All time receiving touchdowns (1 Viewer)

[fantasizing]

Everytime I look at this stat, I shake my head. J. Rice was sensational.

Moss would need to average 10 TD's a year for the next 5 years to break his record. Not impossible, but not easy either. He's 33 now.

1. Jerry Rice 197

2. Randy Moss 148

3. Terrell Owens 144

4. Cris Carter 130

5. Marvin Harrison 128

6. Tim Brown 100

7. Steve Largent 100

8. Don Hutson 99

9. Isaac Bruce 91

10. Don Maynard 88

 

[Eminence]

I would enjoy if Randy could passes it up. The guy literally does what he wants. Hell, he can easily put up 15+ touchdowns a season with Brady the next 3 years. At that pace he'd be only 4 Touchdowns behind Rice.

...and being that close; there's NO way he doesn't beat it.

(Ok, I'll stop fantasizing now.)

But! ...TO put up a 13 TD season and a 15 TD season at age 33 and 34 respectively. Really just depends how long Randy's game is going to last. TO in my opinion is a great comparison. Both are considered All-Time Greats similar to Rice and have been able to produce into their 30's similar to Rice.

 

[SSOG]

The TD record isn't as impressive a the yardage record. Moss could easily wind up breaking the TD record. There isn't anyone in the NFL with a prayer of touching Rice's yardage record, though. I mean, in order for Fitzgerald to catch him, he'd have to average 1300 yards a year for the next TWELVE SEASONS (until age 38). Moss would have to average 1200 yards a year until he's 40.

 

[firstseason1988]

Rice's wife said he would vacuum the house before he left for games.

 

[OddibeMcD]

Rice: 303 games played, 197 TD's

Hutson: 116 games played, 99 TD's

Hutson's more impressive to me.

 

[butcher boy]

Rice: 303 games played, 197 TD'sHutson: 116 games played, 99 TD'sHutson's more impressive to me.

Rice having the consistency and ability to avoid injury for so long in the modern era and play 303 games to reach that record is part of what defines his greatness. In comparison, Hutson doesn't even deserve to smell Jerry Rice's feces.

 

[butcher boy]

Rice: 303 games played, 197 TD'sHutson: 116 games played, 99 TD'sHutson's more impressive to me.

Rice having the consistency and ability to avoid injury for so long in the modern era and play 303 games to reach that record is part of what defines his greatness. In comparison, Hutson doesn't even deserve to smell Jerry Rice's feces.

 

[Don Quixote]

Rice: 303 games played, 197 TD'sHutson: 116 games played, 99 TD'sHutson's more impressive to me.

Rice broke the record in 1992. They were roughly close on a TD/game basis at that time.

 

[rizzler]

Hutson doesn't even deserve to smell Jerry Rice's feces.

c'mon... just a teenie whiff?

 

[Area51Inhabitant]

I think this thread is becoming a perfect example why you can't compare players from vastly different era's. Without going back over Hutson's number's I would be willing to bet his yardage totals are close to a third of his teams total which would be pretty impressive in any era. Obviously, the sophistication of the modern offenses as well as all of the rules advantages the modern player enjoys makes looking at these numbers meaningless when compared to today's receivers but the fact that any player who played some 80 years ago is still on a top 10 list is very impressive indeed.

 

[jude]

look who was throwing to him. it matters.

 

[TommyGilmore]

Rice: 303 games played, 197 TD'sHutson: 116 games played, 99 TD'sHutson's more impressive to me.

Rice broke the record in 1992. They were roughly close on a TD/game basis at that time.

Rice broke the record in his 107th game.

 

[Multiple Scores]

Rice: 303 games played, 197 TD'sHutson: 116 games played, 99 TD'sHutson's more impressive to me.

Rice broke the record in 1992. They were roughly close on a TD/game basis at that time.

Rice broke the record in his 107th game.

Totally owned. Come back and explain now why you are more impressed with Hutson.

 

[twheeler]

Rice: 303 games played, 197 TD'sHutson: 116 games played, 99 TD'sHutson's more impressive to me.

Rice broke the record in 1992. They were roughly close on a TD/game basis at that time.

Rice broke the record in his 107th game.

Moss hit 100 TDs in his 123rd game. (final 10 in 19 games at Oakland ... ugh...)TO hit 100 TDs in his 127th game.

 

[FUBAR]

Rice: 303 games played, 197 TD'sHutson: 116 games played, 99 TD'sHutson's more impressive to me.

Rice broke the record in 1992. They were roughly close on a TD/game basis at that time.

Rice broke the record in his 107th game.

Totally owned. Come back and explain now why you are more impressed with Hutson.

Look at the era. Hutson led the league 9 times in 10 years. Rice led the league 6 times his entire career.

 

[FUBAR]

look who was throwing to him. it matters.

Yes, but it works both ways. Rice helped make 2 QBs HOFers. They in turn helped him be the best statistical WR ever. His career is what Moss could have had if either Culpepper had remained healthy and they stayed together or if Moss had been a Colt.

 

[dgreen]

Rice: 303 games played, 197 TD'sHutson: 116 games played, 99 TD'sHutson's more impressive to me.

Rice broke the record in 1992. They were roughly close on a TD/game basis at that time.

Rice broke the record in his 107th game.

Totally owned. Come back and explain now why you are more impressed with Hutson.

Look at the era. Hutson led the league 9 times in 10 years. Rice led the league 6 times his entire career.

Not saying that I think Hutson was more impressive, but there is probably a decent argument there and I could be convinced. To completely throw it out the window as even a possibility is stupid.

 

[TS Garp]

What surprised me in looking back over his numbers is how good he was with the Raiders. I'd forgotten. He was a legit WR1 for two years there.

 

[OddibeMcD]

Rice: 303 games played, 197 TD'sHutson: 116 games played, 99 TD'sHutson's more impressive to me.

Rice broke the record in 1992. They were roughly close on a TD/game basis at that time.

Rice broke the record in his 107th game.

Totally owned. Come back and explain now why you are more impressed with Hutson.

Because this is false?Rice's stats:Year---Games---TD's---Cum total1985--16---------3------(3)1986--16---------15-----(18)1987--12---------22-----(40)1988--16---------9-------(49)1989--16---------17------(66)1990--16---------13------(79)1991--16---------14------(93)1992--16---------10------(103)In 1992, Rice caught his seventh TD in game #11 (a 27-10 victory over the Rams). That is a total of 119 games, three more than the number of games Hutson played.

 

[OddibeMcD]

Rice led the league in receptions twice, Hutson led the league in receptions eight times.

Rice led the league in receiving yards six times, Hutson led the league in receiving yards seven times.

Rice led the league in Receiving TD's six times, Hutson led the league in receiving TD's nine times.

Rice led the league in combined (Rush+Rec) TD's twice, Hutson led the league in combined TD's seven times.

Rice led the league in total points scored once, Hutson led the league in total points scored five times.

When comparing people from different eras, the best way to do it is against their contemporaries. This is why Ruth is lauded as such an amazing player. It is the same reason why Hutson stands above Rice.

 

[dgreen]

Rice led the league in total points scored once, Hutson led the league in total points scored five times.

Outside of 1942, I'm not sure that holds true for Hutson when you remove his kicking points.1942 was an amazing year for Hutson. He had 17 TD receptions. The second leading receiver in the league had 27 receptions.

 

[OddibeMcD]

Rice led the league in total points scored once, Hutson led the league in total points scored five times.

Outside of 1942, I'm not sure that holds true for Hutson when you remove his kicking points.1942 was an amazing year for Hutson. He had 17 TD receptions. The second leading receiver in the league had 27 receptions.

Problem is a lot of the top TD scorers also kicked. Look at 1944. Remove Hutson's PAT's and Frankie Sinkwich passes him. But, Sinkwich also kicked 24 XP's that year as well. (I will point out that Hutson went 31 of 33, while Sinkwich only went 24 out of 30.) While I care about Hutson v. Rice, I don't care enough to figure out scoring leaders without kicking points...figure combined TD's works well for that. A stat Hutson holds a comfortable lead in.

 

[TommyGilmore]

In 1992, Rice caught his seventh TD in game #11 (a 27-10 victory over the Rams). That is a total of 119 games, three more than the number of games Hutson played.

 

[dgreen]

Rice led the league in total points scored once, Hutson led the league in total points scored five times.

Outside of 1942, I'm not sure that holds true for Hutson when you remove his kicking points.1942 was an amazing year for Hutson. He had 17 TD receptions. The second leading receiver in the league had 27 receptions.

Problem is a lot of the top TD scorers also kicked. Look at 1944. Remove Hutson's PAT's and Frankie Sinkwich passes him. But, Sinkwich also kicked 24 XP's that year as well. (I will point out that Hutson went 31 of 33, while Sinkwich only went 24 out of 30.) While I care about Hutson v. Rice, I don't care enough to figure out scoring leaders without kicking points...figure combined TD's works well for that. A stat Hutson holds a comfortable lead in.

Yeah, I really only looked into a couple seasons where I checked the second place point scorer. The couple I looked at had the 2nd place guy not doing any kicking.I noticed that Hutson never led the league in scoring until he started kicking regularly (1940). At that point, he started leading the league. So, without putting full research into it, I assume his kicking played a major factor there.Another factor for Hutson is the two-way players of his day. He played plenty of DB, meaning just prior to running a deep go route, he was covering a go route and making a tackle. Rice was resting on the bench. Of course, this works both ways for Hutson. I'm sure he ran many routes against DBs who ran some offensive plays, were tackled once or twice, and then covered a punt.

 

[dgreen]

From 1935 to 1945 (Hutson's career), there was one TD pass for every 8.68 pass completions in the NFL. So, from 1935 to 1945, we'd expect an average player to have 56 TDs on 488 receptions (Hutson's receptions in those years). Hutson had 99 TDs, which is 1.77x the average.

From 1985 to 1995 (start of Rice's career), there was one TD pass for every 14.14 pass completions in the NFL. So, from 1985 to 1995, we'd expect an average player to have 66.7 TDs on 942 receptions (Rice's reception in those years). Rice had 146 TDs, which is 2.19x the average.

Compared to their contemporaries, Rice did more (scoring-wise) with his opportunities than Hutson did.

 

[Deadman31]

Was Rice ever hurt? I thought I remembered one time when he came back too early from a knee or leg injury and got hurt again the same game and ended up missing significant time. Did this happen?

 

[dgreen]

Was Rice ever hurt? I thought I remembered one time when he came back too early from a knee or leg injury and got hurt again the same game and ended up missing significant time. Did this happen?

He was injured week 1 of 1997. I believe from a Warren Sapp tackle on a reverse. He played again in week 15, but that was it. Did he get hurt again in week 15?

 

[Tau837]

Look at the era. Hutson led the league 9 times in 10 years. Rice led the league 6 times his entire career.

Not saying that I think Hutson was more impressive, but there is probably a decent argument there and I could be convinced. To completely throw it out the window as even a possibility is stupid.

When Hutson played, there were 9-10 teams in the league. So leading the league in receiving TDs essentially meant being better than 17-19 other starting ends.When Rice played, there were 28-32 teams in the league. So leading the league in receiving TDs essentially meant being better than 55+ other starting WRs (as well as all TEs).I'm not knocking Hutson. IMO he and Rice are the two best ever. However, just saying Hutson leading the league 9 times in receiving TDs compared to Rice "only" doing it 6 times gives Hutson the edge is off base IMO.

 

[SSOG]

Hutson vs. Rice is Jim Brown vs. Barry Sanders. One was SUBSTANTIALLY more dominant, but played in a watered down NFL. The other was still unbelievably dominant, and played in a mostly full-strength NFL. Whichever one you prefer depends a lot on what you value more from a player.

Personally, I give Hutson extra credit because he pretty much invented the WR position as we know it. The entire concept of running routes is directly attributable to Don Hutson- before that, guys just ran around willy-nilly trying to get open.

 

[Tau837]

Rice led the league in receptions twice, Hutson led the league in receptions eight times.Rice led the league in receiving yards six times, Hutson led the league in receiving yards seven times.Rice led the league in Receiving TD's six times, Hutson led the league in receiving TD's nine times.Rice led the league in combined (Rush+Rec) TD's twice, Hutson led the league in combined TD's seven times.Rice led the league in total points scored once, Hutson led the league in total points scored five times.When comparing people from different eras, the best way to do it is against their contemporaries. This is why Ruth is lauded as such an amazing player. It is the same reason why Hutson stands above Rice.

See my previous post. Apples and oranges IMO.

 

[Tau837]

From 1935 to 1945 (Hutson's career), there was one TD pass for every 8.68 pass completions in the NFL. So, from 1935 to 1945, we'd expect an average player to have 56 TDs on 488 receptions (Hutson's receptions in those years). Hutson had 99 TDs, which is 1.77x the average.From 1985 to 1995 (start of Rice's career), there was one TD pass for every 14.14 pass completions in the NFL. So, from 1985 to 1995, we'd expect an average player to have 66.7 TDs on 942 receptions (Rice's reception in those years). Rice had 146 TDs, which is 2.19x the average.Compared to their contemporaries, Rice did more (scoring-wise) with his opportunities than Hutson did.

Did you remove Hutson's and Rice's TDs before calculating the league average? Maybe you did, but it isn't clear you did. If you don't, it could skew these numbers.

 

[dgreen]

Look at the era. Hutson led the league 9 times in 10 years. Rice led the league 6 times his entire career.

Not saying that I think Hutson was more impressive, but there is probably a decent argument there and I could be convinced. To completely throw it out the window as even a possibility is stupid.

When Hutson played, there were 9-10 teams in the league. So leading the league in receiving TDs essentially meant being better than 17-19 other starting ends.When Rice played, there were 28-32 teams in the league. So leading the league in receiving TDs essentially meant being better than 55+ other starting WRs (as well as all TEs).I'm not knocking Hutson. IMO he and Rice are the two best ever. However, just saying Hutson leading the league 9 times in receiving TDs compared to Rice "only" doing it 6 times gives Hutson the edge is off base IMO.

Sorry, my was mostly towards the "Look at the era" comment and not that the league leader stat posted above ends all discussion here.There are plenty of stats to throw around. No single stat is going to settle this. My point is that it's not a simple case, IMO.

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

Rice had 22 TDs in the 12 game strike shortened year.

 

[dgreen]

From 1935 to 1945 (Hutson's career), there was one TD pass for every 8.68 pass completions in the NFL. So, from 1935 to 1945, we'd expect an average player to have 56 TDs on 488 receptions (Hutson's receptions in those years). Hutson had 99 TDs, which is 1.77x the average.From 1985 to 1995 (start of Rice's career), there was one TD pass for every 14.14 pass completions in the NFL. So, from 1985 to 1995, we'd expect an average player to have 66.7 TDs on 942 receptions (Rice's reception in those years). Rice had 146 TDs, which is 2.19x the average.Compared to their contemporaries, Rice did more (scoring-wise) with his opportunities than Hutson did.

Did you remove Hutson's and Rice's TDs before calculating the league average? Maybe you did, but it isn't clear you did. If you don't, it could skew these numbers.

It changes it some, but we're already dealing with pretty large numbers (especially Rice's era, meaning it helps Hutson more) that it doesn't make a huge difference.New numbers...Hutson: 1.84Rice: 2.22

 

[Tau837]

Look at the era. Hutson led the league 9 times in 10 years. Rice led the league 6 times his entire career.

Not saying that I think Hutson was more impressive, but there is probably a decent argument there and I could be convinced. To completely throw it out the window as even a possibility is stupid.

When Hutson played, there were 9-10 teams in the league. So leading the league in receiving TDs essentially meant being better than 17-19 other starting ends.When Rice played, there were 28-32 teams in the league. So leading the league in receiving TDs essentially meant being better than 55+ other starting WRs (as well as all TEs).I'm not knocking Hutson. IMO he and Rice are the two best ever. However, just saying Hutson leading the league 9 times in receiving TDs compared to Rice "only" doing it 6 times gives Hutson the edge is off base IMO.

Sorry, my was mostly towards the "Look at the era" comment and not that the league leader stat posted above ends all discussion here.There are plenty of stats to throw around. No single stat is going to settle this. My point is that it's not a simple case, IMO.

Agreed.

 

[Tau837]

From 1935 to 1945 (Hutson's career), there was one TD pass for every 8.68 pass completions in the NFL. So, from 1935 to 1945, we'd expect an average player to have 56 TDs on 488 receptions (Hutson's receptions in those years). Hutson had 99 TDs, which is 1.77x the average.From 1985 to 1995 (start of Rice's career), there was one TD pass for every 14.14 pass completions in the NFL. So, from 1985 to 1995, we'd expect an average player to have 66.7 TDs on 942 receptions (Rice's reception in those years). Rice had 146 TDs, which is 2.19x the average.Compared to their contemporaries, Rice did more (scoring-wise) with his opportunities than Hutson did.

Did you remove Hutson's and Rice's TDs before calculating the league average? Maybe you did, but it isn't clear you did. If you don't, it could skew these numbers.

It changes it some, but we're already dealing with pretty large numbers (especially Rice's era, meaning it helps Hutson more) that it doesn't make a huge difference.New numbers...Hutson: 1.84Rice: 2.22

OK, I thought it might help Hutson more than that. Good info.

 

[dgreen]

From 1935 to 1945 (Hutson's career), there was one TD pass for every 8.68 pass completions in the NFL. So, from 1935 to 1945, we'd expect an average player to have 56 TDs on 488 receptions (Hutson's receptions in those years). Hutson had 99 TDs, which is 1.77x the average.From 1985 to 1995 (start of Rice's career), there was one TD pass for every 14.14 pass completions in the NFL. So, from 1985 to 1995, we'd expect an average player to have 66.7 TDs on 942 receptions (Rice's reception in those years). Rice had 146 TDs, which is 2.19x the average.Compared to their contemporaries, Rice did more (scoring-wise) with his opportunities than Hutson did.

Did you remove Hutson's and Rice's TDs before calculating the league average? Maybe you did, but it isn't clear you did. If you don't, it could skew these numbers.

It changes it some, but we're already dealing with pretty large numbers (especially Rice's era, meaning it helps Hutson more) that it doesn't make a huge difference.New numbers...Hutson: 1.84Rice: 2.22

OK, I thought it might help Hutson more than that. Good info.

It might even change it some more if we only look at WRs, eliminating RBs and TEs. I'm not sure what the RBs role was in the receiving game in the 30s and 40s compared to the 80s and 90s and I'm pretty sure the TE position was irrelevant, possibly even non-existent.

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

Look at the era. Hutson led the league 9 times in 10 years. Rice led the league 6 times his entire career.

Not saying that I think Hutson was more impressive, but there is probably a decent argument there and I could be convinced. To completely throw it out the window as even a possibility is stupid.

When Hutson played, there were 9-10 teams in the league. So leading the league in receiving TDs essentially meant being better than 17-19 other starting ends.When Rice played, there were 28-32 teams in the league. So leading the league in receiving TDs essentially meant being better than 55+ other starting WRs (as well as all TEs).

Exactly what I was going to point out.

 

[butcher boy]

Jerry Rice consistently burned Deion Sanders, another popular (but wrong) pick for best football player ever. No way Hutson could've done that.

I can't believe this is even a debate.

 

[CBower4545]

Hutson vs. Rice is Jim Brown vs. Barry Sanders. One was SUBSTANTIALLY more dominant, but played in a watered down NFL. The other was still unbelievably dominant, and played in a mostly full-strength NFL. Whichever one you prefer depends a lot on what you value more from a player.Personally, I give Hutson extra credit because he pretty much invented the WR position as we know it. The entire concept of running routes is directly attributable to Don Hutson- before that, guys just ran around willy-nilly trying to get open.

I think watered down is a bit of an understatement. The great Depression blunted the NFL's ability to grow. In the 1930's the NFL was a distant third in popularity third in popularity. far behind baseball and college football. The NFL did not get all the best talent to begin with. In 1935 they were only a 9 team league. World War 2 decimated the leagues talent pool. Hutson Best years were from 1940 to 1945, a time when the NFL like the nation was experiencing a severe manpower shortage. Many great players left to fight in the war.

The scope of World War II smacks you in the face when you consider that 995 members of the NFL, mostly players, interrupted their careers and, in some cases, gave up their lives serving in the military. Those who served in World War II included some of the biggest names in football history – George Halas, Wellington Mara and Cold, Hard Football Facts all-time greats Otto Graham and Chuck Bednarik. Imagine today if Denver owner Pat Bowlen, Indy GM Bill Polian, New England QB Tom Brady and Baltimore LB Ray Lewis all left their cushy NFL gigs to join the service, and you get an idea of the impact World War II had on professional football and on society at large.

Several retired players, including three future Hall of Famers, answered their team’s S.O.S. Bronko Nagurski, a fullback with the Chicago Bears, who had retired in 1937, returned in 1943 to play tackle. Green Bay quarterback Arnie Herber, who last played in 1940, signed on with the 1944 New York Giants, as did halfback Ken Strong, who last played for the team in 1939.More significantly, the player shortage forced the Cleveland Rams to suspend play for the 1943 season, while the Pittsburgh Steelers and Philadelphia Eagles agreed to merge. The “Steagles” as they were known, split home games between the two cities. The “Steagles” merger was dissolved prior to the start of the 1944 season, at which time the Steelers merged with the struggling Chicago Cardinals. Officially known as the Card-Pitt Combine, the team went 0-10, and was so bad that it was derided as the “Carpets.” The next year both Pittsburgh and Chicago operated separately, but the Boston Yanks and the Brooklyn franchise – renamed the Tigers – were forced to merge and played the 1944 season as the “Yanks,” with no city designation.

It is always hard to compare different times, but you can not understate how terrible the talent in the NFL was during the time Hutson "Dominated". It makes it hard to take his numbers seriously, let alone trying to compare different times.

 

[TommyGilmore]

Was Rice ever hurt? I thought I remembered one time when he came back too early from a knee or leg injury and got hurt again the same game and ended up missing significant time. Did this happen?

He was injured week 1 of 1997. I believe from a Warren Sapp tackle on a reverse. He played again in week 15, but that was it. Did he get hurt again in week 15?

1. he didn't just "get injured" in week 1 of 1997. He tore both his ACL and MCL in week 1 of 1997.2. he came back in week 15 but broke his kneecap in that game.

 

[dgreen]

Jerry Rice consistently burned Deion Sanders, another popular (but wrong) pick for best football player ever. No way Hutson could've done that.I can't believe this is even a debate.

 

[SSOG]

Hutson vs. Rice is Jim Brown vs. Barry Sanders. One was SUBSTANTIALLY more dominant, but played in a watered down NFL. The other was still unbelievably dominant, and played in a mostly full-strength NFL. Whichever one you prefer depends a lot on what you value more from a player.Personally, I give Hutson extra credit because he pretty much invented the WR position as we know it. The entire concept of running routes is directly attributable to Don Hutson- before that, guys just ran around willy-nilly trying to get open.

I think watered down is a bit of an understatement. The great Depression blunted the NFL's ability to grow. In the 1930's the NFL was a distant third in popularity third in popularity. far behind baseball and college football. The NFL did not get all the best talent to begin with. In 1935 they were only a 9 team league. World War 2 decimated the leagues talent pool. Hutson Best years were from 1940 to 1945, a time when the NFL like the nation was experiencing a severe manpower shortage. Many great players left to fight in the war. It is always hard to compare different times, but you can not understate how terrible the talent in the NFL was during the time Hutson "Dominated". It makes it hard to take his numbers seriously, let alone trying to compare different times.

The war argument would hold a lot more water if Hutson hadn't dominated the league for the better part of a decade before the war ever started. US entered World War II in December of 1941, which means that Hutson's first 7 seasons were played against a full-strength NFL. During those 7 seasons, he led the league in receiving yards per game and total TDs 5 times each. He was a 4-time first team AP All Pro, and he already owned most receiving records. It's true that his spectacular 1200/17 season was most likely largely a result of the depleted NFL he was facing, but let's not pretend that Don Hutson was just a guy until the war broke out. He was the most dominant receiver the NFL had ever seen YEARS before the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.

 

[jude]

look who was throwing to him. it matters.

Yes, but it works both ways. Rice helped make 2 QBs HOFers. They in turn helped him be the best statistical WR ever. His career is what Moss could have had if either Culpepper had remained healthy and they stayed together or if Moss had been a Colt.

Manning seems to be doing fine without Harrison.

 

[OddibeMcD]

Look at the era. Hutson led the league 9 times in 10 years. Rice led the league 6 times his entire career.

Not saying that I think Hutson was more impressive, but there is probably a decent argument there and I could be convinced. To completely throw it out the window as even a possibility is stupid.

When Hutson played, there were 9-10 teams in the league. So leading the league in receiving TDs essentially meant being better than 17-19 other starting ends.When Rice played, there were 28-32 teams in the league. So leading the league in receiving TDs essentially meant being better than 55+ other starting WRs (as well as all TEs).

Exactly what I was going to point out.

And what cuts the other way is that more teams dilutes talents and allows for inferior players to play meaningful minutes. If there were two teams in the NFL the best players would be on those two teams and stats wouldn't be irrelevent. If Andre Johnson played Revis 16 games, his stats would not be inflated.

 

[butcher boy]

Look at the era. Hutson led the league 9 times in 10 years. Rice led the league 6 times his entire career.

Not saying that I think Hutson was more impressive, but there is probably a decent argument there and I could be convinced. To completely throw it out the window as even a possibility is stupid.

When Hutson played, there were 9-10 teams in the league. So leading the league in receiving TDs essentially meant being better than 17-19 other starting ends.When Rice played, there were 28-32 teams in the league. So leading the league in receiving TDs essentially meant being better than 55+ other starting WRs (as well as all TEs).

Exactly what I was going to point out.

And what cuts the other way is that more teams dilutes talents and allows for inferior players to play meaningful minutes. If there were two teams in the NFL the best players would be on those two teams and stats wouldn't be irrelevent. If Andre Johnson played Revis 16 games, his stats would not be inflated.

Not true because you're assuming that the player pool in the WW2 era is the same as it is now. Pro football was not popular back then and as such did not have the same pool of players to draw from. Now, you not only have many more players wanting to play in the NFL, but there is also better conditioning, training, and technology to make players better and stronger.Also, Jerry Rice dominated Deion Sanders, the best cover corner in history. If you project his stats in the 10 games they faced each other to a whole season, Jerry would end up with 96 receptions for 1682 yards and 18 touchdowns. Put Jerry Rice in a 2 team league and he still dominates.

 

[OddibeMcD]

Not true because you're assuming that the player pool in the WW2 era is the same as it is now. Pro football was not popular back then and as such did not have the same pool of players to draw from. Now, you not only have many more players wanting to play in the NFL, but there is also better conditioning, training, and technology to make players better and stronger.Also, Jerry Rice dominated Deion Sanders, the best cover corner in history. If you project his stats in the 10 games they faced each other to a whole season, Jerry would end up with 96 receptions for 1682 yards and 18 touchdowns. Put Jerry Rice in a 2 team league and he still dominates.

Pro football was popular. So popular that a rival league to the NFL formed in 1936, Hutson's second year in the league. So popular that the first NFL game was broadcast on tv in 1939, 12 years before the first baseball game was broadcast on tv. So popular that NFL attendance was over 1,000,000 in 1939. College football was as, if not more popular back in the 1930's and the best college players wanted to play in the NFL, just as they do now. To point out conditioning is a double edged sword, for Hutson (and all the players then) did not have access. To claim that conditioning makes defenders better is disingenuous, for it also makes offensive players better (or guys who play both ways, as Hutson did.) Conditioning, training and technology is an era thing, you can't claim that it benefits one player...it benefits all players. In the "Deion is Best" thread, it was made clear that Sanders predominantly played the weak side of the field. His lack of tackling prowess forced him to only be on one side of the field and he did not match up with the best WR on the opposing team. He played the wide receiver on the weak side. Rice was not a weak side receiver. To claim that Rice torched Sanders is false, Rice may have torched the Cowboys, but you are wrong with what you are claiming. (Many also disagree Sanders is the best cover corner, but that is neither here nor there.) It is not about the results in a two team league, it is that a smaller league keeps the best talent. Rice or Hutson's results in a hypothetical league are irrelevant. It is the talent in the hypothetical league that shows a 12 team league doesn't allow the dilution of talent as a 32 team league does.

 

[OddibeMcD]

He was the most dominant receiver the NFL had ever seen YEARS before the Japanese Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.

Corrected by Blutarsky

 

[Genghis Khan]

BTW, Rice also had 10 rushing TD's. Hutson had 3; Moss has 0.

 

[CBower4545]

Hutson vs. Rice is Jim Brown vs. Barry Sanders. One was SUBSTANTIALLY more dominant, but played in a watered down NFL. The other was still unbelievably dominant, and played in a mostly full-strength NFL. Whichever one you prefer depends a lot on what you value more from a player.Personally, I give Hutson extra credit because he pretty much invented the WR position as we know it. The entire concept of running routes is directly attributable to Don Hutson- before that, guys just ran around willy-nilly trying to get open.

I think watered down is a bit of an understatement. The great Depression blunted the NFL's ability to grow. In the 1930's the NFL was a distant third in popularity third in popularity. far behind baseball and college football. The NFL did not get all the best talent to begin with. In 1935 they were only a 9 team league. World War 2 decimated the leagues talent pool. Hutson Best years were from 1940 to 1945, a time when the NFL like the nation was experiencing a severe manpower shortage. Many great players left to fight in the war. It is always hard to compare different times, but you can not understate how terrible the talent in the NFL was during the time Hutson "Dominated". It makes it hard to take his numbers seriously, let alone trying to compare different times.

The war argument would hold a lot more water if Hutson hadn't dominated the league for the better part of a decade before the war ever started. US entered World War II in December of 1941, which means that Hutson's first 7 seasons were played against a full-strength NFL. During those 7 seasons, he led the league in receiving yards per game and total TDs 5 times each. He was a 4-time first team AP All Pro, and he already owned most receiving records. It's true that his spectacular 1200/17 season was most likely largely a result of the depleted NFL he was facing, but let's not pretend that Don Hutson was just a guy until the war broke out. He was the most dominant receiver the NFL had ever seen YEARS before the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.

His best seasons of his Career were from 42 to 45.He averaged from 35 to 41614 yards per year7.5 tds from 42 on921 yards per year11.5 tds per yearThere is a clear difference between those two periods. If he simply maintains his numbers from his early years I don't think you have as much #1 Wr ever talk. Besides the fact he was already playing in a sport that did not draw the best talent of the day(It was clearly a distant third in popularity), when there were no black players, and the whole league was slowed considerably from the Great depression. The NFL struggled financially and had a hard time luring the best college players. Because of the low pay and general lack of public interest in pro football then, the first player ever chosen in the draft in 1936, Heisman Trophy winner Jay Berwanger, opted not to play pro football. When Hutson started in 1935 the pool was already shallow, and when the war came the league was just sad. It's just not that the league was watered down a it just wasn't anything like it was today. You can't throw around Hutson numbers because honestly they just can't be used as a basis for comparison to anyone in the modern era.