The best WR of all-time not named Jerry Rice?

[dopeboy206]

whoever puts Michael Irvin over Steve Largent is stupid either doesn't know his NFL or is just stupid.

[JBH3]

Quote: Originally Posted by Rocky

Numbers don't tell the story with Moss. They're have been plenty of games where Moss only had 2 catches for 25 yards....but had the biggest impact on the whole entire game.

...as have all the other players mentioned.

That's the point of basing things on averages as any one player here has been in the same boat as Moss.

You can say Bruce's totals are thanks to having a Marshall Faulk and Torry Holt on the team -BUT- you can also say had those players not been there would he have put up even better numbers being the best target?

Your post gives no end to any discussion and just assumes that Moss is better even if his numbers prove otherwise. Why is that?

We aren't measuring Moss now by any standard. People are saying he's better given that they've seen/or think he made the biggest impact.

There has to be a medium because in a game you're saying Moss had the biggest impact w/ only 2 catches. I say he was shutdown, and the opposing defense had a plan against him that day.

1 one example

^In that link above NE loses to NY 19-10, Moss has 2 catches, NE has more NET passing yards, fewer penalties, and less turnovers however still loses.

Your post puts things in arbitrary terms, and doesn't provide a standard in which to measure a player by.

If that's the case than we can just throw out big names and make empty claims on any player then. There's no need for a "discussion" because we're not discussing anything at that point. It just because an empty discussion based on nothing but people's subjective views on a player.

Quote: Originally Posted by dopeboy206

whoever puts Michael Irvin over Steve Largent is stupid either doesn't know his NFL or is just stupid.

I'm gonna assume that this was indirectly posted at me, and I just added Irvin's name in their for the sake of the conversation and because he had been MENTIONED more than say Steve Largent.

If anything what I posted is REASON NOT to include Irvin's name in any discussion.

[SilverChaosVII]

1. Jerry Rice
2. Chris Carter
3. Randy Moss?

[Fox1994]

Quote: Originally Posted by Kelverin

Football is a game that's won in the trenches or by a field general QB on offense, or the play caller on defense. Sorry but I can't see a WR any WR as the best to ever play the game.... And to say Rice is the best all-time and it's an undisputed fact is well silly. Everything is up for debate

I have to disagree about the QB being the best by default because it's the glory position.

Some quarterbacks are great because of the system they're in. The 49ers in the '90s and the Pats today are perfect examples of systems built for the QBs to succeed. It's that sort of thing that has kept pro teams away from college spread QBs as of recent... Regardless of whether or not they earned their accolades, they play in a system built for them to succeed.

The reason I personally think no QB was the best player ever (except maybe Unitas) is because of a general lack of athleticism. I wouldn't say any of the modern 'signal callers' are worthy of such a title as best player ever. Maye one of the old guys... those who despite being pocket passers would get out of the pocket for the sake of the team... They actually had the intelligence and creativity to call and - in some cases - make their own plays. The only guys even near that these days are probably Roethlisberger (he's mobile and allegedly called some plays in the SB) and Peyton (he's developed quite the repetoir for allegedly calling his own plays, when in reality it's merely because of the fact that he plays in Dungy's sytem... in which he has the option to do such).

I just don't believe any position so dependent on others for success can ever claim to have the best player ever when they don't even have to really do anything.

Barry Sanders might be the best player ever. He played ten years, made the Pro Bowl every year, never had a season under 4 YPC (over 5 five years, including the season he averaged 6.0 Y/A and rushed for 2053 yards), led the league in rushing yards four years (1990, 1994, 1996, 1997), third all-time rushing yards, and all while playing for the ever-despondent Lions.

[PrettyT11]

Quote: Originally Posted by JBH3

I'd make my case for Issac Bruce to be "the best of all-time not named Jerry Rice." Career Avgs (Catches/Yards/TDs): Rice = 5/ 75.0/ 1.5 Bruce = 4.7/ 70/ 2.3 Harrison = 5.8/ 76.7/ 1.4 Moss = 4.9/ 77.6/ .794 TO = 5/ 74.7/ .735 Irvin = 4.7/ 77.6/ .409 Bruce's catches per gm hovers around what Rice would accumulate, yards are nearly the same, but given these 6 receivers Bruce has found the end-zone more often on a per-gm avg. basis. Part of what makes Rice so great is his 9 season run of 9-straight healthy seasons, playing all 16 games, and being part of one of the greatest offensive systems the NFL has ever seen. Moss has had four such years straight health wise, and Bruce has had 6 (however missing one game in 2003 during that span). When you look at Irvin's numbers, and his pedestrian .409 avg for TDs/gm he doesn't seem to belong in the discussion. However, he did make some big plays in postseason games, and his level of play seemed to increase on the big stage. Since Bruce had a penchant for finding the end-zone at a higher rate and posts some comparable catch and yards per/gm numbers...and has two Superbowls to his credit...I like him in this discussion.

I don't know where you got those numbers from but that one about Bruce's TD's per game is WAY off. The man has 91 TD catches in 213 games. It is easy to see there is no way possible for him to average 2.3 TD's per game. His average is actually 0.42 which is alot closer to Irvin than it is Rice. Irvin's is actually 0.54 which is higher than Bruce. Bruce is actually LAST of those players when it comes to TD's per game.

In fact all of those TD numbers are wrong. Niether Rice or Marvin averaged more than a TD a game. No reciever has averaged more than a TD's a game. Out of those guys you listed Moss actually has the highest TD's per game average at 0.79.

[Rocky]

Quote: Originally Posted by JBH3

...as have all the other players mentioned.

I don't think there has ever been a WR who has attracted the attention of Moss. Moss makes certain coverages...that are designed to stop deep balls..unplayable. Even in Oakland, Moss could walk off the line and get double covered. That's not a straw man argument, it's a fact. Just like Lawrence Taylor's play influenced multiple TE sets and slide protections...is that not why we consider him so legendary? I think you can make the same argument for Moss.

I also don't like this "no counting guys that we haven't seen play." I think if that were the case, the title should be changed to best WR's of our lifetime.

[JBH3]

Quote: Originally Posted by PrettyT11

I don't know where you got those numbers from but that one about Bruce's TD's per game is WAY off. The man has 91 TD catches in 213 games. It is easy to see there is no way possible for him to average 2.3 TD's per game. His average is actually 0.42 which is alot closer to Irvin than it is Rice. Irvin's is actually 0.54 which is higher than Bruce. Bruce is actually LAST of those players when it comes to TD's per game. In fact all of those TD numbers are wrong. Niether Rice or Marvin averaged more than a TD a game. No reciever has averaged more than a TD's a game. Out of those guys you listed Moss actually has the highest TD's per game average at 0.79.

How can you divide TDs by games?

To figure a career avg./yds per gm you'd divide as follows (Bruce): 14,944 / 213 = 70.16

That is consistent w/ the figure of 70.2 which PRO FOOTBALL REFRENCE has.

Why would the method deviate from that (games divided by stat) for TDs?

Perhaps you divided wrong buddy?

EDIT:

Quote: Originally Posted by PrettyT11

The man has 91 TD catches in 213 games. It is easy to see there is no way possible for him to average 2.3 TD's per game.

Well yea...213 gms played and 2.3 TDs/per would equate to 426 career TDs. What this does is account for the spikes in ones career, and/or injured years where he may have only accumulated 1 TD (1998).

Given his number of career TDs and total amount of games played you'd project that all things constant health wise his talent would equate to:

213 gms played / 91 career TDs = Capable of Producing 2.3 TDs gm/by career.

The same method is used to calculate every other player on the list so even if you don't like the method it produces a value to judge a player by.

[PrettyT11]

Quote: Originally Posted by JBH3

How can you divide TDs by games? To figure a career avg./yds per gm you'd divide as follows (Bruce): 14,944 / 213 = 70.16 That is consistent w/ the figure of 70.2 which PRO FOOTBALL REFRENCE has. Why would the method deviate from that (games divided by stat) for TDs? Perhaps you divided wrong buddy? EDIT: Well yea...213 gms played and 2.3 TDs/per would equate to 426 career TDs. What this does is account for the spikes in ones career, and/or injured years where he may have only accumulated 1 TD (1998). Given his number of career TDs and total amount of games played you'd project that all things constant health wise his talent would equate to: 213 gms played / 91 career TDs = Capable of Producing 2.3 TDs gm/by career. The same method is used to calculate every other player on the list so even if you don't like the method it produces a value to judge a player by.

No I mean it is pretty simple. To find one players average per game you divide his total with games played. Can't get that wrong.

Now on to this other method that you are trying to throw out there. It is horrible and very flawed. The fact is Bruce was never capable of producing 2.3 TD's per game. Hell NO PLAYER in the HISTORY of the NFL is or was capable of putting up those kind of numbers. Just think of it this way. Randy Moss holds the record for most recieving TD's in a season with 23. That is 1.4 TD's a game. That is still a TD less a game than that 2.3 you are throwing out. So if the most prolific season EVER as far as scoring TD's is a TD a game less than that number how can Bruce ever be close to that??

The fact is the most TD's Bruce has ever had in a season is 13 in which he played 16 games. That is less than one a game. So I still don't see how it could even be possible for arguments sake that he could put up over 2 TD's a game.

The fact is you did your math wrong. You divided his TD's into his games played. That how you got the 2.3. You didn't get the 2.3 from pro football reference or anywhere else. Just take the mistake for what it is, admit it, and move on. Let's not try to justify it and make it worse than what is.