Who is more of a Hall of Fame lock?

[Twyst]

If we're talking any WR ever, for just one season, I'd probably take Rice in 87.

65 Catches, 1078 yards, 16.6 YPC, 22 TDs.

Id still take moss in 03



111 catches, 1632 yards, 17 td's

 

[dargonking999]

I'm sorry Dargon but there is no debate. By all means ask Michael Irvin himself. Jerry Rice is the best football player to ever strap on a helmet regardless of position. It isn't even close.

I am in the minority, but you never know what time had in store for Irvin's career.

 

[03EBZ06]

Now here is the million dollar question. If you could have Michael irvin at the top of his game or Jerry rice at the top of his game for 1 season, which one do you take?

I'd take Rice. At his prime, I don't believe anyone was better than him.

 

[Stautner]

I agree. I don't think there's any question. However, for a time, I do believe that Irvin was the best WR in the NFL, including Rice. Over the span of each players career, it is not debatable but for a specific time frame, I do believe Irvin was better then Rice.

I am in the minority, but you never know what time had in store for Irvin's career.

I suppose in the best stretch of Irvin's career you could say he was comparable. But even then, Irvin's numbers fall short.

YEARS 1991-1995
Irvin - 7,093 yards and 38 TD's
Rice - 7,257 yards and 67 TD's

HERE'S PROBABLY THE MOST TELLING THING:

For Irvin's 12 year career he had 11,904 yards and 65 TD's.

For the first 12 years of Rice's career he had 16,377 yards and 154 TD's.

So at the same place in their careers Rice was already blowing Irvin away.

 

[joseephuss]

I can think of only three positions where a huge majority of fans (90%+)would agree on the best of all-time.

DE: Reggie White
OLB: Lawrence Taylor
WR: Jerry Rice

I have heard debates at DE with Deacon Jones. I didn't get to watch much of Deacon, but I have heard people talk about how good he was in his day.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I suppose in the best stretch of Irvin's career you could say he was comparable. But even then, Irvin's numbers fall short.

YEARS 1991-1995
Irvin - 7,093 yards and 38 TD's
Rice - 7,257 yards and 67 TD's

HERE'S PROBABLY THE MOST TELLING THING:

For Irvin's 12 year career he had 11,904 yards and 65 TD's.

For the first 12 years of Rice's career he had 16,377 yards and 154 TD's.

So at the same place in their careers Rice was already blowing Irvin away.

His numbers fall short because of the offenses each played in but IMO, Irvin was the toughest match up in the NFL for a good 4 or 5 years. Irvin will say that Rice was the best WR ever and he is correct. However, Deion would say that Michael Irvin was the toughest WR he ever played against.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I have heard debates at DE with Deacon Jones. I didn't get to watch much of Deacon, but I have heard people talk about how good he was in his day.

I believe Decon Jones was the best defensive player ever. When you get right down to the top 3 or 4 guys, there will always be a case to be made on which one was actually the best but I would take Jones in that discussion.

 

[joseephuss]

I suppose in the best stretch of Irvin's career you could say he was comparable. But even then, Irvin's numbers fall short.

YEARS 1991-1995
Irvin - 7,093 yards and 38 TD's
Rice - 7,257 yards and 67 TD's

HERE'S PROBABLY THE MOST TELLING THING:

For Irvin's 12 year career he had 11,904 yards and 65 TD's.

For the first 12 years of Rice's career he had 16,377 yards and 154 TD's.

So at the same place in their careers Rice was already blowing Irvin away.

I am a big Irvin fan. He is not as good as Rice. I don't think Rice is the best football player to ever strap on a helmet. There are just too many variables in my opinion to give that kind of title to a wide receiver. I do think he is the best wide out in NFL history. No question.

Rice did have the luxury of joining a team his rookie season that had won the Superbowl the previous season. One with a Hall of Fame QB playing in his prime. Irvin joined a Cowboys team with Steve Peuller at quarterback and was essentially starting over. Irvin did get Aikman, but Troy had to go through some growing pains. Michael didn't help matters by getting hurt often his first few years in the league, but even if healthy he would not have approached the numbers that Rice was putting up.

I never understood the argument of Rice playing in the West Coast offense as a negative. He was just good. Sure he caught some passes on short routes. He turned those into big gainers. There are also plenty of highlights of him just running deep patterns and catching TDs. Most routes I saw him run were very similar to Irvin. Quick slants, skinny posts and outs. Michael probably would have had better stats if he played in San Fran, but I just don't see him approaching Rice's totals.

For a brief period I think Irvin was playing at a level pretty near to Rice. That was during the Superbowl run for Dallas. I might say they were equal during that period, but Rice was good before and after that run for Irvin.

I agree that 1987 for Rice was a great year. Scoring 22 TDs as a receiver was just outstanding. You have to take into account that he only played in 12 games that year because of the lockout/scab games. How many TDs would he have scored had he played in all 16 games?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I never understood the argument of Rice playing in the West Coast offense as a negative.

Very good post all around Josee. I agree, for the most part. In regards to offenses each played in, I actually view it as more a situation of the Cowboys using a heavily run oriented offense as opposed to Rice playing in a WC. I mean, because the WC did not use the runnng game in the traditional way, I do think that makes a difference but by and large, I think the true question between each players offense was Emmitt. Because Emmitt was there, Irvin was never going to see the same kinds of opportunities to catch the ball or score TDs. Not a bad thing and in certain situations, it probably helped Irvin a great deal as well. In the end, Rice is the best WR ever IMO.

 

[Stautner]

His numbers fall short because of the offenses each played in but IMO, Irvin was the toughest match up in the NFL for a good 4 or 5 years. Irvin will say that Rice was the best WR ever and he is correct. However, Deion would say that Michael Irvin was the toughest WR he ever played against.

I would agree to a point - the offense SF ran was a little more open and probably helped Rice's numbers.

But that can't explain it all - especially not the TD totals, which are so overwhelmingly in Rice's favor that it's mind boggling.

And it's not as if Rice didn't share the offensive load with some other pretty good players (Taylor, Craig, Clark .......).

Nevertheless, we are just nitpicking here whenr really we all - except one - agree Rice clearly and unquestionably was the best of all time.

 

[Hostile]

I am in the minority, but you never know what time had in store for Irvin's career.

Like I said, ask Irvin himself. He's the author of the nickname "Jesus in cleats" for Jerry Rice and has himself dubbed him the best football player ever.

Oh, and if injuries are a criteria then you can throw Sterling Sharpe in the mix too.

Actually, no you can't and that's the point. Jerry Rice is in a league all by himself.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Both are locks

I admire Green for his longevity, and his ability to keeps his ability prime. While Deon seemed to bounce from team to team. Green stayed put, and always shut his WR Down. He may have been a skin head, but he was still a damn good player.

no he didn't, Irvin abused him almost regularly

btw, I could be wrong, but I don't remember hearing of, or seeing, Green shutting down his side of the field like Deion did

Deion>Green, but both should be locks

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Who was the first running back in the NFL to get 1000 rushing yards and a 1000 receiving yards in a single season?

Roger Craig, and John Taylor was no slouch either, or that TE they had back in the day

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I have heard debates at DE with Deacon Jones. I didn't get to watch much of Deacon, but I have heard people talk about how good he was in his day.

if they were counting sacks as an official statistic back when Deacon was playing, Reggie White probably would have fallen well short of him

 

[Concord]

No question Both.

And they Both deserve it...without doubt.

 

[lane]

darrell green was the best cornerback to play in the national football league.











period.

 

[mmohican29]

Deion was better. But he's my all time least fave Cowboy, and that includes TO, whom i am warming up to slightly.

 

[apickmans]

darrell green was the best cornerback to play in the national football league.











period.

i like the way you think.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

Darrell Green or Deion Sanders? Maybe you don't consider one of them as a lock.

I don't know I am bored at work today.

I guess I think Darrell Green will definitely get in on the first try.

Holy Mother of God!

Hurry up, preseason!!!

 

[Zaxor]

Like I said, ask Irvin himself. He's the author of the nickname "Jesus in cleats" for Jerry Rice and has himself dubbed him the best football player ever.

Oh, and if injuries are a criteria then you can throw Sterling Sharpe in the mix too.

Actually, no you can't and that's the point. Jerry Rice is in a league all by himself.

Don Hutson was the GOAT why would anyone think differently.

http://www.profootballhof.com/history/decades/1940s/don_hutson.jsp

The 1940s and Amazing Don Hutson

"Hutson Does It Again!"

"Don Paces Packers to World Title!"

"Amazing Hutson Can''t Be Stopped!"

Headlines of this nature were commonplace during the 11-year reign of Don Hutson with the Green Bay Packers from 1935 through 1945. They tell, in a few short sentences, why "the Alabama Antelope" is still considered by many as the greatest pass receiver who ever lived.
Without question, Hutson is the "yardstick" player of the pass-receiving profession. He caught a touchdown "bomb" on his very first play as a rookie and wound up with 99 touchdown receptions, a record that stood for more than four decades. When he retired after the 1945 season, Hutson had caught 488 passes. The second-place receiver at the time had just 190 receptions.

MY COMMENTS: (think about that for a minute also remember what the ball look like at that time and that the DB's could mug a WR not like when Rice came in and the DB's couldn't even breath on them without a flag being thrown)

The other marks Hutson set once filled pages and he still has several notations in the NFL record book.
By any interpretation, his marks, when compared with his contemporaries, clearly demonstrate just how much "a man ahead of his time" Hutson really was. Along with Sammy Baugh, the great passer who joined the Washington Commanders in 1937, two years after Hutson became a Packer, Don was a dominant factor in the offensive evolution of pro football. When Hutson and Baugh first entered the NFL, pro football was a run-oriented game with the forward pass being used only in desperation or as a surprise play. By the time the two retired, the forward pass had become a major part of every NFL’s team offense.
When Hutson joined the Packers as a rookie, there were many who doubted that the skinny athlete could stand the pounding he was certain to receive in pro football. It wasn’t long, however, before his mere presence on the field had changed the defensive concepts of the entire NFL. Such measures as double coverage and triple-teaming were unheard of before Hutson came on the scene.
When he retired, Hutson had rewritten the NFL record book and held nearly every major receiving record.

Don Hutson was the best wr of the first half of the 20th century! +--------------------------+-------------------------+ | Rushing | Receiving |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+|
1935 gnb | 9 | 6 22 3.7 0 | 18 420 23.3 6 |
1936 gnb | 12 | 1 -3 -3.0 0 | 34 536 15.8 8 ||
1937 gnb | 11 | 14 26 1.9 0 | 41 552 13.5 7 ||
1938 gnb | 10 | 3 -1 -0.3 0 | 32 548 17.1 9 ||
1939 gnb | 11 | 5 26 5.2 0 | 34 846 24.9 6 ||
1940 gnb | 11 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 45 664 14.8 7 ||
1941 gnb | 11 | 4 22 5.5 2 | 58 738 12.7 10 ||
1942 gnb | 11 | 3 4 1.3 0 | 74 1211 16.4 17 ||
1943 gnb | 10 | 6 41 6.8 0 | 47 776 16.5 11 ||
1944 gnb | 10 | 12 87 7.2 0 | 58 866 14.9 9 ||
1945 gnb | 10 | 8 60 7.5 1 | 47 834 17.7 9 |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+|
TOTAL | 116 | 62 284 4.6 3 | 488 7991 16.4 99 |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
NOTE: seasonal top 10 finishes are listed only for seasons 1960 or later.