PDA

View Full Version : If You Could Take A Receiver From Any Era To Start A Team...


TheFinisher
08-02-2011, 10:40 AM
Who would it be?

I saw this topic on 1st & 10 this morning and it sparked a pretty good debate. The rules are assuming you're starting a team from scratch and your first pick is a WR, who would you take? Keep in mind talent, production, locker room influence, etc. are all involved. You get the whole package for your pick, the good and the bad.

I'm going to go with a darkhorse to start it off and say Michael Irvin. He wasn't the deep threat that Moss was or the catch and run threat like Rice, but Irvin was arguably the most physical WR to ever play the game. He absolutely bullied DBs and was a master of putting himself in position to make the catch, I've never seen anyone with the ability to shield defenders from the ball like Irvin. He can go across the middle and always made the tough grab. He wasn't nicknamed the Playmaker by accident, Irvin was as clutch as they came. On top of that, he was the heart and soul of that Dallas dynasty. He managed to bring emotion into the locker room and the sideline that had a positive effective on his teammates to up their level of play, which is a rare trait. He demanded excellence of everyone around him at all times.

He was the ultimate team leader at the WR position, and can always be relied on to come through when your team needed it most.

49erNation85
08-02-2011, 10:42 AM
Easily Jerry Rice for me(homer pick)

vidae
08-02-2011, 10:42 AM
Jerry Rice in any era

/thread

Splat
08-02-2011, 10:43 AM
Jerry Rice yesterday,today and tomorrow.

K Train
08-02-2011, 10:43 AM
i wouldnt start my team with a receiver, but i guess id go moss

thenewfeature06
08-02-2011, 10:44 AM
Charles Rogers.

phlysac
08-02-2011, 10:56 AM
On 1st and 10 the selections were this...

Hugh Douglas - Terrell Owens
Rob Parker - Randy Moss
Skip Bayless - Michael Irvin


I'd have to go with Rice simply because you know he'd work harder than anyone. Not the most physically gifted of the other guys but the best overall package without any question marks on or off the field.

Saints-Tigers
08-02-2011, 11:04 AM
Jerry Rice is getting to the point where he's so good that it's hard for people to believe he was that much better.

This is Jerry, all day, and tomorrow.

Ravens1991
08-02-2011, 11:08 AM
Anyone who doesnt say Rice is on a different planet.

RufusMcDaniel
08-02-2011, 11:13 AM
Anyone who doesnt say Rice is on a different planet.

I agree

http://helmet2helmet.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/sidney-rice.jpg

katnip
08-02-2011, 11:13 AM
would any1 say marvin harrison is - a all time great wr?

not saying he's my guy

thenewfeature06
08-02-2011, 11:20 AM
Marvin is a top 25-30 WR of all time in my eyes... he knew how to get separation.

TheFinisher
08-02-2011, 11:38 AM
Anyone who doesnt say Rice is on a different planet.

lol I absolutely understand the reasoning for Rice, but for arguments sake he landed in the absolute perfect situation with a Montana in his prime and Walsh's offense. I'm not arguing against Rice as the greatest career wise, more as who I want as an individual vacuum sealed product.

Raiderz4Life
08-02-2011, 11:49 AM
Gimme Timmy Brown plz lol

bigbluedefense
08-02-2011, 12:02 PM
Seriously, who wouldn't take Jerry Rice?

7DnBrnc53
08-02-2011, 12:14 PM
Seriously, who wouldn't take Jerry Rice?

Me, for one. Rice worked hard, but he was a diva who only cared about his stats, which he padded in that cheesy dink pass offense. Rice usually didn't run real pass routes, but just slants and crosses. And, the Niners often ran illegal picks for him.

For me, I would take Cris Carter. Great receiver and leader with a great attitude. To compliment him, I would take Lance Alworth for my downfield threat.

bigbluedefense
08-02-2011, 12:16 PM
Me, for one. Rice worked hard, but he was a diva who only cared about his stats, which he padded in that cheesy dink pass offense. Rice usually didn't run real pass routes, but just slants and crosses. And, the Niners often ran illegal picks for him.

For me, I would take Cris Carter. Great receiver and leader with a great attitude. To compliment him, I would take Lance Alworth for my downfield threat.

Cris Carter wasn't a diva? Ummm....you sure about that bro?

bigbluedefense
08-02-2011, 12:17 PM
Also, I question if you ever saw Jerry Rice play with that analysis of his game.

Sloopy
08-02-2011, 12:22 PM
I take Michael Irvin, today, tomorrow, the next day, Friday after next, with Rice standing in front of me begging for the spot...

Call me a homer, tell me I'm on another planet... Michael Irvin is my guy.

He may not have anywhere near the stats that Rice did but his career was cut short by injury giving him half the length of the career Jerry had. I wont sit here and homer to you that if Michael Irvin had just as long of a career as Jerry had, he would be tying any of Jerry's records(the longevity of Jerry's career is a merit to him in and of itself), my point is merely the knock against his stats CAN be attributed to his career being cut short.

Irvin was one of the first "physical freaks" to come into the league. He Had the body of a tight end and the speed leaping ability and hands of a wide receiver. He also had a knack for the big play lending to his nickname "the playmaker." He could make the acrobatic spectacular catch but could also go over the middle and have the concentration to make the difficult catch. He was plain dominant, so much so that they had to make a rule for him. Add to this his qualities as a team leader and motivator and I pick him 10 out of 10 times.

Saints-Tigers
08-02-2011, 12:26 PM
I'd take Rice easily first, then Moss, then there is a pretty considerable gap to me.

OSUGiants17
08-02-2011, 12:35 PM
David Tyree, I'll just throw it at his helmet every play

phlysac
08-02-2011, 01:18 PM
which he padded in that cheesy dink pass offense. Rice usually didn't run real pass routes, but just slants and crosses.


Ummmmmmmmmmm

tjsunstein
08-02-2011, 01:19 PM
If we're starting a team from all eras, my first WR choice would be Randy Moss just because he's more physically gifted than any WR that I had ever seen. If we're choosing a WR that most dominated their era, I would go with Rice then Hutson.

Splat
08-02-2011, 01:22 PM
Me, for one. Rice worked hard, but he was a diva who only cared about his stats, which he padded in that cheesy dink pass offense. Rice usually didn't run real pass routes, but just slants and crosses. And, the Niners often ran illegal picks for him.

For me, I would take Cris Carter. Great receiver and leader with a great attitude. To compliment him, I would take Lance Alworth for my downfield threat.

And then you pick Carter? LOL

DeepThreat
08-02-2011, 01:28 PM
Me, for one. Rice worked hard, but he was a diva who only cared about his stats, which he padded in that cheesy dink pass offense. Rice usually didn't run real pass routes, but just slants and crosses. And, the Niners often ran illegal picks for him.

For me, I would take Cris Carter. Great receiver and leader with a great attitude. To compliment him, I would take Lance Alworth for my downfield threat.

http://chanarchive.org/content/53_s/11446796/1297854892252.jpg

SickwithIt1010
08-02-2011, 02:03 PM
Me, for one. Rice worked hard, but he was a diva who only cared about his stats, which he padded in that cheesy dink pass offense. Rice usually didn't run real pass routes, but just slants and crosses. And, the Niners often ran illegal picks for him.

For me, I would take Cris Carter. Great receiver and leader with a great attitude. To compliment him, I would take Lance Alworth for my downfield threat.

Bahahaha this is a joke right?

Complex
08-02-2011, 02:32 PM
Randy Moss

Ness
08-02-2011, 02:36 PM
Me, for one. Rice worked hard, but he was a diva who only cared about his stats, which he padded in that cheesy dink pass offense. Rice usually didn't run real pass routes, but just slants and crosses. And, the Niners often ran illegal picks for him.

Wow you've gotta be kidding me. This is like the worst negative bias towards Rice I've ever heard. He only cared about this stats? Only ran slants and crosses which weren't "real" pass routes? LOL.

Ness
08-02-2011, 02:40 PM
Anyways I'd probably take Rice just because of how hard of a worker he was.

Afterwards probably Terrell Owens who I think is the best overall wide receiver I've seen in terms of talent. The only thing that would be knocks against him are his whiny attitude and his hands aren't so great. But in terms of what he brings to the table when he's fully focused it's everything.

Then maybe after that Sterling Sharpe, who probably would have been as good as Rice if he didn't get hurt.

Da-Phins
08-02-2011, 02:52 PM
Lol why is this even a question?.....Jerry ******* Rice baby!

Cudders
08-02-2011, 03:32 PM
Here's the argument for Moss: He's the greatest deep threat of all-time. There has never been a better receiver at blowing the top off a defense. Even when he wasn't producing, defenses still had to scheme for him and roll coverages in his direction because the threat was so great, which often created a spillover effect that benefited other receivers. Moss was built to stretch defenses. More and more, with the NFL gravitating toward high-octane offenses, those types of playmakers come at a premium.

And here's why that argument is categorically wrong: As great as Moss was, Jerry Rice was still measurably better. Sure, Moss might be more physically gifted and vertically dangerous, but Rice dominates him in every other dimension. He was a breathtakingly crisp route runner that ran the entire tree exceptionally well. He had unbelievably strong hands and an acute awareness of the finer subtleties of his position. Oh, and he was still extremely explosive. Despite his lackluster forty, he had dazzling game speed and an uncanny ability to make routine catches huge gains. Additionally, if we are to operate within the parameters of the hypothetical presented, Rice's consummate professionalism and legendary work ethic absolutely dwarf Moss' intangible credentials.

Anyone who says otherwise is either misinformed or allowing themselves to be prisoners of the moment.

Saints-Tigers
08-02-2011, 03:36 PM
^yuppp.

And really, anyone else, they really don't bring a dimension to the game that you can coherently argue against Rice.

Halsey
08-02-2011, 03:41 PM
No receiver in NFL history is even within 50 touchdowns of Jerry Rice's career TDs record. This isn't even a debate.

ShyneQuasiOG22
08-02-2011, 03:54 PM
Jerry Rice had something no other receiver had, the determination and desire to be the best ever and the work ethic to make it happen. If Moss had those things this wouldn't even be a debate. If Moss gave it his all, throughout his career he would have this debate locked down. But he didn't and Rice did so it's rice, by a mile.

The Alex
08-02-2011, 03:59 PM
Me, for one. Rice worked hard, but he was a diva who only cared about his stats, which he padded in that cheesy dink pass offense. Rice usually didn't run real pass routes, but just slants and crosses. And, the Niners often ran illegal picks for him.

http://i42.tinypic.com/254zclf.jpg

J-Mike88
08-02-2011, 04:11 PM
Jerry Rice in any era

/thread
Exactly, thank you vidae.
And the funniest thing of all is that in his draft, 1984, 2 teams took different receivers while Rice was still on board.

TheFinisher
08-02-2011, 04:13 PM
Jerry Rice had something no other receiver had, the determination and desire to be the best ever and the work ethic to make it happen. If Moss had those things this wouldn't even be a debate. If Moss gave it his all, throughout his career he would have this debate locked down. But he didn't and Rice did so it's rice, by a mile.

The thing is all those qualities could be said about Irvin as well, plus not even Jerry Rice brought the heart and fire that Michael Irvin did to the football field. Think of what Ray Lewis and his leadership/emotion/work ethic means to the Ravens, Irvin was that guy in Dallas.

EDIT: And I guess the reason I would rather have Irvin over Rice is just the way he played the game, he played it with emotion. Rice was great but he didn't fight for the ball the same way Irvin did. Mike just had that attitude about him.

Halsey
08-02-2011, 04:16 PM
Career TDs:

Jerry Rice: 208
Michael Irvin 65

lol Michael Irvin...

Raiderz4Life
08-02-2011, 04:18 PM
The thing is all those qualities could be said about Irvin as well, plus not even Jerry Rice brought the heart and fire that Michael Irvin did to the football field. Think of what Ray Lewis and his leadership/emotion/work ethic means to the Ravens, Irvin was that guy in Dallas.

EDIT: And I guess the reason I would rather have Irvin over Rice is just the way he played the game, he played it with emotion. Rice was great but he didn't fight for the ball the same way Irvin did. Mike just had that attitude about him.

Just because Jerry didn't scream and scowl and thump his chest didn't mean he didn't play with emotion.

Raiderz4Life
08-02-2011, 04:21 PM
Career TDs:

Jerry Rice: 208
Michael Irvin 65

lol Michael Irvin...

Sterling Sharpe played about 5 years less and got 65 TDs...would have thought Irvin would have scored a few more...least break into the 100s

TheFinisher
08-02-2011, 04:22 PM
Career TDs:

Jerry Rice: 208
Michael Irvin 65

lol Michael Irvin...

Irvin played about half the career that Rice did and was in an entirely different offense.

Anyway it's besides the point, we're talking more about the players make-up not their stats. Everyone knows Jerry Rice shatters every receiving record.

TheFinisher
08-02-2011, 04:24 PM
Just because Jerry didn't scream and scowl and thump his chest didn't mean he didn't play with emotion.

I'm not saying he didn't play with emotion, just that Irvin was the heartbeat of his teams much like Ray Lewis is for the Ravens. Guys are willing to go to war for you.

Halsey
08-02-2011, 04:25 PM
Irvin played about half the career that Rice did and was in an entirely different offense.

Anyway it's besides the point, we're talking more about the players make-up not their stats. Everyone knows Jerry Rice shatters every receiving record.

TDs are just a stat? You must be in the wrong forum, because in football TDs mean 6 points.

And it's not Rice's fault the Irvin was partying all the time while Rice worked his ass off.

Ness
08-02-2011, 04:29 PM
The thing is all those qualities could be said about Irvin as well, plus not even Jerry Rice brought the heart and fire that Michael Irvin did to the football field. Think of what Ray Lewis and his leadership/emotion/work ethic means to the Ravens, Irvin was that guy in Dallas.

EDIT: And I guess the reason I would rather have Irvin over Rice is just the way he played the game, he played it with emotion. Rice was great but he didn't fight for the ball the same way Irvin did. Mike just had that attitude about him.
Rice didn't fight for the ball? You've gotta be joking me. And he did have heart and soul and emotion on the field. Maybe he wasn't the raving loon that Irvin was, but he had just as much willpower.

Rice was usually open anyways so he wouldn't have been in a position to always fight for the rock. But when it came down to it he would fight for it.

TheFinisher
08-02-2011, 04:30 PM
TDs are just a stat? You must be in the wrong forum, because in football TDs mean 6 points.

And it's not Rice's fault the Irvin was partying all the time while Rice worked his ass off.

Brett Favre must be the greatest QB of all time by that logic.

And yes Irvin had his issues with drugs off the field, but he was every bit the worker Rice was when it was time for business.

prock
08-02-2011, 04:32 PM
I want to say Moss because he's my boy, but it's gotta be Rice, and anyone who says otherwise is wrong.

jayceheathman
08-02-2011, 04:32 PM
Andre Johnson.

Ness
08-02-2011, 04:32 PM
Actually this entire "vocal" is really ridiculous. Some of the most soft spoken players in the NFL are the best.

Trent Dilfer screams like maniac and is full of the so called "fire", yet he was a terrible starter the majority of his career. Then in comparison guys like Montana, McNair, and Bulger who had a good amount of success in the prime of their careers.

Meanwhile you have guys like Issac Bruce or Marvin Harrison and even Andre Johnson who are/were some of the best receivers in the NFL.

TheFinisher
08-02-2011, 04:32 PM
Rice didn't fight for the ball? You've gotta be joking me. And he did have heart and soul and emotion on the field. Maybe he wasn't the raving loon that Irvin was, but he had just as much willpower.

Rice was usually open anyways so he wouldn't have been in a position to always fight for the rock. But when it came down to it he would fight for it.

Didn't say Rice doesn't fight for the ball, just not the way Irvin did. His physicality is what made him and the way he attacked the football.

Bengalsrocket
08-02-2011, 04:34 PM
I'll take Moss' ridiculous unmatched talent as a rookie (17 TDs!) and then trade him off the very next year for a ton of draft picks to build up my defense.

Raiderz4Life
08-02-2011, 04:34 PM
Didn't say Rice doesn't fight for the ball, just not the way Irvin did. His physicality is what made him and the way he attacked the football.

Ok so let's give that to Irvin. He beats Rice in 1 category out of several...so he still loses.

TheFinisher
08-02-2011, 04:35 PM
Actually this entire "vocal" is really ridiculous. Some of the most soft spoken players in the NFL are the best.

Trent Dilfer screams like maniac and is full of the so called "fire", yet he was a terrible starter the majority of his career.

Meanwhile you have guys like Issac Bruce or Marvin Harrison and even Andre Johnson who are/were some of the best receivers in the NFL.

Oh no doubt, you don't need to be a vocal guy to be a great player. But as a trait for someone who I'm starting my team with, I'd want the guy who's going to get in teammate's faces and be the heart of the team. It doesn't work for everyone, but Irvin and Lewis made it work and elevated the play of those around them.

monson
08-02-2011, 04:36 PM
Just to be different. and a homer

Stanley Morgan. almost 20 ypc

plus he was on some bad teams. Figure the team from scratch would be bad.

ShyneQuasiOG22
08-02-2011, 04:36 PM
As much as Rice's emotion might not have been on display, to me his emotion and passion was shown off the field, in his preparation. What we see on the field is the final product of a players preparation, which is what made Rice the best. Same with Ray Lewis at LB. Hard was always beats talent if talent don't work hard.

Raiderz4Life
08-02-2011, 05:15 PM
I'm gonna keep my orig. pick of Tim Brown, one of several Oakland greats...but only one I ever saw play.

Saints-Tigers
08-02-2011, 05:26 PM
Tim Brown was a fine player, but no matter how big of a homer you are, it's just insulting to everyone, and your own intelligence, to take him over Jerry Rice.

Raiderz4Life
08-02-2011, 05:28 PM
Tim Brown was a fine player, but no matter how big of a homer you are, it's just insulting to everyone, and your own intelligence, to take him over Jerry Rice.

Well hell...everyone's taking Rice....so its a bit boring. Just for the sake of argument Imma throw another flavor in there.

Don Vito
08-02-2011, 05:58 PM
Troy Brown. Receiver, returner, and defensive back. When on offense he knew what the defender was thinking and vice versa. Unstoppable.

boknows34
08-02-2011, 08:23 PM
lol I absolutely understand the reasoning for Rice, but for arguments sake he landed in the absolute perfect situation with a Montana in his prime and Walsh's offense. I'm not arguing against Rice as the greatest career wise, more as who I want as an individual vacuum sealed product.

Did Rice benefit from 2 HOF QBs? Most certainly. But what is striking is that during his 49ers career Rice played 24 games without Montana or Young as the starter. Grbac (9), Kemp (6), Bono (6), Moroski (2) and Cavanugh (1) made up the 24. In exactly a year and a half's worth of games, Rice caught 134 passes for 2,177 yards and 23 TDs, and ran for one score as well. That's an average season of 89 catches, 1,451 yards and 16 touchdowns when collated to 16 games. Eighteen of those 24 games that he played without Montana or Young came during Rice's first or second season, or when he was 33 or 34-years old. In '95 and '96, playing at an age when most receivers start slowing down, catching passes from Elvis Grbac for 9 starts, and with Derek Loville and Terry Kirby at RB, Rice put up huge numbers of 122-1,848-15 and 108-1,254-8.

If we cut Rice's career in half and separated them into odd and even years, each one would still be a HOF career. In even-years alone Rice had 833 receptions for 11,934 yds and 94 TDs - all of which are more than Michael Irvin's career numbers in all 3 categories. Even-year Rice also had 8 1,000 yd seasons, 8 Pro Bowls, 6 1st team All-Pros, 3 times led the league in receiving yardage, won 2 Super Bowl rings and a SuperBowl MVP.

BaLLiN
08-02-2011, 09:29 PM
I'm slightly tempted w/ T.O.

Reasoning: Yes Moss is the best deep threat ever, and as BBD and others have mentioned he was smart too. I also saw that champ bailey interview, and it is eerily similar to Jim Brown's method of getting up slow to try to fool the defenders.

Rice is the best ever, I know many say Moss is that, and maybe if he wasn't caught in the black hole for awhile (Oakland) that would've been true. Rice is competitive, has great speed and breaks away, but his blocking was average and he played with two of the greatest QB's in history in an offense that optimized the passing game.

Owens is a headcase, theres no question about that. But his competitiveness and ability before his big injury w/ the eagles makes my jaw drop. Even now he burns defenses for multiple touchdowns in games. He also runs through DB's and can block well. His hands have been suspect throughout his career, but purely as a prospect he is definitely up there in consideration with the other two.

Sloopy
08-02-2011, 09:45 PM
Rice played for 19 seasons I believe. I get that longevity is a positive in and of itself but I don't see anyone complimenting Brett Favre as the greatest QB ever because of his career totals.

I'm not saying that Rice isn't a great receiver he's certainly one of the best if not the best depending on who you ask. However to list some stats and say end thread everyone else is wrong as asinine.

Football has never been and never will be decided by numbers. Jerry played in the West Coast offense which heavily relied on passing. Meanwhile Michael Irvin played on a team with one of the greatest if not the greatest running back of all time. This lead to them running the ball more than Jerry's team did thus not having as many pass attempts. Further more Irvin's career was cut short by injury thus lending to his lack of stats to back up this argument.

To each his own and many of your opinions clearly differ from mine but to say "65 career TD's Michael Irvin lol..." is pretty stupid when you look at it objectively

Ness
08-02-2011, 09:48 PM
I don't even know if I would take Irvin in my top ten according to these parameters. Yes he was physical, but if really if we're going to use that as his main strength then I'm taking Terrell Owens.

XxXdragonXxX
08-02-2011, 09:52 PM
Steve Largent.




Rice is a close second though....Sydney Rice that is....

Sloopy
08-02-2011, 09:59 PM
I don't even know if I would take Irvin in my top ten according to these parameters. Yes he was physical, but if really if we're going to use that as his main strength then I'm taking Terrell Owens.

I've always looked at T.O. as a guy who can make catches that no one else can make but will drop catches that anyone could make. Also throw into account the fact that he's a locker room cancer and the original question stated you have to take everything into account. So I wouldn't touch T.O. with a 10 foot poll much less in my top 10 here.

And I think your underrating the physical freak that he was at the time when he came into the league. There is a reason that they call the push off rule "The Michael Irvin Rule."

Halsey
08-02-2011, 10:11 PM
People like to blame Oakland for the fact that Moss had two bad seasons in the middle of his prime years.

Jerry Rice played 4 seasons with Oakland in his late 30s/early 40s and caught 305 passes for 3286 yards and 18 TDs while sharing the field with Tim Brown and Jerry Porter.

Oh, and Rice only played six games with the Raiders in the 4th season.

Ness
08-02-2011, 10:19 PM
I've always looked at T.O. as a guy who can make catches that no one else can make but will drop catches that anyone could make. Also throw into account the fact that he's a locker room cancer and the original question stated you have to take everything into account. So I wouldn't touch T.O. with a 10 foot poll much less in my top 10 here.

And I think your underrating the physical freak that he was at the time when he came into the league. There is a reason that they call the push off rule "The Michael Irvin Rule."
I know. I've seen both play. I'd just prefer Owens.

Raiderz4Life
08-02-2011, 10:27 PM
People like to blame Oakland for the fact that Moss had two bad seasons in the middle of his prime years.

Jerry Rice played 4 seasons with Oakland in his late 30s/early 40s and caught 305 passes for 3286 yards and 18 TDs while sharing the field with Tim Brown and Jerry Porter.

Oh, and Rice only played six games with the Raiders in the 4th season.

Totally different cases. Not even close. Jerry played during the good years. He had Rich Gannon chucking him the rock, had Tim Brown on the other side, Jerry Porter was a solid receiver too. The defense was stacked...he was there for the SB run in 02. Moss came to the crap hole that the Raiders are now.

ellsy82
08-02-2011, 10:30 PM
Limas Sweed. Wait wait...Jerry Rice, final answer.

Raiderz4Life
08-02-2011, 10:43 PM
To each his own and many of your opinions clearly differ from mine but to say "65 career TD's Michael Irvin lol..." is pretty stupid when you look at it objectively

Is it? I think there's some validity to holding that against him. He played 12yrs which isn't exactly a short career, I know he could have played more but 12 isn't bad at all. If you wanna see someone who rly got derailed early look at Sterlin Sharpe who had similar numbers in lesser years. Another WR i know who didn't play as long as Irvin yet has similar numbers is Rod Smith, only played 9 years I believe. To me 65 career TDs for a HOF WR is kinda low.

Sloopy
08-02-2011, 11:06 PM
Is it? I think there's some validity to holding that against him. He played 12yrs which isn't exactly a short career, I know he could have played more but 12 isn't bad at all. If you wanna see someone who rly got derailed early look at Sterlin Sharpe who had similar numbers in lesser years. Another WR i know who didn't play as long as Irvin yet has similar numbers is Rod Smith, only played 9 years I believe. To me 65 career TDs for a HOF WR is kinda low.

Again I will state that he was also on a team with EMMIT SMITH. They weren't exactly throwing the ball on every down, But in spite of this Irvin NEVER spoke out about his teammates or his coach. His TD numbers may be unimpressive but thats because they had Emmit plowing in the red-zone TD's. His Reception and yardage #'s aren't unimpressive at all for the number of seasons he played.
Regardless, there is a reason that he is in the HOF despite those TD #s

Also while its really not a big deal, I thought it was 11 seasons not 12. could be wrong.

Ness
08-02-2011, 11:14 PM
Again I will state that he was also on a team with EMMIT SMITH. They weren't exactly throwing the ball on every down, But in spite of this Irvin NEVER spoke out about his teammates or his coach. His TD numbers may be unimpressive but thats because they had Emmit plowing in the red-zone TD's. His Reception and yardage #'s aren't unimpressive at all for the number of seasons he played.
Regardless, there is a reason that he is in the HOF despite those TD #s

Also while its really not a big deal, I thought it was 11 seasons not 12. could be wrong.

Well I think those Super Bowls really helped his case for his Hall of Fame chances. Because really I think Carter should have got in before Irvin. It's pretty absurd that Irvin is in, and Carter isn't now that I think of it. Carter played for three more years, but it's 2011 and it's way past due. Case in point the Hall doesn't always get their **** straight. Not saying Irvin doesn't deserve to be in, but at at the same time the Hall of Fame shouldn't be the always considered the end-all be-all for objectivity. Hell, Andre Reed isn't even in. There is yet another crime.

And like it or not, stats are a big part of a person getting in. Now more than ever.

Raiderz4Life
08-02-2011, 11:18 PM
Well I think those Super Bowls really helped his case for his Hall of Fame chances. Because really I think Carter should have got in before Irvin. It's pretty absurd that Irvin is in, and Carter isn't now that I think of it. Carter played for three more years, but it's 2011 and it's way past due. Case in point the Hall doesn't always get their **** straight. Not saying Irvin doesn't deserve to be in, but at at the same time the Hall of Fame shouldn't be the always considered the end-all be-all for objectivity. Hell, Andre Reed isn't even in. There is yet another crime.

And like it or not, stats are a big part of a person getting in. Now more than ever.

Yes 100Xs yes. Andre Reed totally deserves to be in As well as Carter. IMO Reed and Carter >>> Irvin. He was good, but I don't think he was better than Carter, Reed and I certainly wouldn't take him ahead of Jerry Rice or even Randy Moss.

phlysac
08-02-2011, 11:39 PM
Again I will state that he was also on a team with EMMIT SMITH. They weren't exactly throwing the ball on every down

As long as you take into account the fact that Jerry Rice was sharing the rock with the likes of Dwight Clark, John Taylor, Brent Jones, Roger Craig, Tom Rathman, Ricky Watters, and Terrell Owens, etc.

It's not like Jerry Rice was fed the ball non-stop.

Sloopy
08-02-2011, 11:57 PM
As long as you take into account the fact that Jerry Rice was sharing the rock with the likes of Dwight Clark, John Taylor, Brent Jones, Roger Craig, Tom Rathman, Ricky Watters, and Terrell Owens, etc.

It's not like Jerry Rice was fed the ball non-stop.

Players on those teams have admitted they tried to get Jerry a few of his records so thats not exactly true but I get what your saying here. We will just have to agree to disagree. Although I'd say your biased as a 9'ers fan :P

Ravens1991
08-02-2011, 11:57 PM
Yes 100Xs yes. Andre Reed totally deserves to be in As well as Carter. IMO Reed and Carter >>> Irvin. He was good, but I don't think he was better than Carter, Reed and I certainly wouldn't take him ahead of Jerry Rice or even Randy Moss.

knowing guys like that arent in the HOF I want to puke whenver someone says some current WRs belong in the HOF(specifically Hines Ward). No one but Moss and TO from recent memory should get in when those guys arent in.

phlysac
08-03-2011, 12:00 AM
I'd say your biased as a 9'ers fan :P

It's natural that I would have some bias but I'm being rational. Rice isn't anywhere near one of my all-time favorite players. He's not even one of my top-2 favorite 49ers WRs.

I agree with your love for Irvin's physicality but that type of physicality shouldn't have been legal then, and it ISN'T legal now, so his style of play would have to change in order for him to celebrate similar success.

Raiderz4Life
08-03-2011, 12:10 AM
Players on those teams have admitted they tried to get Jerry a few of his records so thats not exactly true but I get what your saying here. We will just have to agree to disagree. Although I'd say your biased as a 9'ers fan :P

The thing is, I'm sure most people would agree with him. You make it sound like Irvin was the only player who had an elite teammate taking away a few opportunities. They all at some point in their careers played with other elite or at least very good players that would take some balls away from them.

Sloopy
08-03-2011, 12:46 AM
The thing is, I'm sure most people would agree with him. You make it sound like Irvin was the only player who had an elite teammate taking away a few opportunities. They all at some point in their careers played with other elite or at least very good players that would take some balls away from them.

Maybe I should have been more clear, I meant to point out that Rice was in a system that was pass happy while the Cowboys were more balanced at the time.

And again I do understand and don't necessarily disagree with Jerry Rice being the greatest WR of all time. I just would merely chose Michael Irvin in this question. Probably more due to him being my favorite WR of all time than anything else.

keylime_5
08-03-2011, 12:50 AM
if anyone doesn't say jerry rice, they probably didnt see him play or forgot what it was like to see him play. most other guys with the elite freakish talent were punks like randy moss and terrell owens, or to a lesser degree michael irvin (great player, didn't get in trouble, but was a cokehead and would not be a good influence on young guys going back to the point of starting a team with a player)

If not Rice then one of those old time players like Don Hutson or Lance Alworth, but the game was different back then and passing wasn't as important as it was in the Rice era of the NFL, nor were there as many young athletes in America playing the game as there have been in the past 30 years, so guys who were good in the classic era of the NFL might not translate to today's game.

Sloopy
08-03-2011, 12:51 AM
i figured a pats fan would take vrable. after all, he was apparently uncoverable in the end zone.


in any case, discussions like these make it clear who actually saw a football game prior to 2000 and who just saw an nfl films special on michael irvin.



quote one of them.

I'm not gunna get into a pissing contest with you cus I know where it leads to but you implying that I never saw an NFL game before 2000 is a VERY week argument.

I will have to look for an exact quote and get back to you although as funny as it is I believe it indeed WAS an NFL network top ten. I believe top 10 opening day performances when Jerry broke one of his records and they were passing to him "early and often" (paraphrasing)

Also relax friend... why so serious?

Sloopy
08-03-2011, 12:53 AM
It's natural that I would have some bias but I'm being rational. Rice isn't anywhere near one of my all-time favorite players. He's not even one of my top-2 favorite 49ers WRs.

I agree with your love for Irvin's physicality but that type of physicality shouldn't have been legal then, and it ISN'T legal now, so his style of play would have to change in order for him to celebrate similar success.

This is very true. With the new rule changes he may have been less effective but it wasn't JUST his physicality that I loved (although I do LOVE it), it was also his ability to go over the middle and keep the concentration to make the tough play.

Ness
08-03-2011, 01:52 AM
Players on those teams have admitted they tried to get Jerry a few of his records so thats not exactly true but I get what your saying here. We will just have to agree to disagree. Although I'd say your biased as a 9'ers fan :P

Well maybe a couple of games out of hundreds. Jerry Rice didn't have a record waiting to be broken every contest. Nor would they put a game in jeopardy just to break a record.

JHL6719
08-03-2011, 02:04 AM
Make it interesting. Eliminate Jerry Rice, Randy Moss, Michael Irvin, Terrell Owens, Steve Largent, Chris Carter, and Tim Brown. Then have a debate over a few guys.

As it currently sits, the answer is Jerry Rice, period. Un-fun.




Take some guys like Paul Warfield, Hines Ward, Marvin Harrison, Isaac Bruce, etc., etc. and sort them out. Probably be more difficult.

wogitalia
08-03-2011, 02:44 AM
Maybe I'm reading the question wrong or something, but how can anyone answer anything but Rice? You can get a guy who will be your starting WR for 15 years, the best to play the position, close to as good off the field as you will find at the position and a stupidly hard working player.

Basically I'm drafting the best WR in the league, who will show up for every game and beast it.

I don't see the case for anyone else, I'm starting a new team here, give me the 15 year option.

prock
08-03-2011, 03:12 AM
If the name Hines Ward comes up in this thread again, I will slap someone.

Gimme Larry Fitzgerald if we are eliminating all those above.

RCAChainGang
08-03-2011, 04:16 AM
See I never saw Rice play in his prime and I'm not sure I ever saw how dominate he was. That being said when I look at his numbers its hard to say anyone els would get picked for me.

Keeping in mind I started watching football sometime around the year 2000:
If you take JHL's list out then I would take Andre Johnson. I would love to say Marvin Harrison, but I'm not sure how much of his success came from Manning, He was an awesome receiver, but I think Manning made him look better than he was. Andre Johnson has been such a constant for his team and there isn't much if anything he can't do. He has a good attitude. He might beat the crap out of an annoying DB in his career ;) but I'll go with Johnson if you take Rice away.

descendency
08-03-2011, 04:17 AM
I'm going to say Randy Moss.

And not because of what he did, but because of potential. If I'm looking at 20 year old versions of every WR ever (time shifted obviously), I want the biggest, fastest guy with the best hands. That's Randy Moss. He's about as close to the gold standard for WRs (physically) as you can get.

People taking Jerry Rice are doing it in hind sight, but real NFL decisions aren't made in hindsight.

Give me Moss.

Gay Ork Wang
08-03-2011, 04:29 AM
Irvin wasnt the fastest guy, wasnt the guy with the best hands or determination, wasnt the best route runner, wasnt the most dominating ever, hell even his physicality is debateable (I for one think TO would take that place). What exactly is there besides being vocal? Blocking? Superbowl Rings? I mean while the argument that he has less TDs cause he was on a team with Emmit Smith makes sense, it also can be used the other way around: Im pretty sure taking care of that massiv Oline and Emmit Smith should have opened up stuff for Irvin.

Ness
08-03-2011, 04:56 AM
If the name Hines Ward comes up in this thread again, I will slap someone.

Gimme Larry Fitzgerald if we are eliminating all those above.

Hines Ward you gotta be kidding me.

senormysterioso
08-03-2011, 06:53 AM
Sterling Sharpe in his prime was a sight to be seen. If he hadn't injured his neck he would have been an all time great.

Halsey
08-03-2011, 07:01 AM
I'd take Hines Ward over Michael Irvin. Longer career, less off field drama, better stats, better blocker, always keeps his head on a swivel, etc.

RufusMcDaniel
08-03-2011, 07:06 AM
If the name Hines Ward comes up in this thread again, I will slap someone.

Gimme Larry Fitzgerald if we are eliminating all those above.

But he's the best blocker!

If we eliminate people, I'm taking a freak...gimme Calvin Johnson. That way when I have Reggie Ball at QB there will be some familiarity.

K Train
08-03-2011, 08:02 AM
But he's the best blocker!

If we eliminate people, I'm taking a freak...gimme Calvin Johnson. That way when I have Reggie Ball at QB there will be some familiarity.

i thought about calvin too....if you had to build a WR to "build a franchise around" hes exactly what i would look for. at least we would look scary as **** coming off the bus, oh yeah and hes pretty good too

Gay Ork Wang
08-03-2011, 09:37 AM
but njx. its a very week argument if not month argument

Sloopy
08-03-2011, 10:24 AM
so you actually did watch a game prior to 2000? then you should know that michael irvin belonged nowhere near the hall of fame, suggesting that picking him as your top wr would be, well, one of the worst choices ever.



ok? they gave the ball to one of the best players ever 'often'. that certainly implies they fed him for the sole purpose of record-breaking.



ah, the old 'u mad? lolz' rebuttal. awesome, i love arguing with 12 year olds.



yes. because you're not using hindsight to take a guy who was so poorly thought of that his ridiculous measureables were overlooked for kevin dyson, among 20 other players.

Actually based on my watching games prior to 2000 I remember when Jerry HADN'T broken all those records yet and at the time I PERSONALLY liked Michael Irvin better. You can argue it all you want but its my opinion who I would take.

Now other than who I would take; yes, Jerry Rice is the greatest receiver of all time in hindsight based on his career performance. I was never arguing that Michael Irvin was the best WR of all time, merely that he was who I would take and why.

And yes it makes sense that they gave it to him often, that was the point I was trying to make: In a pass happy offense, as the greatest receiver in that offense he was thrown to A LOT.

Also I see that you countered my "lol you mad broz?" argument with the classic "your obviously 12" argument. See what i did here? I can put what you said in quotations too :P

Sloopy
08-03-2011, 10:51 AM
Irvin wasnt the fastest guy, wasnt the guy with the best hands or determination, wasnt the best route runner, wasnt the most dominating ever, hell even his physicality is debateable (I for one think TO would take that place). What exactly is there besides being vocal? Blocking? Superbowl Rings? I mean while the argument that he has less TDs cause he was on a team with Emmit Smith makes sense, it also can be used the other way around: Im pretty sure taking care of that massiv Oline and Emmit Smith should have opened up stuff for Irvin.

I'd venture to say Irvin was more physical than T.O. sheerly out of the fact that he was aloud to be more physical. More was aloud back then and Irvin took advantage of it hence why when they made the push off rules regarding a WR they nicknamed it "The Michael Irvin rule" (I know I've beaten that horse to death but its true and an absolute fact in the argument about his physicality)

As far as having the BEST hands, maybe not the BEST hands, but certainly damn good hands. One of my favorite parts about watching Michael Irving was his concentration over the middle to make the difficult catch.

I would certainly argue the not being dominant part. The dude man-handled DB's in the league during his career and was a MAJOR part of one of the most dominant dynasties that the NFL has ever seen.

And no, he wasn't as fast as Rice was but he was the farthest thing from being considered slow.

Throw into all of that the fact that he was a vocal leader, and a great blocker in the run game, and an inspiration to his teammates and a physical freak, thats why I choose him. You may disagree but its still my opinion

bigbluedefense
08-03-2011, 11:08 AM
I can't believe some people think Rice wasn't an elite deep threat.

Really? You don't break all those records by just running slants your whole career. Ridiculous.

He wasn't Moss on the 9 route, but who the hell was?

phlysac
08-03-2011, 12:11 PM
I can't believe some people think Rice wasn't an elite deep threat.


It's a common misconception. The Walsh WCO threw deep post routes regularly.

phlysac
08-03-2011, 12:23 PM
This thread needs some reality...

7Cdkcq1STmg

WMzyMglPvw8

bLlHARXrKgE


Even as a lifelong 49ers fan who was privileged enough to be able to enjoy Rice's entire career, it's easy to forget just how good he really was. And for those that didn't feel he had an attitude about him... not true.

bigbluedefense
08-03-2011, 12:27 PM
I remember those old 49ers/Giants bloodbaths when I was a kid. They were such great games to watch.

2 totally different philosophies going at it for 4 quarters. Always were amazing games.

That 1990 NFC Championship game btw the 49ers and Giants was one of the best games I ever seen.

Raiderz4Life
08-03-2011, 12:51 PM
It's a common misconception. The Walsh WCO threw deep post routes regularly.

I used to be one of those ppl. Though the wco was nothing but dink and dunk...then our school started running it and i learned its so much more than that.

phlysac
08-03-2011, 12:57 PM
I used to be one of those ppl. Though the wco was nothing but dink and dunk...then our school started running it and i learned its so much more than that.

Yeah, it originated using the short-passing game as a supplement to the running game. It did NOT remove the deep routes from the game plan. It would draw defenders in and then exploit them over the top.

Ness
08-03-2011, 01:05 PM
LOL at people thinking the WCO is "dink and dunk".

Ness
08-03-2011, 01:08 PM
I can't believe some people think Rice wasn't an elite deep threat.

Really? You don't break all those records by just running slants your whole career. Ridiculous.

He wasn't Moss on the 9 route, but who the hell was?

The funny thing was Rice was usually open on a lot of his passing routes. There were times when he would have to fight for the ball, but a good amount of the time he usually didn't have to because he was open.

Sloopy
08-03-2011, 01:34 PM
LOL at people thinking the WCO is "dink and dunk".

No. While the WCO does use little dish passes it only does so as a set up for the vertical game by causing defenders to cheat up to protect the underneath route leaving them more vulnerable to a play over the top. Jerry Rice is very much a vertical threat in the WCO.

Just wanted to clarify that I am not of that opinion despite disagreeing with you about the WR I would take.

Saints-Tigers
08-03-2011, 02:37 PM
This is one of those things in sports that really can't be left to opinion. Jerry is so overwhelmingly the easy choice at receiver that it's literally a fact that he's the best.

SubNoize
08-03-2011, 02:47 PM
Actually based on my watching games prior to 2000 I remember when Jerry HADN'T broken all those records yet and at the time I PERSONALLY liked Michael Irvin better. You can argue it all you want but its my opinion who I would take.

Now other than who I would take; yes, Jerry Rice is the greatest receiver of all time in hindsight based on his career performance. I was never arguing that Michael Irvin was the best WR of all time, merely that he was who I would take and why.

And yes it makes sense that they gave it to him often, that was the point I was trying to make: In a pass happy offense, as the greatest receiver in that offense he was thrown to A LOT.

Also I see that you countered my "lol you mad broz?" argument with the classic "your obviously 12" argument. See what i did here? I can put what you said in quotations too :P


"Rice is remembered for his work ethic and dedication to the game. In his 20 NFL seasons, Rice missed only 10 regular season games, 7 of them in the 1997 season, and the other 3 in the strike-shortened season of 1987. His 303 games are by far the most ever played by an NFL wide receiver, and are only 72 games behind the NFL record for games played by any player. In addition to staying on the field, his work ethic showed in his dedication to conditioning and running precise routes, with coach Dennis Green calling him "the best route runner I've ever seen." Also known as one of the best blockers at his position, there was no aspect of playing wide receiver at which Rice did not excel.

In 1999, he was ranked number 2 on The Sporting News list of the 100 Greatest Football Players, behind only Jim Brown, and was 35 places ahead of the next-highest-ranked player then active, Deion Sanders, who played another five seasons.

On November 4, 2010, Rice was ranked number 1 on The Top 100: NFL's Greatest Players."


Also to toss in their something of my own, you keep saying "in hindsight of his total career, blah blah". I remember as a kid watching a Raiders/49ers MNF game in 94 where Jerry went for 127th TD, at that time he was already considered the GOAT and this was on 10 years into his career, so throw that looking back now ******** out. You admit Michael had to push off, which just goes to show he wasn't good enough to get seperation most of the time. that's not physcial that's cheap.

niel89
08-03-2011, 03:28 PM
There are a lot of great sports arguments that can be debated til the end of time. Greatest WR is not one of those. Rice is irrefutably the best ever at his position.

Raiderz4Life
08-03-2011, 03:58 PM
Jerry Rice should be left out of this one cuz that makes it not fun.

descendency
08-03-2011, 04:28 PM
yes. because you're not using hindsight to take a guy who was so poorly thought of that his ridiculous measureables were overlooked for kevin dyson, among 20 other players.

You're seriously saying that because some of the dumbest GMs in the business didn't take Randy Moss, that's a reason to dismiss him?

Teams that draft top 15 draft there for a reason (either Belichick steals their picks or they suck).

Sloopy
08-03-2011, 06:17 PM
and your opinion is wrong. or you'd make the worst gm ever. probably both.



because that was the point? you were using a worthless, passive-aggressive, /b/ argument, because you felt that what you had to say was too weak to stand on its own. awesome.

Thats not the point, you were using a worthless, overly-aggressive argument, to cover your lack of bringing any relevant information to the table on the subject other than to declare that I was 12 years old and had "clearly" never watched a football game before 2000. (I can do this all day too good sir)

The fact of the matter is that for those who did watch games before 2000 remember when Jerry didn't have all the records and there were a great number of people at the time who would have argued that Irvin was the best receiver in the league at the time. Just as much as there was a following across the nation for the 49'ers, there was an equal following for AMERICA'S TEAM. It was similar to how some people will tell you Fitz is the best in the league now and others will say Andre is the best in the league, and I'm sure by the time their respective careers are over we will be able to look at stats and claim one the winner of the argument.

So yes, in hindsight Jerry Rice is the greatest receiver of all time due to his amazing level of performance over a long career lending to him holding many NFL records. However, at the time when they were both playing no one would have thought someone a "bad" GM for taking Irving.

My opinion stands with Irving, yours may differ, its allowed, deal with it

Sloopy
08-03-2011, 06:28 PM
"Rice is remembered for his work ethic and dedication to the game. In his 20 NFL seasons, Rice missed only 10 regular season games, 7 of them in the 1997 season, and the other 3 in the strike-shortened season of 1987. His 303 games are by far the most ever played by an NFL wide receiver, and are only 72 games behind the NFL record for games played by any player. In addition to staying on the field, his work ethic showed in his dedication to conditioning and running precise routes, with coach Dennis Green calling him "the best route runner I've ever seen." Also known as one of the best blockers at his position, there was no aspect of playing wide receiver at which Rice did not excel.

In 1999, he was ranked number 2 on The Sporting News list of the 100 Greatest Football Players, behind only Jim Brown, and was 35 places ahead of the next-highest-ranked player then active, Deion Sanders, who played another five seasons.

On November 4, 2010, Rice was ranked number 1 on The Top 100: NFL's Greatest Players."


Also to toss in their something of my own, you keep saying "in hindsight of his total career, blah blah". I remember as a kid watching a Raiders/49ers MNF game in 94 where Jerry went for 127th TD, at that time he was already considered the GOAT and this was on 10 years into his career, so throw that looking back now ******** out. You admit Michael had to push off, which just goes to show he wasn't good enough to get seperation most of the time. that's not physcial that's cheap.

Again, I wont and have not argued that Jerry isn't the best of all time, there are many stats and records to prove this. However at the time that they were both playing in the early 90's it was not so clear cut and many would have argued at the time that Irvin was the best in the league.

I like Irvin and would take him, this is my only point, I am NOT arguing that Jerry isn't the greatest of all time.

And as for your time frame... '99 Irvin was out of the league. 1991-1998 Irvin only failed to put up a 1000 yard season once. In 91 he had an NFL BEST 1,523 yards and 8 TD's... in short, yes, at the time there were valid arguments for Irving over Jerry. My opinion is Irving.

Raiderz4Life
08-03-2011, 06:28 PM
I think only extreme Cowboy homer fans would have argued Irvin was better....even during that time.

Sloopy
08-03-2011, 06:29 PM
I think only extreme Cowboy homer fans would have argued Irvin was better....even during that time.

Your right, the fact that during some seasons he had better stats than Jerry didnt lend anything to it, had to just be homers. Also add in that those "cowboy homers" were abundant during this time period just as much as there were 9'ers

Sloopy
08-03-2011, 07:25 PM
*eyeroll*

who the hell is irving? fryar? why are we discussing him?

and no. NO ONE with any sense would have taken michael irvin over jerry rice, at *any* point in their respective careers. 'many people'? argumentum ad populum. who? quote them. name them. can't? it's because they didn't exist.

Ok... please quote the major populous that deemed Jerry greater during the early 90's. Can't? Name them. Can't? Quote them. Can't? Then I will claim that they don't exist despite my knowledge that they clearly did.

The fact is that one was not so much more dominant than the other during that time period. There were years were Irving lead the league in receiving yards and consistently put up 1000 yard seasons, so did Jerry.

You don't have to agree with my opinion or like the FACTS, but please don't act like they didn't happen. You sound like Mendenhall claiming planes didnt bring down the trade centers

Sloopy
08-03-2011, 07:28 PM
Not to mention I have yet to see you make a single valid point other than what essentially translates to "NU UH!" to whatever I say, or claiming me to be infantile

Sloopy
08-03-2011, 07:31 PM
Further more those people who don't exist would MOST DEFINITELY argue America's team over 9'ers any day. TRUST me, nostalgic Cowboys fans are rampant and will be willing to tell you about the triplet any day of the week, and there were even more fair-weather ones during the early 90's

Raiderz4Life
08-03-2011, 07:39 PM
You know you can edit everything into 1 post.

This isn't a 80s Cowboys vs 80s 8ers discussion. This is which receiver would you take when building a franchise and it has now become a Rice vs Irvin discussion in which Rice wins just about every category except maybe "lack of intelligence" which Irvin clearly takes by a mile.

descendency
08-03-2011, 07:53 PM
i'm saying that the 'hindsight' argument is ridiculous and works both ways.

So it's hindsight to call Randy Moss one of (well, I'm calling him 'the') the most gifted WRs of all time? He definitely has problems, but I can't see how that's hindsight.

Bengalsrocket
08-03-2011, 07:56 PM
Why does every thread njx9 participates in become an argument? I can't wait till the next time he breaks out his philosophy 101 class and teaches us what ad hominem or straw man arguments are (or maybe he learned it all from somethingawful, who knows).

phlysac
08-03-2011, 07:57 PM
Ok... please quote the major populous that deemed Jerry greater during the early 90's.

I'm not sure I get this.

1985 - NFC Offensive Rookie of the Year
1986 - Lead NFL in Receptions and Touchdowns Receiving
1987 - NFL MVP
1988 - Super Bowl MVP
1990 - Lead NFL in Receptions, Receiving Yards and Touchdowns Receiving

1991 - This is when Michael Irvin began to shine. I will give you that some may have argued that Irvin was having a better season or two and racked up tremendous stats of his own.

1994 - Jerry Rice breaks all-time Touchdown record and is universally regarded as the best Wide Receiver of All-Time.

I will give you that in the smallest of windows between 1991 and 1993, people may have argued for Irvin. But it was more based on the Cowboys INSANE popularity at the time, more than a side-by-side comparison of the two players.


Just my $0.02.

TheFinisher
08-03-2011, 08:35 PM
because you're wrong, and i'm not lying to make my 'argument' sound better.

let's try:

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=KC&p_theme=kc&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EAF40D339F5F2FE&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

"The greatest" fits him like a tailored suit. Rice, a San Francisco 49ers wide receiver, is the greatest receiver in NFL history." - 1994

or

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/USAToday/access/56244988.html?dids=56244988:56244988&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Dec+07%2C+1992&author=Tom+Weir&pub=USA+TODAY+(pre-1997+Fulltext)&desc=Rice+wants+to+drop+`greatest'+label&pqatl=google

"Rice wants to drop `greatest' label" - 1992

but yeah, unlike you, i *don't* have to make things up to play an absolutely horrible argument and an even worse opinion in the vain hope that someone will believe i know something about a guy whose name i can't even spell.



you've presented NO facts that have any remote relevance and your opinion is horrible. it's shocking that you thought it was worth saying the first place, and it should be embarrassing that you've continued to push it for this long. please go watch a game, and don't presume to tell someone who was actually conscious in the 90's what happened during that decade.



who gives a **** what any cowboys fans thought? how is their opinion REMOTELY relevant to the argument at hand, namely that taking michael irvin over jerry rice is symptomatic of a serious lack of anything approaching common sense.

Ok so here's the average through 1991-1995 when both players were still in their primes.

Irvin- 1,418 Yards, 7.6 TDs per yr, 89.8 Catches per year, 15.8 YPC

Rice- 1451 Yards, 13.4 Tds per, 99.2 Catches, 14.6 YPC

One could have easily argued that Irvin was better than Rice during this period, especially when you take into account what he did in the playoffs and his 3 Super Bowls.

Postseason:

Irvin: 74 Catches, 1158 yards, 8 TDs, 15.6 YPC


Rice: 57 Catches, 756 Yards, 6 TDs, 13.3 YPC

Rice had the benefit of longevity so obviously his career stats blow everybody else away, but if we're talking a Michael Irvin in his prime vs. a Rice in his prime it's certainly a fair argument.

Sloopy
08-03-2011, 08:51 PM
let someone know when you have something to actually contribute.

Pot calling kettle black?

My man above beat me to the stats line but here are some articles for you my friend:

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=KC&p_theme=kc&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EAF401184F9859F&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=UlkxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=3BIEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5204,6961087&dq=michael+irvin&hl=en

In both they talk about how he stacks up to his peers in the league including one regarding a head to head match up with Jerry himself.

Halsey
08-03-2011, 08:56 PM
Why does every thread njx9 participates in become an argument?

She is pretty aggravating at times, but give her credit for not being afraid to speak her mind and being a unique poster. If she gets too sassy with you, don't be afraid to dock her a few rep points. She'll pipe right down.

yo123
08-03-2011, 08:57 PM
She is pretty aggravating at times, but give her credit for not being afraid to speak her mind and being a unique poster. If she gets too sassy with you, don't be afraid to dock her a few rep points. She'll pipe right down.


Haha it's funny because you're calling him a girl.

Also lol at this entire argument. Only on NFLDC does a Michael Irvin vs. Jerry Rice argument actually exist.

Ness
08-03-2011, 09:14 PM
Ok so here's the average through 1991-1995 when both players were still in their primes.

Irvin- 1,418 Yards, 7.6 TDs per yr, 89.8 Catches per year, 15.8 YPC

Rice- 1451 Yards, 13.4 Tds per, 99.2 Catches, 14.6 YPC

One could have easily argued that Irvin was better than Rice during this period, especially when you take into account what he did in the playoffs and his 3 Super Bowls.

Postseason:

Irvin: 74 Catches, 1158 yards, 8 TDs, 15.6 YPC


Rice: 57 Catches, 756 Yards, 6 TDs, 13.3 YPC

Rice had the benefit of longevity so obviously his career stats blow everybody else away, but if we're talking a Michael Irvin in his prime vs. a Rice in his prime it's certainly a fair argument.

Didn't the Cowboys play in more postseason games during that span? And why are you choosing 1991 to 1995? Why not 1991 to 1998? Or 1993 to 1997? Or 1989 to 1992? I mean choosing practically the time when the Cowboys one all of their trophies seems a little like a set-up.

Sloopy
08-03-2011, 09:19 PM
Didn't the Cowboys play in more postseason games during that span? And why are you choosing 1991 to 1995? Why not 1991 to 1998? Or 1993 to 1997? Or 1989 to 1992? I mean choosing practically the time when the Cowboys one all of their trophies seems a little like a set-up.

Because it was Irvin's prime vs Rice's prime

Ness
08-03-2011, 09:25 PM
Because it was Irvin's prime vs Rice's prime

Well Irvin is a few years younger than Rice so I can contest that it isn't fair. How about taking the time from when they were both 25 to 30? You don't have to use the same time they played in the league.

So 1987 to 1982 for Rice.

And 1991 to 1996 for Irvin.

And don't worry, I'm not actually selecting the best seasons of Irvin's career deliberately and putting in Rice to fit Irvin's parameters. Seriously, that last attempt was so contrived.

By the way if we do it this way Rice has a few less yards than Irvin by about 300, but Rice dominates in touchdowns...and that includes a strike shortened season. But that could be augmented by Irvin play only 11 games in 1996.

But that is if we go by a pure statline, which would shouldn't have to. Perhaps at a certain time one could argue that Irvin was better than Rice or whatever, but that was said about a lot of players during that time. Sterling Sharpe and Andre Rison just to name a couple.

Sloopy
08-03-2011, 09:36 PM
Well Irvin is a few years younger than Rice so I can contest that it isn't fair. How about taking the time from when they were both 25 to 30? You don't have to use the same time they played in the league.

So 1987 to 1982 for Rice.

And 1991 to 1996 for Irvin.

And don't worry, I'm not actually selecting the best seasons of Irvin's career deliberately and putting in Rice to fit Irvin's parameters. Seriously, that last attempt was so contrived.

By the way if we do it this way Rice has a few less yards than Irvin by about 300, but Rice dominates in touchdowns...and that includes a strike shortened season. But that could be augmented by Irvin play only 11 games in 1996.

But that is if we go by a pure statline, which would shouldn't have to. Perhaps at a certain time one could argue that Irvin was better than Rice or whatever, but that was said about a lot of players during that time. Sterling Sharpe and Andre Rison just to name a couple.

Just to be a pain the article I posted hales him as better than those guys too :P but in all seriousness yes Rice seems to dominate TD's in almost any stat line but TD's aren't all that make a receiver.

boknows34
08-03-2011, 09:40 PM
This thread is on Page 6? It should have been dead and buried after Jerry Rice's name was mentioned the first time. I saw all of Rice's career and obviously all of Irvin's too; and Rice was on a different planet.

Borat
08-03-2011, 09:58 PM
Michael Irvin was a crack addict lolz.

Seriously, that's all I'm going to contribute because trying to put Irvin on Rice's level is just insane.

Ness
08-03-2011, 10:07 PM
Just to be a pain the article I posted hales him as better than those guys too :P but in all seriousness yes Rice seems to dominate TD's in almost any stat line but TD's aren't all that make a receiver.

Who said they were? That is just another category Rice dominated in. Irvin didn't in contrast.

All in all we shouldn't be talking about this. Irvin wasn't a better receiver than Rice end of story. If you wanted to take him first if you were building a team, be my guest.

Sloopy
08-03-2011, 10:14 PM
Michael Irvin was a crack addict lolz.

Seriously, that's all I'm going to contribute because trying to put Irvin on Rice's level is just insane.

It was cocaine get it right :P

Borat
08-03-2011, 10:41 PM
Cocaine's a helluva drug.

Saints-Tigers
08-04-2011, 12:38 AM
Jerry Rice had 4 more touchdowns in the 12 game season than Michael Irvin had in his two best touchdown seasons combined.

Jerry Rice had 10 touchdowns or more 9 out of 10 straight years. Michael Irvin had 10 touchdowns once, and it was exactly 10.

This isn't like one guy having 13 touchdowns and one guy having 15. Jerry was an unprecedented scoring machine, and couldn't be kept out of the end zone.

From age 36 to 40, Jerry had 37 touchdowns in those 5 years. Irvin was done at 33, and never had 5 years that could sniff what Jerry did when he was an old man by NFL standards getting the ball into the endzone.

I just like throwing Jerry Rice stats out there, because they are always mind blowing, lol.