Home Sports Talk
Options

Mt. Rushmore of wide receivers

doubledragondoubledragon Posts: 23,255 ✭✭✭✭✭
edited August 16, 2023 10:14AM in Sports Talk

Bengals Ja'Marr Chase was asked what his Mt. Rushmore of wide receivers would be and he said Jerry Rice, Cooper Kupp, Antonio Brown, and Calvin Johnson. Here's my Mt. Rushmore of wide receivers, in no particular order.

Calvin Johnson
Randy Moss
Terrell Owens
Jerry Rice

«1

Comments

  • Options
    perkdogperkdog Posts: 29,774 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Can't really upgrade that list of yours DD

  • Options
    doubledragondoubledragon Posts: 23,255 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @perkdog said:
    Can't really upgrade that list of yours DD

    Thank you, your confidence in my list is much appreciated. I'm feeling cocky now, perhaps even a little arrogant.

  • Options
    perkdogperkdog Posts: 29,774 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 16, 2023 11:05AM

    @doubledragon said:

    @perkdog said:
    Can't really upgrade that list of yours DD

    Thank you, your confidence in my list is much appreciated. I'm feeling cocky now, perhaps even a little arrogant.

    🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

  • Options
    Mickey71Mickey71 Posts: 4,240 ✭✭✭✭

    @doubledragon said:
    Bengals Ja'Marr Chase was asked what his Mt. Rushmore of wide receivers would be and he said Jerry Rice, Cooper Kupp, Antonio Brown, and Calvin Johnson. Here's my Mt. Rushmore of wide receivers, in no particular order.

    Calvin Johnson
    Randy Moss
    Terrell Owens
    Jerry Rice

    Do you have Antonio Brown and Michael Irvin on your picture?

  • Options
    doubledragondoubledragon Posts: 23,255 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Mickey71 said:

    @doubledragon said:
    Bengals Ja'Marr Chase was asked what his Mt. Rushmore of wide receivers would be and he said Jerry Rice, Cooper Kupp, Antonio Brown, and Calvin Johnson. Here's my Mt. Rushmore of wide receivers, in no particular order.

    Calvin Johnson
    Randy Moss
    Terrell Owens
    Jerry Rice

    Do you have Antonio Brown and Michael Irvin on your picture?

    Yes, about that, it is strictly a photo for decoration, to add a little visual flavor to the thread. It does not reflect the views or opinions of the OP.

  • Options
    2dueces2dueces Posts: 6,304 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Errrr. No. Lance Alworth needs to take one down. Owns would be my choice.

    W.C.Fields
    "I spent 50% of my money on alcohol, women, and gambling. The other half I wasted.
  • Options
    doubledragondoubledragon Posts: 23,255 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @2dueces said:
    Errrr. No. Lance Alworth needs to take one down. Owns would be my choice.

    No!

  • Options
    craig44craig44 Posts: 10,777 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 16, 2023 1:16PM

    That is pretty close to my list as well, I would remove Owens and insert Don Hutson. the man was decades ahead of his time. When he played in the run-heavy 1930s and 40s, he was worlds ahead of the other receivers. while his numbers may not look amazing today, vs his peers they were extraordinary. He scored 99 TD as a wide receiver back in the 40s, leading the league 9 times in the 11 seasons he played. he also led in receiving yards 7 times in his 11 seasons and receptions 8 out of 11 seasons. very jim brown type numbers.

    he actually was a league leader in WR stats more than Rice was in half the years played

    give me
    Hutson
    Rice
    Moss
    Johnson

    George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.

  • Options
    doubledragondoubledragon Posts: 23,255 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Oh no, no, no!

  • Options
    Alfonz24Alfonz24 Posts: 3,081 ✭✭✭✭✭

    #LetsGoSwitzerlandThe Man Who Does Not Read Has No Advantage Over the Man Who Cannot Read. The biggest obstacle to progress is a habit of “buying what we want and begging for what we need.”You get the Freedom you fight for and get the Oppression you deserve.
  • Options
    perkdogperkdog Posts: 29,774 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Like him or not Terrel Owen's belongs in the top 5, he was absolutely elite

  • Options
    LandrysFedoraLandrysFedora Posts: 1,872 ✭✭✭✭✭

    My 4: Jerry Rice, Randy Moss, Larry Fitzgerald, and Fred Biletnikoff

  • Options
    GroceryRackPackGroceryRackPack Posts: 2,625 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @LandrysFedora said:
    My 4: Jerry Rice, Randy Moss, Larry Fitzgerald, and Fred Biletnikoff

    hey Landry...Oh Yeah on the Stick-Em dude...

  • Options
    GroceryRackPackGroceryRackPack Posts: 2,625 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Yes Jerry Rice...and for sure Lance & Fred... and now i'm kind of leaning towards Largent...but then again maybe John Stallworth...and too how 'bout Cliff Branch... B)

  • Options
    doubledragondoubledragon Posts: 23,255 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Nope, gotta have Owens, he was dangerous and explosive after the catch. Watch him here, he makes a move and just blows the secondary out of the water.

  • Options
    Basebal21Basebal21 Posts: 2,565 ✭✭✭✭

    Owens for sure. Moss, Rice have to there as well. The 4th spot gets tricky. Calvin could have been the most talented of the rest, but he retired so early. Theres a strong case for Fitz Harrison is another one theres a strong case for. There's several guys for that final spot where my answer might change depending on the week

  • Options
    thisistheshowthisistheshow Posts: 9,386 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @craig44 said:
    That is pretty close to my list as well, I would remove Owens and insert Don Hutson. the man was decades ahead of his time. When he played in the run-heavy 1930s and 40s, he was worlds ahead of the other receivers. while his numbers may not look amazing today, vs his peers they were extraordinary. He scored 99 TD as a wide receiver back in the 40s, leading the league 9 times in the 11 seasons he played. he also led in receiving yards 7 times in his 11 seasons and receptions 8 out of 11 seasons. very jim brown type numbers.

    he actually was a league leader in WR stats more than Rice was in half the years played

    give me
    Hutson
    Rice
    Moss
    Johnson

    ....
    I like the intent of your post, which is giving credit to wide receivers who played in a running league. Hutson obviously stands out. It shows how hard it is to narrow down any such list. I do not like you removing Owens, as he was the best that I ever saw play, in my opinion of course.

    I did just go and watch some film of Hutson and read some discussion. It seems like he came along and his TD receptions were sort of like Babe Ruth's HRs.

  • Options
    perkdogperkdog Posts: 29,774 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 16, 2023 7:07PM

    @Basebal21 said:
    Owens for sure. Moss, Rice have to there as well. The 4th spot gets tricky. Calvin could have been the most talented of the rest, but he retired so early. Theres a strong case for Fitz Harrison is another one theres a strong case for. There's several guys for that final spot where my answer might change depending on the week

    My thoughts exactly

    4th spot could be Allworth, Hutson, Fitzgerald, heck I might even think about Sterling Sharpe, obviously he didn't play long enough but I always felt he could have been up.there with Owen's ect..

  • Options
    craig44craig44 Posts: 10,777 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I could be fine with either owens or Johnson as the 4th man. Owens clearly had career longevity, Johnson was more dominant. both were fantastic.

    I still dont see an argument keeping Hutson off the top 4. He dominated his competition. Very nearly to a Jim Brown level. I really dont think he should even be considered the 4th man either. check out his black ink compared to the others. it is pretty remarkable.

    George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.

  • Options
    thisistheshowthisistheshow Posts: 9,386 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @craig44 said:
    I could be fine with either owens or Johnson as the 4th man. Owens clearly had career longevity, Johnson was more dominant. both were fantastic.

    I still dont see an argument keeping Hutson off the top 4. He dominated his competition. Very nearly to a Jim Brown level. I really dont think he should even be considered the 4th man either. check out his black ink compared to the others. it is pretty remarkable.

    ...
    Also remarkable is that it took until 1989 to break his TD record (Steve Largent).

  • Options
    Basebal21Basebal21 Posts: 2,565 ✭✭✭✭

    @perkdog said:

    @Basebal21 said:
    Owens for sure. Moss, Rice have to there as well. The 4th spot gets tricky. Calvin could have been the most talented of the rest, but he retired so early. Theres a strong case for Fitz Harrison is another one theres a strong case for. There's several guys for that final spot where my answer might change depending on the week

    My thoughts exactly

    4th spot could be Allworth, Hutson, Fitzgerald, heck I might even think about Sterling Sharpe, obviously he didn't play long enough but I always felt he could have been up.there with Owen's ect..

    Yea longevity definitely has to be taken into consideration when talking these types of things. Andrew Jones is really a great example, if he retired after his first 10 years people would be saying he was one of the best CFers of all time.

    Rice, Owens and Moss really were just above everyone else. Rice and Owens were two of the smartest WRs to play that could read defenses and knew what everyone was supposed to be doing. Moss you could basically just throw the ball up and hed out run the D or win a jump ball most of the time, did have some effort issues though. After that theres a bunch of really good route runners and specimens but theres a decent sized group where they dont really separate themselves or just didnt play long enough

    I guess I'd probably lean Fitz

  • Options
    dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 4,145 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @doubledragon said:
    Here's my Mt. Rushmore of wide receivers, in no particular order.

    Calvin Johnson
    Randy Moss
    Terrell Owens
    Jerry Rice

    This is like - and I mean exactly like - making a baseball Mt. Rushmore and carving Mantle, Mays, Aaron, and Musial. People would wonder why the greatest four ever happened to all play at exactly the same time, or if they even played baseball at all before the 1940s.

    Under the rules of football that came into being in the 1970's, you've got a fine Mt. Rushmore. But without that arbitrary restriction, there are other WR every bit as deserving. A WR Mt. Rushmore without Don Hutson, for an obvious example, is just silly.

    This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
  • Options
    doubledragondoubledragon Posts: 23,255 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @dallasactuary said:

    @doubledragon said:
    Here's my Mt. Rushmore of wide receivers, in no particular order.

    Calvin Johnson
    Randy Moss
    Terrell Owens
    Jerry Rice

    This is like - and I mean exactly like - making a baseball Mt. Rushmore and carving Mantle, Mays, Aaron, and Musial. People would wonder why the greatest four ever happened to all play at exactly the same time, or if they even played baseball at all before the 1940s.

    Under the rules of football that came into being in the 1970's, you've got a fine Mt. Rushmore. But without that arbitrary restriction, there are other WR every bit as deserving. A WR Mt. Rushmore without Don Hutson, for an obvious example, is just silly.

    Fair enough, you are entitled to your opinion, and Hutson was a beast, but I'm sticking with my four.

  • Options
    4for44for4 Posts: 675 ✭✭✭

    @2dueces said:
    Errrr. No. Lance Alworth needs to take one down. Owns would be my choice.

    I saw Owens drop way too many easy balls, and I don’t watch too much football either.

    Forum members on ignore
    Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
    daltex

  • Options
    4for44for4 Posts: 675 ✭✭✭

    It’s funny how everyone is neglecting the 60’s and 70’s receivers, when the run trap offense was used more then the west coast passing offense.

    Just because guys numbers in the 80’s and 90’s are better doesn’t mean they were better.

    Terrell Owens is no Cliff Branch, and Fred Belitnikoff caught every pass in his reach. Guy was amazing.

    Forum members on ignore
    Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
    daltex

  • Options
    4for44for4 Posts: 675 ✭✭✭
    edited August 18, 2023 5:12AM


    Like was said, the guy caught everything thrown to him.
    Has a D-1 college award named after him.
    He didn’t have breakaway speed like Branch, but the NFL has never had a more sure handed reliable receiver like him. Although there are others who have come close I’m sure.

    Forum members on ignore
    Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
    daltex

  • Options
    4for44for4 Posts: 675 ✭✭✭
    edited August 18, 2023 6:37AM

    In case anyone was wondering Cliff Branch ran a 4.6 40 at 64 years old.

    Jerry Rice’s best 40 time ever was 4.71

    Cliff Branch was better then Rice in my book.

    Forum members on ignore
    Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
    daltex

  • Options
    1948_Swell_Robinson1948_Swell_Robinson Posts: 1,776 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @thisistheshow said:

    @craig44 said:
    That is pretty close to my list as well, I would remove Owens and insert Don Hutson. the man was decades ahead of his time. When he played in the run-heavy 1930s and 40s, he was worlds ahead of the other receivers. while his numbers may not look amazing today, vs his peers they were extraordinary. He scored 99 TD as a wide receiver back in the 40s, leading the league 9 times in the 11 seasons he played. he also led in receiving yards 7 times in his 11 seasons and receptions 8 out of 11 seasons. very jim brown type numbers.

    he actually was a league leader in WR stats more than Rice was in half the years played

    give me
    Hutson
    Rice
    Moss
    Johnson

    ....
    I like the intent of your post, which is giving credit to wide receivers who played in a running league. Hutson obviously stands out. It shows how hard it is to narrow down any such list. I do not like you removing Owens, as he was the best that I ever saw play, in my opinion of course.

    I did just go and watch some film of Hutson and read some discussion. It seems like he came along and his TD receptions were sort of like Babe Ruth's HRs.

    That's a good analogy with Hutson's TD and the Ruth HR's. They were both pioneers paving the way. It doesn't necessarily make them superior to players from later era's that had different environments making it harder to surpass their peers in a similar manner.

    However, MT Rushmore itself is similar in that regard. Two of the presidents, Washington and Lincoln, presided in the early origins of the country through a Revolution and a Civil War, circumstances that which with victory achieved are unmatchable in future president achievements. Does that make them better presidents? Don't know, but without those victories, all future victories and achievements may not have been possible(or looked vastly different).

    As such, a Mt Rushmore without such key early difference makers isn't really a Mt Rushmore.

    As such add Hutson and remove Owens. Owens was a diva and cancer, two things one can do without on a team when there are other choices at least 99% as good.

    Hutson had world class speed too.

  • Options
    perkdogperkdog Posts: 29,774 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @4for4 said:

    @2dueces said:
    Errrr. No. Lance Alworth needs to take one down. Owns would be my choice.

    I saw Owens drop way too many easy balls, and I don’t watch too much football either.

    I saw him play a lot and he was electrifying against world class athletes that were big and fast.

    I will take that against a guy who excelled against part time football players back in the 40's

  • Options
    1948_Swell_Robinson1948_Swell_Robinson Posts: 1,776 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Hutson
    Alworth
    Rice
    Calvin Johnson

    I guess I'm kind of getting tired of athletes being divas, and Moss and Owens would be the first two choices on a diva Mt Rushmore, so they can stick it.

    Johnson short career hurts a little, but can't deny the production in his prime and his physical attributes. Don't need him for a full career anyway. I would never pay a lengthy contract extension to someone like Moss or Owens anyway to take advantage of their longevity where their diva status would only rise and hurt the team.

  • Options
    4for44for4 Posts: 675 ✭✭✭
    edited August 18, 2023 8:37AM

    @perkdog said:

    @4for4 said:

    @2dueces said:
    Errrr. No. Lance Alworth needs to take one down. Owns would be my choice.

    I saw Owens drop way too many easy balls, and I don’t watch too much football either.

    I saw him play a lot and he was electrifying against world class athletes that were big and fast.

    I will take that against a guy who excelled against part time football players back in the 40's

    He’s not even close to his contemporaries. Let alone Belitnikoff who caught everything.

    Moss and Owens aren’t even close to Fitzgerald’s efficiency.

    https://www.pff.com/news/drop-percentage

    Moss and Owens drop percentage was way higher then the better receivers of their day.

    Forum members on ignore
    Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
    daltex

  • Options
    perkdogperkdog Posts: 29,774 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 18, 2023 9:15AM

    @4for4 said:

    @perkdog said:

    @4for4 said:

    @2dueces said:
    Errrr. No. Lance Alworth needs to take one down. Owns would be my choice.

    I saw Owens drop way too many easy balls, and I don’t watch too much football either.

    I saw him play a lot and he was electrifying against world class athletes that were big and fast.

    I will take that against a guy who excelled against part time football players back in the 40's

    He’s not even close to his contemporaries. Let alone Belitnikoff who caught everything.

    Moss and Owens aren’t even close to Fitzgerald’s efficiency.

    https://www.pff.com/news/drop-percentage

    Moss and Owens drop percentage was way higher then the better receivers of their day.

    Lots of variables involved in drops likr any other stat, the bottom line is Owens is what 3rd all time in receiving yardage? That counts for something.

    Fitzgerald was absolutely great but he benefited a lot from longevity like Rice but a fair argument for being as good as Owens.

    Your not going to tell me the talent was even remotely the same amongst the defenses that Belitnikof faced compared to Owens though.

  • Options
    4for44for4 Posts: 675 ✭✭✭

    @perkdog said:

    @4for4 said:

    @perkdog said:

    @4for4 said:

    @2dueces said:
    Errrr. No. Lance Alworth needs to take one down. Owns would be my choice.

    I saw Owens drop way too many easy balls, and I don’t watch too much football either.

    I saw him play a lot and he was electrifying against world class athletes that were big and fast.

    I will take that against a guy who excelled against part time football players back in the 40's

    He’s not even close to his contemporaries. Let alone Belitnikoff who caught everything.

    Moss and Owens aren’t even close to Fitzgerald’s efficiency.

    https://www.pff.com/news/drop-percentage

    Moss and Owens drop percentage was way higher then the better receivers of their day.

    Lots of variables involved in drops likr any other stat, the bottom line is Owens is what 3rd all time in receiving yardage? That counts for something.

    Fitzgerald was absolutely great but he benefited a lot from longevity like Rice but a fair argument for being as good as Owens.

    Your not going to tell me the talent was even remotely the same amongst the defenses that Belitnikof faced compared to Owens though.

    I would easily place Fitzgerald and Rice on Mount Rushmore. If anyone leaves those two off then I smh.

    To compare defenses from the 70’s to now just compare Mel Blount and Hollywood Henderson’s 40 to players of today. Not much difference at all really.

    Branch would dust Jerry Rice in the 40 and 100m.

    Forum members on ignore
    Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
    daltex

  • Options
    4for44for4 Posts: 675 ✭✭✭
    edited August 18, 2023 9:45AM

    Mel Blount was 6’3 and 205 and ran a 4.4 forty.
    A smaller Deion Sanders ran a 4.3 forty. He was 6’1 195.

    Blount hit you with 10 extra pounds at .1 less seconds.

    More pain indeed.

    I don’t understand why people think players weren’t tougher in the 70’s.
    They most certainly were either as tough if not tougher. Would love to see Deion try to tackle Earl Campbell the way Blount had to. Lol. I can see Earl throwing him around like a rag doll. Lol. Sorry. I’m a fan of Deion too !

    Forum members on ignore
    Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
    daltex

  • Options
    perkdogperkdog Posts: 29,774 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 18, 2023 9:49AM

    @4for4 said:
    Mel Blount was 6’3 and 205 and ran a 4.4 forty.
    A smaller Deion Sanders ran a 4.3 forty. He was 6’1 195.

    Blount hit you with 10 extra pounds at .1 less seconds.

    More pain indeed.

    I don’t understand why people think players weren’t tougher in the 70’s.
    They most certainly were either as tough if not tougher. Would love to see Deion try to tackle Earl Campbell the way Blount had to. Lol. I can see Earl throwing him around like a rag doll. Lol. Sorry. I’m a fan of Deion too !

    I'm not saying the 70's were not tough, that era was brutal.

    Sure the elite guys were dominant all I'm saying is the overall talent was not as strong as in later years.

    Fitzy can go on your Mt Rushmore, it's not like I'm SMH at you for that lol

  • Options
    4for44for4 Posts: 675 ✭✭✭

    @perkdog said:

    @4for4 said:
    Mel Blount was 6’3 and 205 and ran a 4.4 forty.
    A smaller Deion Sanders ran a 4.3 forty. He was 6’1 195.

    Blount hit you with 10 extra pounds at .1 less seconds.

    More pain indeed.

    I don’t understand why people think players weren’t tougher in the 70’s.
    They most certainly were either as tough if not tougher. Would love to see Deion try to tackle Earl Campbell the way Blount had to. Lol. I can see Earl throwing him around like a rag doll. Lol. Sorry. I’m a fan of Deion too !

    I'm not saying the 70's were not tough, that era was brutal.

    Sure the elite guys were dominant all I'm saying is the overall talent was not as strong as in later years.

    Fitzy can go on your Mt Rushmore, it's not like I'm SMH at you for that lol

    I can agree with that from the 50’s, but not the 70’s. Talent was outstanding in the 70’s.

    Even Gayle Sayers ran the 100 yard dash as fast or faster then Emmitt Smith did.

    Guys were awesome back then.
    Butkus was just as good as Singletary.

    Yeah the 50’s was certainly much more weaker. For sure.

    Forum members on ignore
    Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
    daltex

  • Options
    perkdogperkdog Posts: 29,774 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @4for4 said:

    @perkdog said:

    @4for4 said:
    Mel Blount was 6’3 and 205 and ran a 4.4 forty.
    A smaller Deion Sanders ran a 4.3 forty. He was 6’1 195.

    Blount hit you with 10 extra pounds at .1 less seconds.

    More pain indeed.

    I don’t understand why people think players weren’t tougher in the 70’s.
    They most certainly were either as tough if not tougher. Would love to see Deion try to tackle Earl Campbell the way Blount had to. Lol. I can see Earl throwing him around like a rag doll. Lol. Sorry. I’m a fan of Deion too !

    I'm not saying the 70's were not tough, that era was brutal.

    Sure the elite guys were dominant all I'm saying is the overall talent was not as strong as in later years.

    Fitzy can go on your Mt Rushmore, it's not like I'm SMH at you for that lol

    I can agree with that from the 50’s, but not the 70’s. Talent was outstanding in the 70’s.

    Even Gayle Sayers ran the 100 yard dash as fast or faster then Emmitt Smith did.

    Guys were awesome back then.
    Butkus was just as good as Singletary.

    Yeah the 50’s was certainly much more weaker. For sure.

    HOF players were elite and can be interchanged on anyone's list as far as I'm concerned, it's not like your losing much in any direction you decide to go.

    50's 60's and even the 70's there was a lot of players that were not elite athletes compared to later years especially on the 2000's

  • Options
    4for44for4 Posts: 675 ✭✭✭

    @perkdog said:

    @4for4 said:

    @perkdog said:

    @4for4 said:
    Mel Blount was 6’3 and 205 and ran a 4.4 forty.
    A smaller Deion Sanders ran a 4.3 forty. He was 6’1 195.

    Blount hit you with 10 extra pounds at .1 less seconds.

    More pain indeed.

    I don’t understand why people think players weren’t tougher in the 70’s.
    They most certainly were either as tough if not tougher. Would love to see Deion try to tackle Earl Campbell the way Blount had to. Lol. I can see Earl throwing him around like a rag doll. Lol. Sorry. I’m a fan of Deion too !

    I'm not saying the 70's were not tough, that era was brutal.

    Sure the elite guys were dominant all I'm saying is the overall talent was not as strong as in later years.

    Fitzy can go on your Mt Rushmore, it's not like I'm SMH at you for that lol

    I can agree with that from the 50’s, but not the 70’s. Talent was outstanding in the 70’s.

    Even Gayle Sayers ran the 100 yard dash as fast or faster then Emmitt Smith did.

    Guys were awesome back then.
    Butkus was just as good as Singletary.

    Yeah the 50’s was certainly much more weaker. For sure.

    HOF players were elite and can be interchanged on anyone's list as far as I'm concerned, it's not like your losing much in any direction you decide to go.

    50's 60's and even the 70's there was a lot of players that were not elite athletes compared to later years especially on the 2000's

    OK. We’ll agree to disagree on that one. D-1 football rosters in the 70’s imo were producing the same talent as today. I don’t feel like the 60’s was as talented as today. But by 1977 I feel the NFL was as strong as today and much tougher than today.

    Forum members on ignore
    Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
    daltex

  • Options
    4for44for4 Posts: 675 ✭✭✭

    Fitzgerald has more tackles as a WR in his career then dropped balls.

    He’s one of if not the best ever.

    Forum members on ignore
    Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
    daltex

  • Options
    perkdogperkdog Posts: 29,774 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @4for4 said:

    @perkdog said:

    @4for4 said:

    @perkdog said:

    @4for4 said:
    Mel Blount was 6’3 and 205 and ran a 4.4 forty.
    A smaller Deion Sanders ran a 4.3 forty. He was 6’1 195.

    Blount hit you with 10 extra pounds at .1 less seconds.

    More pain indeed.

    I don’t understand why people think players weren’t tougher in the 70’s.
    They most certainly were either as tough if not tougher. Would love to see Deion try to tackle Earl Campbell the way Blount had to. Lol. I can see Earl throwing him around like a rag doll. Lol. Sorry. I’m a fan of Deion too !

    I'm not saying the 70's were not tough, that era was brutal.

    Sure the elite guys were dominant all I'm saying is the overall talent was not as strong as in later years.

    Fitzy can go on your Mt Rushmore, it's not like I'm SMH at you for that lol

    I can agree with that from the 50’s, but not the 70’s. Talent was outstanding in the 70’s.

    Even Gayle Sayers ran the 100 yard dash as fast or faster then Emmitt Smith did.

    Guys were awesome back then.
    Butkus was just as good as Singletary.

    Yeah the 50’s was certainly much more weaker. For sure.

    HOF players were elite and can be interchanged on anyone's list as far as I'm concerned, it's not like your losing much in any direction you decide to go.

    50's 60's and even the 70's there was a lot of players that were not elite athletes compared to later years especially on the 2000's

    OK. We’ll agree to disagree on that one. D-1 football rosters in the 70’s imo were producing the same talent as today. I don’t feel like the 60’s was as talented as today. But by 1977 I feel the NFL was as strong as today and much tougher than today.

    Possibly around 1977 but your still talking less than half of the decade, again it was absolutely more brutal but the league wide talent was in no way as close as today's, most any football historian would agree with that, some of these College teams would run over a lot of NFL teams from the 70's.

  • Options
    LandrysFedoraLandrysFedora Posts: 1,872 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @4for4 said:
    Fitzgerald has more tackles as a WR in his career then dropped balls.

    He’s one of if not the best ever.

    If that is true, that is totally amazing for a guy who played as long as he did.

  • Options
    GroceryRackPackGroceryRackPack Posts: 2,625 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @4for4 said:

    @perkdog said:

    But by 1977 I feel the NFL was as strong as today and much tougher than today.

    Oh Hell Yeah...My guy Jack... B)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBh5MOEq-VI

  • Options
    dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 4,145 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I'll just note that it makes no difference how fast you can run the 40-yard dash if you're getting body blows before you've gone even 4 yards. I'll say again, if you're deciding who are the best at playing the relatively sissy game they play today, then the OPs Mt Rushmore will do just fine. But if you're playing the game that existed before the mid/late 70's - and it was a very different game for the QBs and WRs than it is today - then you'll want more than four fast, skinny clones.

    I'll also note, mostly echoing 1948Swell, that if I were constructing a football Mt. Rushmore, Don Hutson would be the first name to pop into my head and the first face carved on the mountain. That we're talking about a Mt. Rushmore at just a single position and there are people who want to leave off Hutson is bewildering to me. It is like leaving Babe Ruth off the right fielder Mt. Rushmore.

    This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
  • Options
    craig44craig44 Posts: 10,777 ✭✭✭✭✭

    We must remember, comparisons amongst peers are the only really accurate ones. it is impossible to compare the NFL in the 1930s to the 1990s. such a different game. we can only see how dominant players were against their peers and then compare that dominance.

    also keep in mind that deion sanders would not be running a 4.3 40 in 1940 and Hutson would be more physically dominant had he been born in 1985 and had all the modern nutrition/training. The greats would be the greats no matter what era they played in.

    George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.

  • Options
    1948_Swell_Robinson1948_Swell_Robinson Posts: 1,776 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @dallasactuary said:
    I'll just note that it makes no difference how fast you can run the 40-yard dash if you're getting body blows before you've gone even 4 yards. I'll say again, if you're deciding who are the best at playing the relatively sissy game they play today, then the OPs Mt Rushmore will do just fine. But if you're playing the game that existed before the mid/late 70's - and it was a very different game for the QBs and WRs than it is today - then you'll want more than four fast, skinny clones.

    I'll also note, mostly echoing 1948Swell, that if I were constructing a football Mt. Rushmore, Don Hutson would be the first name to pop into my head and the first face carved on the mountain. That we're talking about a Mt. Rushmore at just a single position and there are people who want to leave off Hutson is bewildering to me. It is like leaving Babe Ruth off the right fielder Mt. Rushmore.

    Just want to add that Hutson also had 30 career interceptions, leading the league one time, and finishing 2nd, 3rd, 6th, and 9th in four other years. Also led in interception return yardage one year.

    We see all those Ohtani memes and some ask what it would mean for a football player to mimic Ohtani's contribution on the gridiron...well...

    In 1943 Hutson led the league in Receptions, Receiving Yds, and Receiving Touchdowns.
    In 1943 Hutson led the league in Interception return yards, and was third in interceptions.
    In 1943 Hutson led the league in Field Goals made and Extra points made.

    Did a similar year in 1942.

    Not too shabby.

  • Options
    galaxy27galaxy27 Posts: 7,335 ✭✭✭✭✭

    if i eschew the numbers and rely strictly on the eye test, the best game-changing WR i've personally ever witnessed is Megatron. i remember a Lions game (but can't recall who they were playing) where the opposition employed a gunner-style punt coverage on him during a game because he was so unstoppable. i'm talking two-guys-on-the-line-of-scrimmage-waiting-for-the-ball-to-be-snapped-in an-attempt-to-divert-him-from-his-route-because-he-was-eating-them-alive type of desperation strategy. that was one of the sickest displays of respect for a player i had ever seen in any game, in any sport.

    if i don't eschew the numbers, which i shouldn't, then of course there is Jerry Rice and everyone else. all of this talk of speed and here's a guy who probably never ducked 4.5 in his entire career. yet if you slice his counting stats in half they'd still be hall-worthy.

    Hutson was such an anachronism........check

    and for my fourth, i'm conjuring up my inner-Dimeman by homering it up nonsensically with a shout-out to my boy Curtis Conway. he resides on that embarrassing distinguished list of all-time laughable exceptional Bears wideouts. he was my favorite player in the late 90s -- so much so that my very first eBay user back in Sept of '98 was none other than conway1...............and i kept it long after his playing days were over.

    and speaking of dime, he texted me and asked if i'd include his rushmore:

    Micheal Erving
    Billy Jo DuPree
    Golden Richards
    Blake Jarwin

  • Options
    GroceryRackPackGroceryRackPack Posts: 2,625 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @galaxy27 said:

    Golden Richards...Oh Wow, I haven't heard his name in a while... Yeah That's a blast from the past... :)

  • Options
    doubledragondoubledragon Posts: 23,255 ✭✭✭✭✭

    LOL, megatron scared the hell out of the defense.

  • Options
    Basebal21Basebal21 Posts: 2,565 ✭✭✭✭

    @4for4 said:

    @perkdog said:

    @4for4 said:

    @perkdog said:

    @4for4 said:
    Mel Blount was 6’3 and 205 and ran a 4.4 forty.
    A smaller Deion Sanders ran a 4.3 forty. He was 6’1 195.

    Blount hit you with 10 extra pounds at .1 less seconds.

    More pain indeed.

    I don’t understand why people think players weren’t tougher in the 70’s.
    They most certainly were either as tough if not tougher. Would love to see Deion try to tackle Earl Campbell the way Blount had to. Lol. I can see Earl throwing him around like a rag doll. Lol. Sorry. I’m a fan of Deion too !

    I'm not saying the 70's were not tough, that era was brutal.

    Sure the elite guys were dominant all I'm saying is the overall talent was not as strong as in later years.

    Fitzy can go on your Mt Rushmore, it's not like I'm SMH at you for that lol

    I can agree with that from the 50’s, but not the 70’s. Talent was outstanding in the 70’s.

    Even Gayle Sayers ran the 100 yard dash as fast or faster then Emmitt Smith did.

    Guys were awesome back then.
    Butkus was just as good as Singletary.

    Yeah the 50’s was certainly much more weaker. For sure.

    HOF players were elite and can be interchanged on anyone's list as far as I'm concerned, it's not like your losing much in any direction you decide to go.

    50's 60's and even the 70's there was a lot of players that were not elite athletes compared to later years especially on the 2000's

    OK. We’ll agree to disagree on that one. D-1 football rosters in the 70’s imo were producing the same talent as today. I don’t feel like the 60’s was as talented as today. But by 1977 I feel the NFL was as strong as today and much tougher than today.

    D-1 rosters in the 70s were not producing the same talent as today. Football is one sport where there is a gap by years. You cant teach height. The average lineman today is 6-5, that would have been been elite in the 1960s not the average. You also didnt have WRs getting double and triple teamed in coverage before it became a passing league.

  • Options
    Basebal21Basebal21 Posts: 2,565 ✭✭✭✭

    @1948_Swell_Robinson said:

    @dallasactuary said:
    I'll just note that it makes no difference how fast you can run the 40-yard dash if you're getting body blows before you've gone even 4 yards. I'll say again, if you're deciding who are the best at playing the relatively sissy game they play today, then the OPs Mt Rushmore will do just fine. But if you're playing the game that existed before the mid/late 70's - and it was a very different game for the QBs and WRs than it is today - then you'll want more than four fast, skinny clones.

    I'll also note, mostly echoing 1948Swell, that if I were constructing a football Mt. Rushmore, Don Hutson would be the first name to pop into my head and the first face carved on the mountain. That we're talking about a Mt. Rushmore at just a single position and there are people who want to leave off Hutson is bewildering to me. It is like leaving Babe Ruth off the right fielder Mt. Rushmore.

    Just want to add that Hutson also had 30 career interceptions, leading the league one time, and finishing 2nd, 3rd, 6th, and 9th in four other years. Also led in interception return yardage one year.

    We see all those Ohtani memes and some ask what it would mean for a football player to mimic Ohtani's contribution on the gridiron...well...

    In 1943 Hutson led the league in Receptions, Receiving Yds, and Receiving Touchdowns.
    In 1943 Hutson led the league in Interception return yards, and was third in interceptions.
    In 1943 Hutson led the league in Field Goals made and Extra points made.

    Did a similar year in 1942.

    Not too shabby.

    WW2 stats need to be taken with a grain of salt. A lot of players and guys that would have been in the leagues were drafted into the war watering down the competition immensely

Sign In or Register to comment.