rec, 767 yds).

Anyway, yes, Moss has been fantastic lately, but he's got to last a lot longer in my eyes to be considered the 2nd best ever. He's 20th in career reception behind Holt (who is SO OVERRATED!!!11!1!one). My pick is Chris Carter.



Well Moss was hobbled by injuries that year. But still, without Moss Culpepper doesn't put up close to the numbers that he did. His presence alone made Culpepper the QB that he was.

CC.SD
08-06-2008, 11:21 PM
I'll throw one out there: Lance Alworth.

Receptions - 542
Receiving Yards - 10,266
Touchdowns - 85

that is 18.94 yards per reception.

And well deserved. Lance himself has said that if he got to play with rules like today, he'd catch 150 balls minimum every year. Physical, exceptional speed, and the greatest leaping ability and hands of his time. Lance gave instant credibility to a football franchise in San Diego during an era where the rest of the NFL wouldn't have minded snuffing that light out. Great pick.


His offense was NOT gimmicky, either.

Staubach12
08-06-2008, 11:22 PM
Well Moss was hobbled by injuries that year. But still, without Moss Culpepper doesn't put up close to the numbers that he did. His presence alone made Culpepper the QB that he was.

You totally danced around my point. I don't care why Moss was not effective, my entire point is that he was not effective, but Culpepper was extremely effective. For example, Culpepper threw for 363 yards and 4 TDs in week 10 of 2004. Moss didn't play a single snap. That's just one of many great performances Culpepper put up in '04 with little to no impact from Randy Moss.

Crickett
08-06-2008, 11:22 PM
I'm going to go with Chris Carter as my #2 WR of all time.

yourfavestoner
08-06-2008, 11:24 PM
don hutson. the zone defense had to be invented just to cover him. unfortunately, people on this board don't have any understanding or respect for players thay played before 1999. even worse might be the people who don't think that johnny unitas is the best (and no worse than the second best) qb of all time. or those who really think that any runningback is better than jim brown was. or that derrick brooks is the first great cover two olb (jack ham anybody?) I could go on and on but ill stop there.

Brodeur
08-06-2008, 11:35 PM
Don Hutson is a good pick but I'll go with Rashaun Woods.

BlindSite
08-06-2008, 11:39 PM
don hutson. the zone defense had to be invented just to cover him. unfortunately, people on this board don't have any understanding or respect for players thay played before 1999. even worse might be the people who don't think that johnny unitas is the best (and no worse than the second best) qb of all time. or those who really think that any runningback is better than jim brown was. or that derrick brooks is the first great cover two olb (jack ham anybody?) I could go on and on but ill stop there.

Its kind of impossible to quantify especially when you realise that i the 1940s the game was completley different and not just rules and offensive packages, but fitness levels, conferences, weather and venues the games were played in, quality of cornerbacks and safeties, pass rushes, quarterbacks, everything else, there's a thousand different variables.

Fine the guy might be a HOFer, but you need to stick to eras if you're going to compare players and their abilities.

It was a completely different age and a completley different game.

princefielder28
08-06-2008, 11:40 PM
Cris Carter

Bengalsrocket
08-07-2008, 03:44 AM
Did I just miss or it has there been zero Jordy Nelson jokes in this thread?

eaglesfan_45
08-07-2008, 03:53 AM
Did I just miss or it has there been zero Jordy Nelson jokes in this thread?

Well, it is because the debate is for the #2 WR of all-time...

Bengalsrocket
08-07-2008, 03:55 AM
Well, it is because the debate is for the #2 WR of all-time...

haha touche' salesman!

A Perfect Score
08-07-2008, 04:46 AM
For me, the obvious people that spring to mind are Cris Carter and Randy Moss. As has been said, Moss may be the most physically gifted reciever ever to play the game. Carter was incredible as well, especially during his prime. But guys like Marvin Harrison has offered bounds of consistency over the past decade. Isaac Bruce certainly isnt the #2 reciever of all time, but so far as I know, his numbers speak for themselves and he is getting up there in most major categories. What about Irvin? he was great during his prime as well.

I think it depends on how you define best. Is the best reciever someone who breaks records or works his way into stats books? Or is the best reciever someone who knocks corners on their asses while blocking on a sweep? Or is he all of that rolled into one? its really difficult to come up with that label. That said, there really isnt a WR who changes a game like Moss. It isnt a coincidence that he is the link between the two most prolific offenses in history. If I had to rank them, it would go:

1. Rice
2. Moss
3. Carter

just my personal opinion as always

Merlin
08-07-2008, 05:42 AM
Is this a best stats thread, or best WR???

If it's the second, I'd go with Carter, Largent and Monk.

flave1969
08-07-2008, 08:02 AM
I would swear the NFL started in the year 2000 on these pages. I am a lifelong Art Monk fan but I know from his era there were two definately better one was Rice, the other was Steve Largent.

I put Largent right there with Hutson at #2 but give him the edge purely because he did not have all the physical tools but the best brain of any receiver I have ever seen, he could get open in a packed subway train. Hutson had the physical skills that set him apart somewhat from his contemporaries.

With all respect to Carter and Brown they benefitted from their era and have no problem them making the Top Ten.

Randy Moss will be right up there the day he retires.

Guys you have to realise the passing game was a lot different even in the early 90's. Everything has gone in the favour of the Offense from a rule change perspective since then.

Addict
08-07-2008, 08:05 AM
I would swear the NFL started in the year 2000 on these pages. I am a lifelong Art Monk fan but I know from his era there were two definately better one was Rice, the other was Steve Largent.

I put Largent right there with Hutson at #2 but give him the edge purely because he did not have all the physical tools but the best brain of any receiver I have ever seen, he could get open in a packed subway train. Hutson had the physical skills that set him apart somewhat from his contemporaries.

With all respect to Carter and Brown they benefitted from their era and have no problem them making the Top Ten.

Randy Moss will be right up there the day he retires.

Guys you have to realise the passing game was a lot different even in the early 90's. Everything has gone in the favour of the Offense from a rule change perspective since then.

not entirely true, they abolished the force out rule this offseason. Other than that, you're absolutely correct.

CJSchneider
08-07-2008, 09:08 AM
I was gonna go with Cris Carter. I guess you could argue against him in saying that he was fortunate to have most of the QB's he did in Minnesota.

TimD
08-07-2008, 09:27 AM
Don Maynard
http://www.conigliofamily.com/images/MaynardTitans.jpg
4 Pro Bowl Selection
5 All Pro Selection
AFL All Team
Receptions: 633
Yards: 11,834
Touchdowns: 88
Yards a Catch: 18.7 (highest for anyone with over 600 receptions)
Hall of Famer

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/PHOTOFILE/AADZ007~Don-Maynard-catching-Posters.jpg

(very homer pick i know. but whatever he was nasty)

Gay Ork Wang
08-07-2008, 09:33 AM
http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d8074cbf8

cdub11
08-07-2008, 09:50 AM
ill go with don hutson as #2 but it will be randy moss by the time he is done playing

bigbluedefense
08-07-2008, 10:26 AM
i have Don Huston as #3. Randy Moss is #2 for reasons ive stated many times before.

Huston did impact the game as much as Randy did, but he never got the coverages that Moss has gotten. Thats why i put Moss ahead of him.

leroyisgod
08-07-2008, 10:30 AM
Chris Carter easily!!!

Addict
08-07-2008, 10:41 AM
i have Don Huston as #3. Randy Moss is #2 for reasons ive stated many times before.

Huston did impact the game as much as Randy did, but he never got the coverages that Moss has gotten. Thats why i put Moss ahead of him.

it is true that Hutson was never schemed against.

bigbluedefense
08-07-2008, 10:46 AM
it is true that Hutson was never schemed against.

absolutely false. they created zone defenses in part because of Huston.

however, Huston just simply didn't see the coverages that Moss has seen. Thats the main difference. Its difficult comparing eras, its probably the hardest thing you can do in football, but I think Moss transcends eras with his play.

Randy Moss is simply the most explosive, impactful WR to ever play the game. No offensive player that i can ever recall (outside of qbs) has forced defenses to scheme against him the way Moss has. Not even Rice.

Don Vito
08-07-2008, 10:48 AM
Tim Brown for me.

I think Tim Brown is in the top 5, but I think Moss and Carter are a near toss up for #2. I'll take Carter as the #2 though, he was dominant for pretty much his entire career and didn't really fall of the face of the earth like Moss in Oakland.

Flo
08-07-2008, 10:49 AM
absolutely false. they created zone defenses in part because of Huston.

however, Huston just simply didn't see the coverages that Moss has seen. Thats the main difference. Its difficult comparing eras, its probably the hardest thing you can do in football, but I think Moss transcends eras with his play.

Randy Moss is simply the most explosive, impactful WR to ever play the game. No offensive player that i can ever recall (outside of qbs) has forced defenses to scheme against him the way Moss has. Not even Rice.

Agreed. By the time Moss hangs them up I would not be surprised if he were considered the greatest wideout to ever play the game.

Realistically, outside of Michael Vick, I don't know that there is a single player period who has forced teams to change their gameplan so much.

locseti
08-07-2008, 02:47 PM
Don Maynard
http://www.conigliofamily.com/images/MaynardTitans.jpg
4 Pro Bowl Selection
5 All Pro Selection
AFL All Team
Receptions: 633
Yards: 11,834
Touchdowns: 88
Yards a Catch: 18.7 (highest for anyone with over 600 receptions)
Hall of Famer

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/PHOTOFILE/AADZ007~Don-Maynard-catching-Posters.jpg

(very homer pick i know. but whatever he was nasty)

The player card says he is a halfback.

CC.SD
08-07-2008, 03:01 PM
The player card says he is a halfback.

He was Namath's go to guy.

drowe
08-07-2008, 03:26 PM
1-Jerry Rice-can't argue with the staggering things he was able to do. and i think both Joe Montana AND Steve Young have him to thank for their success
1b-Don Hutson-everything that has been said about him is absolutely true. he 'changed the game'

the rest

3-Steve Largent-did great things on a mediocre team. and highlights of this dude are fun to watch.
4-Randy Moss-but, only if he keeps doing what he's doing for a good few more years. ya just can't beat his size and speed and strength.
5-Marvin Harrison-ya really have to look at him. every time Peyton Manning throws a long TD, it seems Harrison is 5 steps past the defender. i don't know how he does it, but he always seems to get open. maybe it's just me.

-Chris Carter
-Lance Alworth
-Don Maynard
-Andre Reed
-James Lofton
-Art Monk

Cribbs>Hester
08-07-2008, 03:43 PM
Lance Alworth end of discussion and I'm not even going to bother arguing any further bc it is not worth my time or energy to argue with a bunch of kids who think their favorite player from this generation is the 2nd greatest.

Gay Ork Wang
08-07-2008, 03:46 PM
Lance Alworth end of discussion and I'm not even going to bother arguing any further bc it is not worth my time or energy to argue with a bunch of kids who think their favorite player from this generation is the 2nd greatest.
aka u cant argue?

A Perfect Score
08-07-2008, 03:48 PM
Lance Alworth end of discussion and I'm not even going to bother arguing any further bc it is not worth my time or energy to argue with a bunch of kids who think their favorite player from this generation is the 2nd greatest.

I dont know if I have ever seen so much ignorance and stupidity packed into one post...congratulations on once and for all proving that your opinion means absolutely nothing

yo123
08-07-2008, 03:56 PM
Lance Alworth end of discussion and I'm not even going to bother arguing any further bc it is not worth my time or energy to argue with a bunch of kids who think their favorite player from this generation is the 2nd greatest.



Yeah! Everybody from this generation suckz! I get that a lot of the time people forget about players that played a long time ago, but you can't just completely discount everyone from this generation. Thats just as bad.

Cribbs>Hester
08-07-2008, 04:34 PM
Yeah! Everybody from this generation suckz! I get that a lot of the time people forget about players that played a long time ago, but you can't just completely discount everyone from this generation. Thats just as bad.

No one said they suck, but they don't hold a candle to Lance Alworth. Randy Moss are you kidding me? I could only imagine what Alworth would have done to the record books if his team threw as many times as the teams do nowadays.

I'm not getting into bc Alworth deserves more than he gets drom modern day fans, and I don't want to hear anymore disrepsect toward one of the games greatest ever.

NY+Giants=NYG
08-07-2008, 04:38 PM
Depends if you're talking potential or stats wise. If it comes to physical skills and "most feared". Moss owns Rice. But if you're talking about stats and producing in a given system, like Rice did in the WCO, under Walsh, then Rice is the most productive WR ever. But his skill set is no where near Moss's, but Moss's production is no where near Rices. So it all depends, but I'd go Moss, even though other WRs may have better production.

yo123
08-07-2008, 04:42 PM
No one said they suck, but they don't hold a candle to Lance Alworth. Randy Moss are you kidding me? I could only imagine what Alworth would have done to the record books if his team threw as many times as the teams do nowadays.

I'm not getting into bc Alworth deserves more than he gets drom modern day fans, and I don't want to hear anymore disrepsect toward one of the games greatest ever.


It's no coincidence Randy Moss has been a part of the two best offenses in the history of the game. Before last year the Patriots had a very good offense. Enter Randy Moss. All of a sudden it's the best offense ever. Alworth is in the discussion. But don't act like no one else even deserves a mention, your whole attitude towards this thread has been very arrogant and really annoying.

yourfavestoner
08-07-2008, 05:49 PM
I would really like to see moss play in an era when the clothesline was a legal and often used tactic.

MetSox17
08-07-2008, 05:53 PM
I would really like to see moss play in an era when the clothesline was a legal and often used tactic.

Well that argument is a double-edged sword. Back in the era where clotheslining was accepted, was there guys 6'5 that could run 4.2's and jump 42 inches?

yo123
08-07-2008, 05:55 PM
I would really like to see moss play in an era when the clothesline was a legal and often used tactic.



But I would also like to see Don Hutson play in an era where there are DB's that run 4.3 40's with 40 inch verticals.

BlindSite
08-07-2008, 06:39 PM
Well that argument is a double-edged sword. Back in the era where clotheslining was accepted, was there guys 6'5 that could run 4.2's and jump 42 inches?

Yeah good luck clothes lining a guy who's 10 yards up field with the ball in his hand and disappearing into the distance.

Ness
08-07-2008, 09:44 PM
Rice also played in a fairly gimmicky offense with two Hall of Fame quarterbacks (three if you count Rich Gannon, who might get in.)

The west coast offense is not a "gimmicky" one.

neko4
08-07-2008, 10:00 PM
Should Hutson be knocked down a bit because he wasnt the athletic freak that Moss is. Hutson wasnt big for his time (maybe tall) but he was pretty fast for his time im sure.

And should he be knocked off for the athletic short comings of the players of his time?

MetSox17
08-07-2008, 10:03 PM
Should Hutson be knocked down a bit because he wasnt the athletic freak that Moss is. Hutson wasnt big for his time (maybe tall) but he was pretty fast for his time im sure.

And should he be knocked off for the athletic short comings of the players of his time?

Should Randy Moss be knocked for the rules that have adapted to the new style of play?

It's an endless circular argument to make when you compare players of two different eras.

neko4
08-07-2008, 10:11 PM
Should Randy Moss be knocked for the rules that have adapted to the new style of play?

It's an endless circular argument to make when you compare players of two different eras.


Well if you cant knock Moss for rule changes and playing in an era where passing is more common and you cant knock Hutson for athletic abilities/different types of coverages then who is better?

MetSox17
08-07-2008, 10:14 PM
Well if you cant knock Moss for rule changes and playing in an era where passing is more common and you cant knock Hutson for athletic abilities/different types of coverages then who is better?

Which is the exact reason why this argument is useless. It's not gonna get anywhere. There's always gonna be a difference of opinion, especially since there's absolutely no way possible to judge players from back then to players from now.

The only reason i brought up the lack of athleticism back then was because someone said that they would have loved to see Moss in the era where clotheslining was allowed.

Again, it's a two sided argument.

Ness
08-07-2008, 10:24 PM
Which is the exact reason why this argument is useless. It's not gonna get anywhere. There's always gonna be a difference of opinion, especially since there's absolutely no way possible to judge players from back then to players from now.

The only reason i brought up the lack of athleticism back then was because someone said that they would have loved to see Moss in the era where clotheslining was allowed.

Again, it's a two sided argument.

Exactly. It never works. Rankings like these I don't think even work out. The game relies on so many variables and is a teamwork type of effort.

Would Rice be considered the best of all time if he hadn't played on a team that was dominant for most of his career? Or rather, had two Hall of Fame quarterbacks passing to him for most of his career.

I don't know if Rice was the best ever. I don't care frankly. I do know that he played hard every game, was humble, and was one of the best that ever played the sport. I was glad he played for the 49ers for so many seasons. I usually leave it at that.

MetSox17
08-07-2008, 11:40 PM
i fail to see how a guy who all but quit on his team for three straight years is suddenly the second best wr of all time simply because he had a pretty good season. but hey, he's pretty fast. that's awesome.

i think if you asked this board, adrian peterson would be the 2nd-5th best running back of all time.

Who are the other guys being considered?

So are we judging based on character or talent/production? It's kinda hard to argue against Moss when looking at his stats, honestly.

MetSox17
08-07-2008, 11:48 PM
in terms of production, moss still loses right now.

#20 in receptions, #14 in yards, #4 in touchdowns.

if we're going to argue production, then anyone arguing against hutson is an idiot, as he was, comparatively, the most productive wr ever. if we're going to argue pure, final numbers, moss is, at best, 4th if the only number you consider is touchdowns.

if people want to argue that, by the end of his career he'll be the best/second best, fine, go for it. but to suggest he is RIGHT NOW suggests an EXTREMELY short memory and/or no historical perspective.

Okay, so i fail to see how you're making your argument. You're knocking Randy Moss cause he doesn't have his career numbers all that high yet, but Hutson is no where near Randy's numbers.

So again, what are we gonna use to compare the two?

mqtirishfan
08-08-2008, 01:14 AM
Did I just miss or it has there been zero Jordy Nelson jokes in this thread?

Jordy Nelson is the answer to the question. He's number one and number two.

Gay Ork Wang
08-08-2008, 02:03 AM
Okay, so i fail to see how you're making your argument. You're knocking Randy Moss cause he doesn't have his career numbers all that high yet, but Hutson is no where near Randy's numbers.

So again, what are we gonna use to compare the two?
He lead the league in TDs for 8 consecutive years...

A Perfect Score
08-08-2008, 04:22 AM
in terms of production, moss still loses right now.

#20 in receptions, #14 in yards, #4 in touchdowns.

if we're going to argue production, then anyone arguing against hutson is an idiot, as he was, comparatively, the most productive wr ever. if we're going to argue pure, final numbers, moss is, at best, 4th if the only number you consider is touchdowns.

if people want to argue that, by the end of his career he'll be the best/second best, fine, go for it. but to suggest he is RIGHT NOW suggests an EXTREMELY short memory and/or no historical perspective.

I think your right in the sense that no one can, at this point, make a logical argument for Moss as the #2 WR of all time based solely on his numbers. That said, there is ALOT more to judging a person's impact on a game. As has been said in here several times, there are very few players, as in, count em on one hand, who force opposing teams to change their gameplan in the same fashion that Moss does. In fact, when on the top of his game, which albeit, is only when his team is doing well and he has nothing to complain about, its very difficult to find someone else who is as completely dominant at their position as Moss is.

I dont think its appropriate to base this argument solely on numbers. Numbers are skewed, and are, in my opinion, a horrible way to rank/list players. For example, as I said before, Isaac Bruce is very high in the recieving books, but he benefitted from playing in an aerial system with amazing talent around him, and has played for a long time at a considerably high level. However, no one in here will make an argument for him being the #2 reciever of all time. Numbers, quite simply, arent accurate, as unintelligent as that sounds.

Bengalsrocket
08-08-2008, 09:14 AM
The problem with Moss now, is every team game plans against him. When an defensive cordinator and a head coach think about playing New England, the first thing to pop in their mind is "Shut down Brady and Moss. Don't let them play over our heads".

In the Hutchinson era it seems like no team specifically targeted any single player. It was more of a man to man defensive style, hoping and praying that a corner could cover a receiver.

So saying a team didn't game plan against Hutchinson is a flawed argument because a lot of coaches didn't seem to have a blueprint on how to target and successfully shut down a single player like they do today.

And conversely, its flawed to argue that Moss wasn't the most dominant receiver in the league for 8 years because he in fact, is, was and always will be the focus of every defensive unit that he plays against.

So in essence, I'm just regurgitating the dozens of other posters who claim its unfair to judge players from a different era.

As far as my opinion goes; I'm reserving it till a later date when I can gather more information!

bored of education
08-08-2008, 09:28 AM
I don't buy the Hutson argument or the Moss one. I understand the time in which Hutston played but only one season of 70 or more receptions doesnt do it for me. Just doesn't sound like a number 2 all time WR.

flave1969
08-08-2008, 10:27 AM
I don't buy the Hutson argument or the Moss one. I understand the time in which Hutston played but only one season of 70 or more receptions doesnt do it for me. Just doesn't sound like a number 2 all time WR.

I dont really think you understand the context of the era Hutson played at all.

The most Pass Attempts in any one season was 330, that attempts, the next best 283. If a QB does not make that many completions in a year he is considered to have a bad year.

In 11 seasons.

Hutson led the league in the following.

Receptions 8 times
Yards 7 times
Receiving TD's 9 times
Rec. Yds a game 8 times
TD's(All Position) 8 times

Can also remind you Hutson played 2-ways and had 30 career picks leading the NFL 5 times.

Hutson did not get breaks between offensive series. The fact is no other receiver maybe even Rice had a greater impact at the receiver position than Hutson in his era. If your only measure is 70 catches then I think you are not looking deep enough.

Bob Sanders Dreadlock
08-08-2008, 10:34 AM
Is Terrel Owens anywhere in the discussion for top 2? or even top 5? Dont think i have seen his name mentioned at all.

Gay Ork Wang
08-08-2008, 10:35 AM
top20? def
top15? maybe
top10? hardly
top5? no way

Crickett
08-08-2008, 11:09 AM
Is Terrel Owens anywhere in the discussion for top 2? or even top 5?

No. Nor should he be.

GB12
08-08-2008, 01:06 PM
I don't buy the Hutson argument or the Moss one. I understand the time in which Hutston played but only one season of 70 or more receptions doesnt do it for me. Just doesn't sound like a number 2 all time WR.
That season was also the greatest season by one player in NFL history.

In 1942 he had 74 receptions, ranking first. The second place receiver had 27.

He lead the league in receiving yards with 1211. That's very good for today, but was amazing for the era he played in. Second place had 571.

He lead the league in TD receptions with 17. That was an NFL record for 42 years. Randy Moss has only topped 17 once, Jerry Rice has only topped 17 once. Second place in 1942 had 8.

Besides what he did as a receiver he also played DB and kicker, playing a full 60 minutes. As a DB he had 7 INTs which placed him second, and as a kicker he lead the league in extra points completing 33 of 34.

At the very least he is a top 5 WR of all time. I think he has a strong case to be put #1, but I have him 2nd behind Jerry Rice.

MetSox17
08-08-2008, 01:11 PM
I'm trying hard to look for some stats from back then, but i'm having a hard time.

Does anyone have Hutsons' team rushing attempts/yards as compared to the rest of the leagues? Or in exchange the passing attempts, also as compared to what the rest of the league was doing?

Canadian_kid16
08-08-2008, 01:21 PM
Comparing two players from different eras is very diffcult, but wouldn't it make most sense too compare season stats in comparison to other receivers of the era?

Just looking above, GB12 stated that Hutson had 24 more receptions then second place in 1942 when he played. If he had more seasons like that, then I'd have to vote him as the greatest of all time, not just second best. its all about how they compared to other receivers in their generation IMO, as the style of play change on a decade to decade basis

Gay Ork Wang
08-08-2008, 01:24 PM
Hutson had 47 more receptions

bored of education
08-08-2008, 01:26 PM
:/ :/ sureeeeeeeeeee

MetSox17
08-08-2008, 01:48 PM
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/

Just a little something that should be pointed out, i think.

The average number of pass attempts by the league in 1942- 213. Packers threw 330 times. They also had the, arguably, best quarterback of that whole era.

GB12
08-08-2008, 02:14 PM
Just a little something that should be pointed out, i think.

The average number of pass attempts by the league in 1942- 213. Packers threw 330 times. They also had the, arguably, best quarterback of that whole era.
He was not the best QB of that era. Sammy Baugh and Sid Luckman also played during that time. Not to mention that Cecil Isbell only played 5 years in the NFL, Hutson had an 11 year career and played with a number of QBs. I'm pretty sure Tony Canedo threw quite a few passes too even when we had Isbell. He put up very good numbers before and after Isbell.

And if you want to talk about QB play Jerry Rice had Montana/Young, Randy Moss has Tom Brady/Daunte Culpepper.

Paranoidmoonduck
08-09-2008, 03:29 PM
If we hold it true that Rice is the #1 guy here, then I think this thread has it right in #2 being between Hutson and Moss. This is hard for me, because I never seen Hutson play outside of the odd highlight reel and I've been lucky enough to see some of Moss' best performances. Moss is so athletic and beats so many insane coverages, I think I have to go with him. Hutson was crazy dominant and was one of the shapers of the game, so it's hard to pick against him. He's a close 3rd.

the_legend_killer
08-09-2008, 04:11 PM
Cris Carter

RaiderNation
08-09-2008, 04:38 PM
Randy Moss or Tim Brown

yo123
08-09-2008, 04:46 PM
Randy Moss or Tim Brown

It's no coincidence that everyone to mention Brown is a Raider fan. Brown is probably top 10. As consistent as he was, was he ever dominant like Moss or Hutson? No.

Gay Ork Wang
08-09-2008, 04:49 PM
It's no coincidence that everyone to mention Brown is a Raider fan. Brown is probably top 10. As consistent as he was, was he ever dominant like Moss or Hutson? No.
I just thought the same thing

ChezPower4
08-09-2008, 04:57 PM
DON HUTSON!!!!!!!

He dominated his era as well if not better than Jerry Rice.

I don't think he was better than Rice but he surly has a great case for 2nd best all time. Don Hutson gets my vote

ChezPower4
08-09-2008, 05:12 PM
I don't buy the Hutson argument or the Moss one. I understand the time in which Hutston played but only one season of 70 or more receptions doesnt do it for me. Just doesn't sound like a number 2 all time WR.

You have to take into account that they played less games in that time. If they played 16 games back then like they do now he would be right up there with 80-90+ receptions.

When LT broke the record for most points scored in a season i thought it was ridiculous that the media made such a big deal about it. Paul Hornung scored 176 points in 1960-1961, in 12 games. LT scored 180 points 46 years later in 16 games. If they had played 16 games back in the 60's I don't think LT nor anyone would've ever gotten close to that record. As it is today i don't think anyone will break the record that LT set.

Gay Ork Wang
08-09-2008, 05:14 PM
its the same with Rice's most TDs and Moss beating it barely by 1

Avicenna
08-11-2008, 08:15 AM
Ok, so, this is the craziest argument ever.

Were Hutson's STATS more impressive than Moss'? Yes, they were, considering the time.

Was Hutson a better PLAYER than Moss? Definitely not. Regardless of what era you throw either player into, if you put them side by side, Moss would beat Hutson every time. I don't even think that's debatable. Moss is physically more gifted in pretty much every area than Hutson.

Rice is better than Moss. Moss is better than Hutson.

Gay Ork Wang
08-11-2008, 08:16 AM
Ok, so, this is the craziest argument ever.

Were Hutson's STATS more impressive than Moss'? Yes, they were, considering the time.

Was Hutson a better PLAYER than Moss? Definitely not. Regardless of what era you throw either player into, if you put them side by side, Moss would beat Hutson every time. I don't even think that's debatable. Moss is physically more gifted in pretty much every area than Hutson.

Rice is better than Moss. Moss is better than Hutson.
how do u know? did u see him play?

Avicenna
08-11-2008, 08:21 AM
how do u know? did u see him play?

Honestly? Let me get this straight, you HONESTLY think that Hutson could come even close to putting up Moss like numbers RIGHT NOW?

Everyone is just so desperate to be the cool "Older players are waaay better, look at my knowledge of the game!", that they don't actually think logically about this.

Were Hutson's stats impressive? Yes. Were they more impressive than Moss'? Almost definitely. Was Hutson a better PLAYER? Come on. Be real. Moss is about twice as fast, can jump two times higher, *probably* stronger, etc.

People keep saying how we have to compare their stats to the other players of their time to see who is better, but that doesn't make any sense. If the only players available for me to play are 5th graders, and I put up a 22 touchdown game, does that make me better than Moss? Rice? No. You simply compare the players.

Avicenna
08-11-2008, 08:36 AM
moss was physically better than rice, thus, by your own crap argument, moss is the best receiver ever almost entirely because he was able to benefit from current training programs. by your own garbage argument, michael vick was the best quarterback ever, i mean, he could throw harder, further and was far more athletic than anyone else who ever played the position. who cares that his stats (re: completion %) were terrible. obviously those stats have nothing to do with him as a *player*. or maybe justin gaitlin was actually the best wr ever... i mean, he was an actual olympian in the 100m. i'm pretty sure that makes him faster than moss.

please, in the future, make at least some minor effort to think about an argument before wasting everyone's time with it.

Rice was better at running routes, and had superior longevity to Moss. If Moss somehow manages to last until he's like, 37, then he may even be considered better than Rice, but that probably won't happen.

My argument is simply this: Hutson almost definitely would not put up Moss' stats right now, in this league. Do you disagree with that?

And if he couldn't do what Moss does, then how could he be the superior player?

Anyways, you simply want to ignore what I mean behind my post. I could have written out like 2 pages explaining every minuscule detail, but I assumed people would be intelligent enough to get my point. I mean, obviously Gaitlin doesn't combine Moss' leaping ability, hands, route running, etc. I didn't say "Moss runs faster, he's better!" I took for granted people knew we were talking about elite receivers, who have the total package, seeing as we're discussing the second best receiver of all time.

But I'm sorry, next time I'll be sure to add every little thing, so you can't argue a minor point and ignore the true one.

LonghornsLegend
08-11-2008, 08:38 AM
I'm not even going to act like I could compare those two, but the WR's who were dominant when I started watching were Sterling Sharpe, Michael Irvin, Andre Reed, Cris Carter, and if its one position I can break down is WR's, the best guy I've ever seen play was Cris Carter...Harrison is close, but Cris Carter was a craftsman, ran pinpoint accurate routes, had a 6th sense for knowing where the sideline was, the back of the endzone, and always tapping two feet in without looking down.


That goes above the guys who have all the measurables in the world, but Carter was nearly uncoverable, and I can't remember him ever dropping a pass...But again thats just since I have been following the game.

bigbluedefense
08-11-2008, 09:34 AM
Moss isn't the 2nd best because of any numbers he pulls, as many of you know I hate using numbers to validate my arguments. This isn't baseball, its football, stats are useless.

Moss is the 2nd best WR of all time bc of what he does to defenses. Also, no WR in NFL history (including Rice) has made the players around him better than Moss has. Moss makes everybody around him significantly better every time he steps on the field. And without going into details, impacts a defensive gameplan more than any WR in NFL history.

Not to mention he still puts up sick numbers, even though thats not the basis of my argument. Until this year, he's never had a qb. And he's still that good. As for the 2 years with the Raiders, name me any WR who would succeed on those Raider teams? Those Raider teams might be one of the worst teams we've seen in the past 20 years.

Gay Ork Wang
08-11-2008, 09:36 AM
Id consider Culpepper in his prime a great QB...

bigbluedefense
08-11-2008, 09:37 AM
Id consider Culpepper in his prime a great QB...

his "prime" outside of Randy Moss consisted of half a year. he was a system qb. no qb who can't read defenses is great imo. cullpepper can't read defenses.

Iamcanadian
08-11-2008, 12:19 PM
These comparison posts are rather ridiculous. nobody can compare different generations of players and what they accomplished. First, you have all the rule changes that have taken place from decade to decade and they are quite numerous. Second, prior to the 70's, teams played outdoors on nateral grass not on turf or indoors. The weather often destroyed the grass during a game and there were many games played in mud up to their ankles. The rules for pass blocking has changed so much along with the rules on how a DE can use his hands that QBing in today's game is so far removed from the 60's and 70's that a comparison is impossible. A safety like Tatum of the Raiders would have to completely change the way he played if he was in the league today.
With the rules they had in the 60's and 70's a long career like Rice's was practically impossible, it was a much tougher game with few rules to protect the offensive players especially the QB's and WR's.
Everybody under 30 always assumes the players today are the greatest but the game has changed so much to protect its stars that any comparison with the past has become totally impossible.

bigbluedefense
08-11-2008, 02:11 PM
These comparison posts are rather ridiculous. nobody can compare different generations of players and what they accomplished. First, you have all the rule changes that have taken place from decade to decade and they are quite numerous. Second, prior to the 70's, teams played outdoors on nateral grass not on turf or indoors. The weather often destroyed the grass during a game and there were many games played in mud up to their ankles. The rules for pass blocking has changed so much along with the rules on how a DE can use his hands that QBing in today's game is so far removed from the 60's and 70's that a comparison is impossible. A safety like Tatum of the Raiders would have to completely change the way he played if he was in the league today.
With the rules they had in the 60's and 70's a long career like Rice's was practically impossible, it was a much tougher game with few rules to protect the offensive players especially the QB's and WR's.
Everybody under 30 always assumes the players today are the greatest but the game has changed so much to protect its stars that any comparison with the past has become totally impossible.

great post. thats why comparing stats is meaningless. in general, when you compare great players, you have to do it in a way where you take into account their versatility and how dominant they were in their respective era. thats the only fair way. you can't compare measurables.

my argument for Moss is not because of his freakish athleticism (not directly at least), but how he impacts the game from an X and O standpoint.

Avicenna
08-11-2008, 02:42 PM
Really, I'm not trying to downplay how dominant Hutson was. If the question was "Who was the most dominant receiver ever in the NFL?" I would say Hutson, then Rice, then possibly Moss.

However, the question was *BEST* receiver. And to me, that means, if I was making a team, which player would I want. Honestly, while Hutson was great for his time, I simply don't think he is as GOOD of a receiver as Moss is, regardless of the conditions. I think if you put Moss in the same system Hutson was in, Moss would do just as good, and probably better. And if you put Hutson in this system, he would do much worse.

Is it unfair that Moss has been able to train better, and become a better athlete because of advances in training? Possibly. Is that really relevant to who is better? Not really.

Avicenna
08-11-2008, 06:09 PM
is that why oakland was so good?

Per BBD's post last page:

As for the 2 years with the Raiders, name me any WR who would succeed on those Raider teams? Those Raider teams might be one of the worst teams we've seen in the past 20 years.

Avicenna
08-11-2008, 06:49 PM
thanks, i saw it. i'm disputing it ("moss makes everyone better!"). keep up.

moss was outplayed by ronald fricking curry in 2006. curry started all of 4 games. i can name lots of receivers that year who outplayed curry.

Moss deciding not to play doesn't make him a worse football player. It DOES make him a worse teammate. But that's not the argument at all.

bigbluedefense
08-12-2008, 09:49 AM
is that why oakland was so good?

Actually, when Moss was actually trying out there...yes, yes they were. He made Kerry Collins look half decent, he made Lamont Jordan look half decent, and he made one of the worst olines ive ever seen look not entirely terrible. But once he stopped trying because of the complete incompetence around him, then of course they went back to what they were.

Now Im not defending him quitting in any way, thats inexcusable, but that still doesn't change how great of a player he was/is every other year of his career. He's not the only player to quit on his team, lot's of players do. You just don't hear about it. Why do you think so many players play so much better during a contract year? Thats an indication to me that they weren't trying as hard as they should have been the other years of their contract, and thats not very different if you think about it. Case in point: Albert Haynesworth.


Another overlooked point of the WR position: The mental aspect. WRs have to learn how to read defenses, almost as much as qbs do. Huston didn't have to read defenses that are even remotely close in complexity to what Moss had to. Disguising coverages, rolling coverages, i can go on and on, Huston didn't see any of that. Now granted Moss hasn't seen the physical abuse that Huston saw, he still saw much more exotic coverages thrown his way.

Its hard to argue between them for so many reasons already stated, I just feel that Moss has impacted the game in a way that Ive never seen before. Huston is #3 on my list, the WR position has changed so much since then and I think it has more impact on the game and strategy today than it ever did back then.

CC.SD
08-12-2008, 10:27 AM
I get the argument that no one would have succeeded on those Raider squads, but I think Oakland fans need to really feel the hate for Randy. The great wideouts don't affect the game just by when they make great catches; the true value is opening up the field for the running game, drawing attention away from the other wideouts, etc.

If Randy went full bore during his Oakland years, maybe enough little things come together to the point where they are not as epically atrocious. He didn't bring his A game, he's said it and it was obvious, and I think things have worked out for him. That doesn't make him a great teammate, but it probably does qualify him as a decent strategist when it comes to getting his way.

flave1969
08-12-2008, 11:26 AM
Honestly? Let me get this straight, you HONESTLY think that Hutson could come even close to putting up Moss like numbers RIGHT NOW?



Why not? If he had all the benefits that Moss has at his disposal, absolutely. Hutson had talent and skill in abundance. What he did not have were the advances in training, nutrition, equipment, the rules of the game, the fields to play on and also he would not have had to play on defense and kick. It is actually scary to think what he may have been able to do today.

Reverse the argument and tell me Moss could have operated in Hutson's era effectively.

Borat
08-12-2008, 11:34 AM
Wait, so the west-coast offense was gimmicky even though it was centered around a passing era, and yet Hutson's offense that featured the passing game when every other team was predominantly running the ball isn't gimmicky? I'm way confused.

To put it into a more recent context, if all the NFL teams were predominantly running teams, and one team just wanted to throw the ball all the time, we'd say "that's gimmicky .... those numbers are inflated ....". Kind of like how Colt Brennan's stats are overlooked because of that.

BerninWI
08-12-2008, 01:24 PM
Sterling Sharpe is one of the top 5 ever, at the very least. You can't discredit him just because he suffered a career ending injury in the prime of his career ala Gale Sayers. Sayers was an all-pro every season during what was essentially a 5-year career, while Emmitt Smith only amassed 4 all-pros in 15 seasons. Some players are just luckier than others when it comes to avoiding serious injury. If there's enough sample to project greatness over a long career, you have to give the players who were the best while their body naturally allowed them to play, the benefit of the doubt.

Sharpe twice eclipsed Monk's previous single season reception record and led the league 3 times in his 7 year career. 3-time All Pro in 7 seasons. After rookie season made the pro bowl in 5 of 6, all 1,000 yard seasons. He only played 2 years with Favre and his previous QB was Don freakin' Majikowski. Think how nasty they could have been playing during the Packers' super bowl seasons (Rice got to play with Montana how many years?). Sharpe would have only been 30-31 and he didn't play a game predicated on speed.

Compare to other names being bandied about:

Largent- 1 All-Pro in 14 seasons
Carter- 2 All-Pros in 16 seasons
Harrison- 3 All-Pros in 12 seasons
Moss- 4 All-Pros in 10 seasons

Sharpe and Moss have a similar ratio, I'll give the edge to Moss because he racked up more yardage per season and was a bigger deep threat.

1. Jerry Rice
2. Don Hutson (8 straight pro bowls, sustained excellence)
3. Randy Moss
4. Sterling Sharpe
5. A fifth player who's clearly worse

BamaFalcon59
08-12-2008, 09:41 PM
Depends if you're talking potential or stats wise. If it comes to physical skills and "most feared". Moss owns Rice. But if you're talking about stats and producing in a given system, like Rice did in the WCO, under Walsh, then Rice is the most productive WR ever. But his skill set is no where near Moss's, but Moss's production is no where near Rices. So it all depends, but I'd go Moss, even though other WRs may have better production.

Pretty sure Moss was even or ahead of Rice after a certain amount of years into there careers TD and yards wise.

BamaFalcon59
08-12-2008, 09:43 PM
The west coast offense is not a "gimmicky" one.

It really is. It is catered to making the QBs stats look impressive. Average QBs could be made to look great in it.

Read the first few chapters of the Blind Side and about Bill Walsh. Interesting stuff.

BamaFalcon59
08-12-2008, 09:48 PM
absolutely. which is where the fact that he's really only bothered for about half his career should have a significant impact on his "ranking" historically. sure he can run past a guy when he wants to, but, historically, he's so rarely wanted to that i can't see any way anyone can anoint him as anything more than "physically gifted" at this point in his career. especially when a guy like jerry rice when to oakland and still gave it 100% every play, every year.



and for anyone who hasn't been here for very long, i've never disagreed with this. you can't possibly gauge a player on their stats alone. that said, when one players numbers are so astronomically better than another's (over the same era), it's *usually* meaningful evidence.

Umm, okay. He, if you do per year statistics, is one of the best ever, and is widely considered the second best receiver of all time, and almost universally considered a top five receiver of all time. He may be an underachiever, but he is obviously more than physically gifted if he produces like he does and has since he entered the league.

Ness
08-12-2008, 10:21 PM
It really is. It is catered to making the QBs stats look impressive. Average QBs could be made to look great in it.

Read the first few chapters of the Blind Side and about Bill Walsh. Interesting stuff.

Then why do average quarterbacks that compete in the NFL not always successful in the system? I don't see how a system that has been successful and still is to this day can be called a gimmick.

Let's not forget that football is a team sport. If you don't have the right players around you, it doesn't matter who you are at QB, you won't look very impressive if you have inadequate targets, no protection, and no running game.

BamaFalcon59
08-12-2008, 10:43 PM
Then why do average quarterbacks that compete in the NFL not always successful in the system? I don't see how a system that has been successful and still is to this day can be called a gimmick.

Let's not forget that football is a team sport. If you don't have the right players around you, it doesn't matter who you are at QB, you won't look very impressive if you have inadequate targets, no protection, and no running game.

Well, obviously there will be failures. But if you look at the system under its creator, Walsh turned very, very padestrian QBs into players.

yippee? he's more than physically gifted? is that why ronald curry played better in oakland than moss did? because curry is also an incredible receiver?

but hey. at least you found one way to manipulate statistics to show moss is statistically relevant in the conversation. tell me, given moss's per year breakdown, how far does that put him ahead of some of the other 'great' receivers of his era (or heck, restrict it to the last ten years moss has been playing)? i'm willing to bet hutson's per year average is significantly better, respectively.

i further, couldn't care less about moronic statements like "universally considered" when you provide absolutely nothing to back it up. why bother saying something so worthless?

If you can't acknowlege that Moss has produced then you are obviously slanted against him.

And for the record, I never said a word about Hutson. I was defending Moss.

Ness
08-12-2008, 11:58 PM
Well, obviously there will be failures. But if you look at the system under its creator, Walsh turned very, very padestrian QBs into players.

Walsh also had very talented teams with very good role players left and right. And once some players like Steve Young, who took longer to learn the system, got it, he could operate in another type of offense and still be effective. When Marc Trestman came to town in 1995 is a good example.