Options
Who was better Jerry Rice or Don Hutson
FavreFan1971
Posts: 3,105 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
We need some football talk!
The two best WR's to ever play the game. Who do you think was better and why?
The two best WR's to ever play the game. Who do you think was better and why?
0
Comments
If you look at 2nd place when Hutson was the leader he was usually 30% better than 2nd place. Sometimes he was even 60% from a stat perspective. Rice was not that far ahead of 2nd when he lead.
Ok, enough about my opinion - how about yours???
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>I am of the opinion that Hutson was better because he was so far above and beyond any other player of his era. >>
The game was so different a simple equation doesn't offer much insight. If 49ers opponents tried to stop their passing game with under 200-pound pass rushers and defensive backs running slower than five second 40s, how would Rice have done?
I'll put Moss second and Hutson third
This is the same type of argument as who was better Jim Brown or Barry Sanders.
I know the Old School Vintage Football guys will say Hutson and Brown but they are wrong and thats the bottom line.
Don Hutson was great but Id take Sterling Sharpe over him in a heartbeat let alone Jerry Rice.
Im Ready to Battle!
<< <i>I admit my bias, as I'm a Packers fan and Hutson is one of my favorite players. But for an example of his dominance, when he retired he had well over two times the number of career catches and touchdowns than the #2s on the the lists. It's not an overstatement to say that Hutson invented wide receiving as we know it. >>
And I wont argue that for 1 second.
But when I think of all time greats I look at the big picture and the big picture is talent level amongst piers, Hutson did not face the same calibre of players that Rice did nor did teams have gameplans to stop passing attacks, you put Rice in those routes that Hutson had and Im more than confident he would have made the plays, reverse it and quite possibly Hutson does the same thing, but to say Hutson would play for as long as Rice did AND acheive the lofty numbers is something we will never know. The fact is Rice had the numbers and career that he did deserves him to be the greatest WR ever, it would be unfair to take that away from him and say Hutson was better.
<< <i> But for an example of his dominance, when he retired he had well over two times the number of career catches and touchdowns than the #2s on the the lists. >>
For Calvin Johnson (or whomever) to dominate this equation equally as well as Hutson he would have to reach 3 000 receptions and 400 tuchdowns. It's pretty safe to say anyone in the world would agree that surpassing Hutson among best receivers in history would come well before that
You can ONLY judge guys against their eras. If you were to take Don Huston and drop him in 2012 in a vacuum he'd be totally out of place. However, if you give Hutson diet, weight training, early youth coaching etc. then you can have the discussion. But because you can NEVER do that and be reasonably accurate on what they would project to be, that only leaves one answer...
You can only judge guys based on their play versus their own era and then rank dominance that way. It's also why in baseball, WAR (Wins Above Replacement) is the only real way to measure guys over multiple eras. Does that exist in football? I haven't heard so if it does. FYI, in baseball, Ruth is still the far and away leader.
That having been said, Hutson was far more dominant in his era than Rice was in his. So Hutson almost has to be first.
Two more points:
1) The youth coaching aspect can't be understated. It's why American soccer players will never measure up to European counterparts. In essence, the US is still in Hutson's era and the Europeans are in 2012.
2) I had this argument earlier. Tennis and golf are the easiest to judge this way (against their own eras). Nicklaus 18 majors and 19 seconds in majors HAVE to outrank any crazy person who would put Woods first. And Rod Laver is, was and will always be the best Tennis player of all time until someone wins 21 Grand Slam titles.
Why are people so willing to rank golfers and tennis players against their eras but not football, baseball etc. It's the only rational way. People are just dying to look at their own modern era and overrate it.
My Podcast - Now FEATURED on iTunes
My Podcast - Now FEATURED on iTunes
Rice was the best because he was a player who made his team a winner.
After about his third year, Moss cared about nothing but himself.
Randy Moss........................yuck!
Joe
<< <i>2) I had this argument earlier. Tennis and golf are the easiest to judge this way (against their own eras). Nicklaus 18 majors and 19 seconds in majors HAVE to outrank any crazy person who would put Woods first. And Rod Laver is, was and will always be the best Tennis player of all time until someone wins 21 Grand Slam titles >>
Horsecrap. Any ranking that does not allow for subjectivity is incorrect. It is reasonable to consider Nicklaus the best ever because of how much he dominated his era. It's reasonable to consider Woods the best ever because he was playing against stronger opponents. The only thing that would is unreasonable is to say with absolute certainty that one of those viewpoints right and the other is wrong
For so many sports it is a virtual impossibility for any modern athlete to exceed the domination of previous generations. Babe Ruth hit more homeruns than any other team. To say Ruth was the best ever is fine. To say the only way a modern baseball player could exceed Ruth is to match that dominance is a ridiculous standard
Further, why are tennis and golf so much easier to judge than swimming or track-and-field? For those sports we can consider both dominance over contemporaries as well as times and distances?
<< <i>
<< <i>2) I had this argument earlier. Tennis and golf are the easiest to judge this way (against their own eras). Nicklaus 18 majors and 19 seconds in majors HAVE to outrank any crazy person who would put Woods first. And Rod Laver is, was and will always be the best Tennis player of all time until someone wins 21 Grand Slam titles >>
Horsecrap. Any ranking that does not allow for subjectivity is incorrect. It is reasonable to consider Nicklaus the best ever because of how much he dominated his era. It's reasonable to consider Woods the best ever because he was playing against stronger opponents. The only thing that would is unreasonable is to say with absolute certainty that one of those viewpoints right and the other is wrong
For so many sports it is a virtual impossibility for any modern athlete to exceed the domination of previous generations. Babe Ruth hit more homeruns than any other team. To say Ruth was the best ever is fine. To say the only way a modern baseball player could exceed Ruth is to match that dominance is a ridiculous standard
Further, why are tennis and golf so much easier to judge than swimming or track-and-field? For those sports we can consider both dominance over contemporaries as well as times and distances? >>
Subjectivity in the event there are no stats like WAR will always be relevant, however, said subjectivity should never stray to pulling guys out of their own eras. With WAR, I can tell you absolutely that Babe Ruth is the best baseball player of all time. I'd love to see a WAR stat for Quarterbacks. The individual sports are much easier to judge because championships are paramount and those championships were always won against their own era. With the exception of something like poker (where only 30 guys were playing in the first 10 World Series), you can reasonably judge guys against their own eras by titles.
And again, to your Tiger point, the reason you can't pull Jack out of his era to compare to modern Tiger is very similar. Jack is driving around the country to his events and playing with wooded clubs and low technology balls. Tiger is flying private jets and staying in first class hotels with the best equipment of his day. I can't assume how Jack would have performed under those conditions. It's an X Factor we'll never be able to assign a value to.
You can only judge a guy by how he dominated his era and then assign a rank to that dominance, sort it, and there you have your 'Best Ever.'
My Podcast - Now FEATURED on iTunes
<< <i>Subjectivity in the event there are no stats like WAR will always be relevant, however, said subjectivity should never stray to pulling guys out of their own eras. >>
Even in the event of something like WAR, an assessment of each era is required. Of the top 10 pitchers based on WAR six of them were born before 1900. Of the top 10 position players, seven were born before 1920. Has baseball talent really diminished that much over the past 80 to 100 years? Or perhaps it is the sport that has changed?
<< <i>
<< <i>Subjectivity in the event there are no stats like WAR will always be relevant, however, said subjectivity should never stray to pulling guys out of their own eras. >>
Even in the event of something like WAR, an assessment of each era is required. Of the top 10 pitchers based on WAR six of them were born before 1900. Of the top 10 position players, seven were born before 1920. Has baseball talent really diminished that much over the past 80 to 100 years? Or perhaps it is the sport that has changed? >>
While unfortunate, saying that talent has greatened or diminished still doesn't allow you to compare guys from opposing eras on the same playing field.
And with regard to baseball, there's a clearly established cutoff point for the live-ball versus dead-ball game (1921). By most measures, the pre-1900 game (many of which had walks counted as hits and foul balls weren't counted as strikes) actually has corrupted stats.
So I'll cede your point that the game changed at some point, but if that's the case, than it must mean we should be even more strict about only judging guys by their own era. So much so in football that under your scenario, you can't even really compare Jerry Rice and Wes Welker, much less Rice and Don Hutson. The game simply that much different.
But I know not everyone will concede my points so I'll make the statistical case for Hutson here:
Hutson career receiving TDs: 99
Next highest guy when Hutson retired: Jim Benton had 33 through 1945
Rice Career receiving TD: 197
Next highest guy when Rice retired: Cris Carter had 130. Next was Steve Largent at 100
Hutson's record stood for 44 years spanning at least 3 different eras (postwar / Post 58 Title game / Super Bowl era)
Rice's record has stood since he broke Largent's record in 1992. That's 20 years so far.
I surely don't see anyone catching Rice anytime soon, but by sheer numbers this is not any sort of slam dunk argument for Rice and by my own criteria, I'll take Hutson.
My Podcast - Now FEATURED on iTunes
<< <i>So I'll cede your point that the game changed at some point, but if that's the case, than it must mean we should be even more strict about only judging guys by their own era. So much so in football that under your scenario, you can't even really compare Jerry Rice and Wes Welker, much less Rice and Don Hutson. The game simply that much different.
>>
Absolutely not. It just means we need to look at things further than merely some twisted math equation. Again, if a wide receiver retires with 500 TDs (a paltry two and a half the number Rice has), would he still fall short of Hutson retiring with three times second place? That is completely ridiculous
<< <i>
<< <i>So I'll cede your point that the game changed at some point, but if that's the case, than it must mean we should be even more strict about only judging guys by their own era. So much so in football that under your scenario, you can't even really compare Jerry Rice and Wes Welker, much less Rice and Don Hutson. The game simply that much different.
>>
Absolutely not. It just means we need to look at things further than merely some twisted math equation. Again, if a wide receiver retires with 500 TDs (a paltry two and a half the number Rice has), would he still fall short of Hutson retiring with three times second place? That is completely ridiculous >>
Exactly my point. We need a WAR for football players. Otherwise it's all subjective...and modern guys will always be looked upon more favorably simply because of human nature.
My Podcast - Now FEATURED on iTunes
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
Always buying Bobby Cox inserts. PM me.
I think the top 10 golfers in Jack's era were better than today's top 10, but the depth of the Tour these days makes it just as hard (if not harder) to win a major (I think there have been 16 different major winners in a row, or something like that). One could argue Tiger's era of dominance (1998-2008) was the weakest era in golf in the last 50-60 years. There were only a couple of truly great golfers (Mickelson, Singh) at the top of their games during that era. Everyone else was either at the tail end of their careers, or hadn't reached their peak yet.
<< <i>I'll take Micheal Ervin. >>
And you call yourself a Cowboys fan? LOL
It's IRVIN. Hell I'm not even a Cowboys fan and I know that!
You are really something!
And best WR of all time is Jerry Rice, and it's not close.
<< <i>You are going to give me crap over mispelling!
You are really something! >>
Also, remember the 'a' comes before 'e' in Michael- unless you're French, which I'm fairly sure Mr. Irvin is not.
<< <i>
<< <i>I'll take Micheal Ervin. >>
And you call yourself a Cowboys fan? LOL
It's IRVIN. Hell I'm not even a Cowboys fan and I know that! >>
Gotta tip the cap to Axtell on that one, lol. That isn't a simple typo, or misspell of an average word, or not knowing how to use their they're or there...it is a sin for not knowing it.
By the way, Irvin is one of the guys to make Aikman look like an elite QB. Without guys like Irvin, the O-Line, the D, Emmitt, Novacek...Aikman is mediocre. How do I know? In the seven years where Aikman did not have an elite supporting cast, he could only 'lead' his team to a 38-52 record. Inexcusable for a guy to be mediocre for more than half his career, especially when he is hailed as one of the best ever on the basis of his team's Super Bowl wins! Note, his "Team's," super bowl wins, not HIS. Without the Supporting cast, Aikman makes Romo look like Tom Brady!
By the way, Rice is the better receiver.
But, while Rice also had to play against superior physical specimens, he too had the benefit of the nutrition and training techniques to increase his speed and strength to be able to play against those guys. How good would Rice have fared in the NFL without the weight training, speed training, PEDs, and nutrition...while everybody else was on them? He would have not done well. So it really isn't fair without speculating how Hutson would do if he was doing the same training and nutrition as Rice.
We already know that Hutson did quite well without that stuff, so I would assume he would have done even better with them, and would have fit right in with the NFL today. If Wes Welker could do it, I don't see why Hutson couldn't.
Most of these "who was better" or "who was the best all-time" are fun, but can't really be determined. It's hard enough to come to a consensus on players that played at the SAME time.
Years ago I saw a show on TV that talked about the greatest receivers of all-time and Hutson was awesome. We all know what Jerry Rice did, well most of us do.
<< <i>
<< <i>You are going to give me crap over mispelling!
You are really something! >>
Also, remember the 'a' comes before 'e' in Michael- unless you're French, which I'm fairly sure Mr. Irvin is not. >>
<< <i>You are going to give me crap over mispelling!
You are really something! >>
You two should just go ahead and sleep together already. The tension isn't doing anybody any good.
Rice...? Best of all time. End of story.
Dave
I love how Aikman's lack of talent comes up in threads that don't even include him in the initial discussion.
it feels like i just stared at Medusa
I don't think anyone played WR as well as Jerry Rice, all era's considered. he was very smooth and had the advantage of running routes while Joe Montana was viewing the field. quite the luxury that others have never had.
I grew up a Cleveland Browns fan and had the opportunity to watch Paul Warfield. he played a few decades ahead of Jerry Rice but was a similar player, albeit slightly smaller. during his career there weren't many players as fast as him, few were as elusive or precise at route running and I have NEVER seen any player that was his equal in leaping ability.
Warfield wasn't the "designated target" that so many players are today, I think he only surpassed 1,000 yards one season --- BUT he averaged 20+ yards per catch over his career. that is more than 5 yards better than Jerry Rice. one season with the Dolphins he caught only 29 passes, but 11 were for a Touchdown!!!
that single stat sort of defines Money Player in any era.
I still remember the 6AM wake-up I got from my dad before the 1970 NFL Draft: the Browns had traded Warfield to the Miami Dolphins so they could draft Mike Phipps. OH, THE HUMANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
to watch Paul Warfield play was to watch grace personified.
It is the same type of argument, which is why there is no right or wrong answer. When you say that you'd take Rice over Hutson, you're picturing him playing football today, or in the 80's/90's. And, sure, if that's the game that will be played, then by all means take Rice. But the point is that Hutson wasn't playing that game, and Rice never played the game Hutson played. The OP lays out how dominant Hutson was as a receiver at the time, but does not mention that Hutson also led the league in extra points twice, and interceptions once. In 1943, Hutson led the NFL in receptions, yards and TDs as a receiver, led the league in FGs made while kicking 36 of 36 XP, and intercepted 8 passes. Give Jerry Rice kicking and DE duties when he's not on offense, and what do you think that would do to his receiving stats? "Receiver" in Hutson's day did not mean sitting on the bench while your offense was off the field, it meant the position you played on offense with the understanding that football was a 60 minute game and the good players played 60 minutes.
Again, this isn't an argument that Hutson was better than Rice, it is an acknowledgement that comparing the two is nothing but conjecture because they didn't play the same game.
WR's +1 Great Wr's is what makes the QB look good. Somebody has to catch the ball. I had always thought that Jerry Rice was among the 'Elite' class.
If we're doing Qb's, no way a Cowboy is top 5 or even 10. Too many Joe's to name.
I'm dying.
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
It's indeed a fact ; )
It is known
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Rice chose to use "stick-um" for years after it was banned.
Exactly. It is similar with Babe Ruth. In order for anyone to out homer every team in the league last year, a player would have to hit 254 home runs in one season. It doesn't mean that Babe Ruth was THAT good, just that his competition wasn't.
More teams too.
Ruth would NOT dominate now at all.
I give you credit DM. Just when I think you can't possibly make a more ludicrous statement, you one up yourself, LOL..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Do you REALLY think Ruth could play with todays faster, stronger athletes! I don't think he could. And he would not fair as well against todays picthers.....no way.
I'm 100% certain that Babe Ruth would do just fine in any era. He's the greatest of all time
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Absolutely. I'd type more about transporting players across different eras in time in a foolhardy effort to evaluate them but my effort would be wasted so I won't.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I bet Ty Cobb wouldn't hit .250 today, either, right? Geez Loiuise, LOL..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
and Bob Gibson would suck too
I think it's safe to say that the type of players being discussed transcend time.
DM saw a photo/video of Ruth when he was fat and ran funny. That's all the information he needs.
I didn't realize it was axtel........my bad!
With todays great pitching as well as having pitchers for certain situations, and all the great closers I have no doubt Pete Rose would have a heck of a time just to hit .275. But then again he is in his 70s.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph