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
I agree. And I would put Hutson in the first spot on my WR Mt. Rushmore. The two are not mutually exclusive, particularly when we're talking about someone who dominated the game for years before WW2.
And it's not the taking with a grain of salt that bothers me, it's the sheer dismissal of anything and everything that happened in the NFL prior to the late 70's rule changes that made the modern QB and WR possible. Modern QB and WR can't be touched too harshly therefore they are "better" than every single QB and WR that came before them. It's painful to read.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Griese 8 of 11 in 1972 Super Bowl win.
Stabler 12 of 19 in 1977 Super Bowl win.
Just a little perspective on how the game has changed.
You put Tom Brady back in the 50’s and 60’s and of course he doesn’t hold any passing records.
You put Welker, Amendola and Gronk back then when smoking and unhealthy eating and limited weight training was the norm and they’re no different from the guys from that era.
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
@4for4 said:
Griese 8 of 11 in 1972 Super Bowl win.
Stabler 12 of 19 in 1977 Super Bowl win.
Just a little perspective on how the game has changed.
You put Tom Brady back in the 50’s and 60’s and of course he doesn’t hold any passing records.
You put Welker, Amendola and Gronk back then when smoking and unhealthy eating and limited weight training was the norm and they’re no different from the guys from that era.
So you think the elite players back in the 40's were just natural born talent and todays athletes are just products of nutrition and weight training?
I would be willing to bet in my prime I was absolutely stronger than Amendola and Brady, absolutely faster than Brady and close if not faster than Amendola but not in the same universe as athletically football talented, great is great
@4for4 said:
Griese 8 of 11 in 1972 Super Bowl win.
Stabler 12 of 19 in 1977 Super Bowl win.
Just a little perspective on how the game has changed.
You put Tom Brady back in the 50’s and 60’s and of course he doesn’t hold any passing records.
You put Welker, Amendola and Gronk back then when smoking and unhealthy eating and limited weight training was the norm and they’re no different from the guys from that era.
So you think the elite players back in the 40's were just natural born talent and todays athletes are just products of nutrition and weight training?
I would be willing to bet in my prime I was absolutely stronger than Amendola and Brady, absolutely faster than Brady and close if not faster than Amendola but not in the same universe as athletically football talented, great is great
I think (and I could be wrong) is that hes saying players from those eras numbers wouldnt hold up no matter what given the passing nature of todays game. Just like 20 years from now itll probably be a whole new group with the most passing yards. The top 20 passing yards are basically all players that played into at least the late 90s.
There is a point, to that but you put Gronk back then and his size alone he dominates everyone. Welker and Amendola they probably wouldnt be in the league at the time given the last of passing, but Brady would still be good.
Theres also the whole issue of how diminished the competition was in the 40s and 50s because of WW2 and the number of young men drafted and lost in the war. That goes for all sports too. You had all americans and Olympic athletes being drafted that never played again even if they survived the war.
I am going to make an honest observation here. I'm being serious. I really, really like the way that so many different threads can turn into this. What is this? It is this debate, where him vs him turns into then vs now as well. We have gone through countless iterations of it. Many before my time here. Quite a few during. And always, organically coming to life again for anyone who either missed it or just wants another piece of the action!
Very true, guys like Otto Graham and your boy ken Anderson were both great but Graham had superior talent around him and Anderson didn't
I could argue that their stats could be skewed in their favor, sure they played in a more brutal era but I'd be willing to bet probably half of their completions were not completions by today's rules so they benefited somewhat from playing when they did
My point is that there are variables to everything and even with the variables we know that ceetain players like Graham and Anderson were great players even if we take away said variables
My point is that there are variables to everything and even with the variables we know that ceetain players like Graham and Anderson were great players even if we take away said variables
The point is the same either way, but I describe it as playing different games. For purposes of this thread, the question is how great was Don Hutson at the game he was playing vs. how great was Jerry Rice (or whoever) at the game he was playing. I don't know the answer to that question, or even if there is a definitive answer to that question, but if the process of finding the greatest players ever isn't even considering that question, then I think the process is fatally flawed.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@4for4 said:
Griese 8 of 11 in 1972 Super Bowl win.
Stabler 12 of 19 in 1977 Super Bowl win.
Just a little perspective on how the game has changed.
You put Tom Brady back in the 50’s and 60’s and of course he doesn’t hold any passing records.
You put Welker, Amendola and Gronk back then when smoking and unhealthy eating and limited weight training was the norm and they’re no different from the guys from that era.
So you think the elite players back in the 40's were just natural born talent and todays athletes are just products of nutrition and weight training?
I would be willing to bet in my prime I was absolutely stronger than Amendola and Brady, absolutely faster than Brady and close if not faster than Amendola but not in the same universe as athletically football talented, great is great
No. I think talent is equal among all generations.
A few generational talents appear now and then.
I’m saying put Welker and Amendola in the 70’s and they’re Randy Vataha.
Brady would have never thrown that much in the 70’s.
Swann and Belitnikoff were Super Bowl MVPs in the 70’s with 4 catches each.
It was still a running game mostly.
Csonka Kiick Morris and Harris Bleier were still the norm but the 60’s even more so.
Athletes are pretty much the same throughout all generations.
Soccer is a sport that demonstrates this the most where no steroids are needed. I’ve been watching soccer since the early 70’s and the talent is exactly the same throughout all decades.
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
My point is that there are variables to everything and even with the variables we know that ceetain players like Graham and Anderson were great players even if we take away said variables
The point is the same either way, but I describe it as playing different games. For purposes of this thread, the question is how great was Don Hutson at the game he was playing vs. how great was Jerry Rice (or whoever) at the game he was playing. I don't know the answer to that question, or even if there is a definitive answer to that question, but if the process of finding the greatest players ever isn't even considering that question, then I think the process is fatally flawed.
My point is that there are variables to everything and even with the variables we know that ceetain players like Graham and Anderson were great players even if we take away said variables
The point is the same either way, but I describe it as playing different games. For purposes of this thread, the question is how great was Don Hutson at the game he was playing vs. how great was Jerry Rice (or whoever) at the game he was playing. I don't know the answer to that question, or even if there is a definitive answer to that question, but if the process of finding the greatest players ever isn't even considering that question, then I think the process is fatally flawed.
I think the process should be broken down by decades
1940's and 50's NFL was more like Rugby than anything else
Don Hutson was clearly above every other receiver he played with more so than Jerry Rice in my opinion but I still can't say Rice doesn't belong on any best ever WR list
I think the process should be broken down by decades
1940's and 50's NFL was more like Rugby than anything else
Don Hutson was clearly above every other receiver he played with more so than Jerry Rice in my opinion but I still can't say Rice doesn't belong on any best ever WR list
In the end, and no matter what we do, we're trying to identify relative greatness in a team game, which is impossible. Was Don Hutson's QB better or worse than Jerry Rice's QB? Doesn't that matter, and matter a lot, in evaluating Hutson vs. Rice? Same for their offensive lines, and the same for their running backs and other receivers. And the answer to all of these questions is "I don't know" and "you don't know". Because evaluating Hutson's and Rice's teammates involves exactly the same questions, and our evaluation of them immediately becomes circular. Growing up watching the St. Louis Cardinals, I will say that Mel Gray was a great wide receiver, possibly the greatest of his time. But Gray had Jim Hart as his QB and there was simply no way that he was going to put up numbers like nearly-as-great WR on other teams who also had great QBs. The statistical record does not reflect, in my opinion, how great Gray was, and the statistical record is insufficient to evaluate not just Gray, but every wide receiver.
All that said, I agree with you. Based on the information I have, which includes actually watching Jerry Rice if not Don Hutson, I would absolutely put Jerry Rice on my Mt. Rushmore. He appeared to me to be the best at the game he was playing. And if I'm making a Mt. Rushmore, Rice would be the only one from his era on there.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@4for4 said:
Griese 8 of 11 in 1972 Super Bowl win.
Stabler 12 of 19 in 1977 Super Bowl win.
Soccer is a sport that demonstrates this the most where no steroids are needed. I’ve been watching soccer since the early 70’s and the talent is exactly the same throughout all decades.
Soccer players are most certainly on substances just not the body builder stuff.
Comments
I agree. And I would put Hutson in the first spot on my WR Mt. Rushmore. The two are not mutually exclusive, particularly when we're talking about someone who dominated the game for years before WW2.
And it's not the taking with a grain of salt that bothers me, it's the sheer dismissal of anything and everything that happened in the NFL prior to the late 70's rule changes that made the modern QB and WR possible. Modern QB and WR can't be touched too harshly therefore they are "better" than every single QB and WR that came before them. It's painful to read.
7 wide receivers have won Super Bowl mvp.
3 Steelers
2 Patriots
Jerry Rice and Fred Biletnikoff
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
Love your selection.
I would exclude Moss.
The other three have to be there.
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
True and amazing.
Only wide receiver to have this stat.
Fitzgerald and Belitnikoff are in a class by themselves when it comes to catching the football.
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
Griese 8 of 11 in 1972 Super Bowl win.
Stabler 12 of 19 in 1977 Super Bowl win.
Just a little perspective on how the game has changed.
You put Tom Brady back in the 50’s and 60’s and of course he doesn’t hold any passing records.
You put Welker, Amendola and Gronk back then when smoking and unhealthy eating and limited weight training was the norm and they’re no different from the guys from that era.
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
I guess years of watching Moss light up my Cowboys got him in my top 4. lol
So you think the elite players back in the 40's were just natural born talent and todays athletes are just products of nutrition and weight training?
I would be willing to bet in my prime I was absolutely stronger than Amendola and Brady, absolutely faster than Brady and close if not faster than Amendola but not in the same universe as athletically football talented, great is great
I think (and I could be wrong) is that hes saying players from those eras numbers wouldnt hold up no matter what given the passing nature of todays game. Just like 20 years from now itll probably be a whole new group with the most passing yards. The top 20 passing yards are basically all players that played into at least the late 90s.
There is a point, to that but you put Gronk back then and his size alone he dominates everyone. Welker and Amendola they probably wouldnt be in the league at the time given the last of passing, but Brady would still be good.
Theres also the whole issue of how diminished the competition was in the 40s and 50s because of WW2 and the number of young men drafted and lost in the war. That goes for all sports too. You had all americans and Olympic athletes being drafted that never played again even if they survived the war.
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
I am going to make an honest observation here. I'm being serious. I really, really like the way that so many different threads can turn into this. What is this? It is this debate, where him vs him turns into then vs now as well. We have gone through countless iterations of it. Many before my time here. Quite a few during. And always, organically coming to life again for anyone who either missed it or just wants another piece of the action!
I would argue that any debate of him vs. him that doesn't include then vs. now is nothing but mental masturbation©. It's important in baseball, where the game has remained essentially the same, but it's absolutely essential in football since the game they're playing now has different rules than the game they were playing then. Which is to say, these debates shouldn't "turn into" then vs. now; they should always BEGIN with then vs. now.
Very true, guys like Otto Graham and your boy ken Anderson were both great but Graham had superior talent around him and Anderson didn't
I could argue that their stats could be skewed in their favor, sure they played in a more brutal era but I'd be willing to bet probably half of their completions were not completions by today's rules so they benefited somewhat from playing when they did
My point is that there are variables to everything and even with the variables we know that ceetain players like Graham and Anderson were great players even if we take away said variables
The point is the same either way, but I describe it as playing different games. For purposes of this thread, the question is how great was Don Hutson at the game he was playing vs. how great was Jerry Rice (or whoever) at the game he was playing. I don't know the answer to that question, or even if there is a definitive answer to that question, but if the process of finding the greatest players ever isn't even considering that question, then I think the process is fatally flawed.
No. I think talent is equal among all generations.
A few generational talents appear now and then.
I’m saying put Welker and Amendola in the 70’s and they’re Randy Vataha.
Brady would have never thrown that much in the 70’s.
Swann and Belitnikoff were Super Bowl MVPs in the 70’s with 4 catches each.
It was still a running game mostly.
Csonka Kiick Morris and Harris Bleier were still the norm but the 60’s even more so.
Athletes are pretty much the same throughout all generations.
Soccer is a sport that demonstrates this the most where no steroids are needed. I’ve been watching soccer since the early 70’s and the talent is exactly the same throughout all decades.
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
Except back then you had bench clearing brawls. 😂
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
I think the process should be broken down by decades
1940's and 50's NFL was more like Rugby than anything else
Don Hutson was clearly above every other receiver he played with more so than Jerry Rice in my opinion but I still can't say Rice doesn't belong on any best ever WR list
In the end, and no matter what we do, we're trying to identify relative greatness in a team game, which is impossible. Was Don Hutson's QB better or worse than Jerry Rice's QB? Doesn't that matter, and matter a lot, in evaluating Hutson vs. Rice? Same for their offensive lines, and the same for their running backs and other receivers. And the answer to all of these questions is "I don't know" and "you don't know". Because evaluating Hutson's and Rice's teammates involves exactly the same questions, and our evaluation of them immediately becomes circular. Growing up watching the St. Louis Cardinals, I will say that Mel Gray was a great wide receiver, possibly the greatest of his time. But Gray had Jim Hart as his QB and there was simply no way that he was going to put up numbers like nearly-as-great WR on other teams who also had great QBs. The statistical record does not reflect, in my opinion, how great Gray was, and the statistical record is insufficient to evaluate not just Gray, but every wide receiver.
All that said, I agree with you. Based on the information I have, which includes actually watching Jerry Rice if not Don Hutson, I would absolutely put Jerry Rice on my Mt. Rushmore. He appeared to me to be the best at the game he was playing. And if I'm making a Mt. Rushmore, Rice would be the only one from his era on there.
Soccer players are most certainly on substances just not the body builder stuff.
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007