Football Jerry Rice is #1...but who are the other GREATEST receivers of ALL-TIME ?

[wheeler281]

Topps- Nobody compared Swann to TO?
Furthermore I agree TO is a top 10 WR.
However you can not use stats of any kind compared to a receiver in the 70's


Modern day receivers benefit from a revamped rule book and the NFL's quest for offense

 

[dfr52]

Wide Receiver and Quarterback is a symbiotic relationship, just the same as QB and O-Line. A great quarterback can make a mediocre O-Line look great and a mediocre WR look great. Take that great quarterback and put him with a great wide receiver, they make each other look HOF-worthy.

If you're creating a list of top-10 receivers based on overall greatness and importance they played to the team, some of these lists are an absolute joke.

Lynn Swann may have been a great receiver, but it's not fair to anyone else on the list to talk about him for anything other than what he did. He was in a run-first offense in a run-first decade and his statistics suffered.

You can pick your poison and either call Swann a 4x Superbowl Champion or you can call him a top-10 receiver. You can't use selected logic when determining someone's worth. You can't say that IF they would've thrown the ball to him more, he would've accumulated the statistics because IF they would've thrown the ball to him more who knows if they would've won those championships.

If you're comparing players by era, of course he's one of the best receivers of the 70s. His inclusion as the number one receiver of the 70s probably has more to do with his Big-Game plays than anything else though.

Lynn Swann played 9 years, which isn't all that much compared to a lot of the guys out there. I'm not for rewarding longevity, unless it's productive longevity. Many receivers were productive well after 9 years.

Compare Swann's stats to Terrell Owens:

OWENS:

Top-10 Receiptions (3 times) Top-5 (2 times)
Top-10 Yards (3 times) Top-5 (2 times)
RecTD First(2 times), Top-5(5 times), Top-10, (7 times)

SWANN:
Top-10 Rec. (2), Top-5(0)
Top-10 Yards (3), Top-5(1)
First(1 time) Top-10 (3), Top-5(2),


This assumes that Terrell Owens retired at the exact same time as Lynn Swann and didn't compile any statistics after 2004. This isn't about counting stats, it's about how often you ranked inside the top-10.

You can look at Terrell's stats and say he accumulated them in a passing era and he did. However, he accumulated them at a greater rate than almost everyone else.

I don't even think Swann was the best receiver on the team! A healthy John Stallworth consistently put up great numbers.

Very true, and great OL can make an average QB look good and great WR can make a solid QB look spectacular.

 

[toppsarchives]

Topps- Nobody compared Swann to TO?
Furthermore I agree TO is a top 10 WR.
However you can not use stats of any kind compared to a receiver in the 70's


Modern day receivers benefit from a revamped rule book and the NFL's quest for offense

You don't think it's fair to compare how T.O. did against his peers to how Swann did against his peers?

That's the only way to even begin to compare across eras. If you think Swann deserves to be in the HOF because he was a great blocker and did things that weren't recorded by statistics, that's your argument for his HOF induction. There are plenty of players in today's game that put up middle of the pack statistics but contribute in other areas.

The same argument could make Hines Ward a HOFer. Both he and Swann compared to their peers very similarly in terms of receiving statistics.

The only way to judge someone is how much better than their peers they were.

When you do that, you'll probably end up with Hutson as number one and Rice as number two.

 

[dfr52]

You don't think it's fair to compare how T.O. did against his peers to how Swann did against his peers?

That's the only way to even begin to compare across eras. If you think Swann deserves to be in the HOF because he was a great blocker and did things that weren't recorded by statistics, that's your argument for his HOF induction. There are plenty of players in today's game that put up middle of the pack statistics but contribute in other areas.

The same argument could make Hines Ward a HOFer. Both he and Swann compared to their peers very similarly in terms of receiving statistics.

The only way to judge someone is how much better than their peers they were.

When you do that, you'll probably end up with Hutson as number one and Rice as number two.

I would have Rice and Hutson sharing #1 on my list.

 

[ac-n-mike]

HUTSON? who is that?

 

[dfr52]

HUTSON? who is that?

:spit:

 

[Ground Support]

LOL!

Don Hutson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[yankeesfan24]

can someone tell my why Chris Carter is NOT in the HOF, but Irvin is? i know, i love Irvin being a Cowboys fan, but rings aside, Carter was a MUCH better player

 

[dfr52]

can someone tell my why Chris Carter is NOT in the HOF, but Irvin is? i know, i love Irvin being a Cowboys fan, but rings aside, Carter was a MUCH better player

I disagree, Irvin was right behind Rice as the best WR in league (though it was only for a brief period due to his off field issues). Irvin and Rice were able to make plays against Sanders and not may did this in Sanders' prime.

Not wining a ring when the Vikings offense was the most explosive in the league hurts him as well. Critics of Moss will bring this up as well when he becomes a candidate.

 

[Ground Support]

Cris Carter is a better WR then Irvin IMO..

 

[kordell2000]

Don't forget about Hines Ward. He leads the steelers in yards, receptions and receiving td's all time. He is such a physical receiver but no one gives him any credit.

 

[tndcollectables]

^^^^^^^^^^^just waitin' for u 2 toot a steelers guy

 

[ctkenjr]

Hines Ward is possibly the dirtiest WR in the league, albeit a talented one, but still one of the dirtiest. I used to like him, but the more I watch him I lose more and more respect for the guy.

Again, a talented WR, but the dirty shots are not necessary.

 

[dx2010]

Ok steve smith carolina one of the most clutch recievera of all time the way a 5'9'' guy can leap over charles woodson and another corner catch the ball and bring his team that much closer to a victory hinea ward mever did that marvin harrison did micheal irvin did tim brown was not great but he did what a reciever was supposed to do atch the ball but you are all forgetting that tim brown used stikem on his hands he also had a quaterback to throw him the ball. Jerry rice is the beat by far but chris carter number 2 yea right randy moss is better than carter and moss doesnt even deserve this list. T.O. has that stats to prove he deserves the list he is mouthy has off and on the feild problems but so did brett favre chris carter and mike vick. TO is playing the game he loves and making money while doing it TO learned from the best and if you watch the moves he made as niner an eagle a cowboy a bill and as of late bengal he plays with integrity and a will to win every player wants the ball but only the best go get it

 

[toppsarchives]

Ok steve smith carolina one of the most clutch recievera of all time the way a 5'9'' guy can leap over charles woodson and another corner catch the ball and bring his team that much closer to a victory hinea ward mever did that marvin harrison did micheal irvin did tim brown was not great but he did what a reciever was supposed to do atch the ball but you are all forgetting that tim brown used stikem on his hands he also had a quaterback to throw him the ball. Jerry rice is the beat by far but chris carter number 2 yea right randy moss is better than carter and moss doesnt even deserve this list. T.O. has that stats to prove he deserves the list he is mouthy has off and on the feild problems but so did brett favre chris carter and mike vick. TO is playing the game he loves and making money while doing it TO learned from the best and if you watch the moves he made as niner an eagle a cowboy a bill and as of late bengal he plays with integrity and a will to win every player wants the ball but only the best go get it

Is this english?

Steve Smith is a great receiver but making a handful of highlight plays doesn't mean that you're clutch.

Carter was an absolute beast and I think I'd take him over Irvin. Irvin provided mismatches on every play and was a monster but Carter's actual skill-set rather than physical attributes were amazing. Obviously everything counts towards your career, physical and skills, but I think Carter allowed you to do more things. Irvin was built to catch touchdowns and Carter wasn't, but remember, All CC did was catch touchdowns.