All time receiving touchdowns (1 Viewer)

[FUBAR]

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.

My point wasn't so much the relative to his peers part although I think Hutson was better relative to his peers, but passing stats on the whole have risen a lot since then. When Hutson was setting his record, the best passer would average about 150 yards per game. Now, the leader will get almost double that.

 

[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.

Manning seems to be doing fine without Harrison.

Sure, but Peyton is the BOAT.

 

[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.

My point wasn't so much the relative to his peers part although I think Hutson was better relative to his peers, but passing stats on the whole have risen a lot since then. When Hutson was setting his record, the best passer would average about 150 yards per game. Now, the leader will get almost double that.

What does that have to do with how many times a guy led the league in receiving TDs? I really don't see how this has to do with your original statement quoted here.

 

[SSOG]

His best seasons of his Career were from 42 to 45.

He averaged

from 35 to 41

614 yards per year

7.5 tds

from 42 on

921 yards per year

11.5 tds per year

There 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.

Or you could break the splits down like this:1935-1938 ("not yet in his prime") - 514 yards, 7.5 scores

1939-1941 ("in his prime, before the war") - 749 yards, 7.3 scores

1942 ("first year of the war") - 1211 yards, 17 scores

1943-1945 ("in his prime, during the war") - 825 yards, 9.7 scores

Outside of 1942, which was a huge outlier, Hutson's war production wasn't radically better than his pre-war production. If you replaced his last four seasons with four more 749 yards, 7.3 score seasons, he'd only wind up losing ~690 career yards (less than 10% of his career total) and 16 career TDs. His career yardage and receiving TD mark still would have been wholly unchallenged until the 60s. Moreover, Don Hutson had won four consecutive AP All Pros before the war, and he won the league MVP award the year before the war broke out. He would have continued to win All Pros and possibly won another MVP whether America went to war or not.

You keep insisting that the quality of competition was TERRIBLE back in the 1930s and 1940s, which means you either missed this post or you simply have no response. My question, though, is does that really matter? It's not our job to figure out what the league COULD HAVE been. Should we downgrade Darrell Revis because he doesn't have to contain the Usain Bolts of the world? As far as I'm concerned, all those shoulda woulda couldas are irrelevant. All that matters is what happened... and what happened was Hutson dominated the league more than any player has ever dominated the league at any point in history.

 

[FUBAR]

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.

My point wasn't so much the relative to his peers part although I think Hutson was better relative to his peers, but passing stats on the whole have risen a lot since then. When Hutson was setting his record, the best passer would average about 150 yards per game. Now, the leader will get almost double that.

What does that have to do with how many times a guy led the league in receiving TDs? I really don't see how this has to do with your original statement quoted here.

Nobody was throwing much back then, so the stats, even on a per game average should be much lower. The fact that he had the record for a long time despite the increased passing later and was pretty clearly the best in the NFL during that time combined show how good he was. Are there any sports where you can take the guy from 60 years ago and he'll look impressive compared to today's best? Maybe chess

 

[CBower4545]

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.

Everything I have read and seen says the opposite. The NFL was not a real major sport like it is today. It struggled and some of the best college players turned down the NFL. Because it didn't pay well and wasn't respected. Many of the college all-americans simply had better financial opportunities else where. I have included a qoute to an article below, with a link.

Still, pro football faced a continuous struggle to prove its financial viability and cultural relevance. In the first half of the twentieth century, baseball—the so-called "national pastime"—was far and away the most popular professional sport in America. Baseball heroes like Babe Ruth were able to fill huge venues like Yankee Stadium with diehard fans at a time when NFL games were lucky to draw a few thousand spectators. Even among football fans, the college game remained much more popular than the NFL until well after World War II. (One suggestive indication of the relative popularity of college and pro football in the first half of the twentieth century: for many years, the NFL ended its season not with a Super Bowl, but with an All-Star Game pitting the best NFL team against a squad of collegiate all-stars. The amateur student-athletes typically brought more fans to the game.) Pro football simply wasn't a major sport, which meant that it didn't pay well. As a result, the best college players often chose to take regular jobs in the business world rather than turn up to play after being drafted into the NFL. (Jay Berwanger, the Heisman-winning quarterback who was the very first player chosen in the very first NFL draft, spurned pro football for a career in the plastics industry.) Frequent scandals over payments to players and controversies over flexible interpretations of the rules tarnished the game's reputation. Not unlike pro wrestling today, pro football before World War II occupied a place on the fringes of America's sporting culture, regarded as a vaguely disreputable sideshow to the real action taking place on the baseball diamond and college gridiron.

NFL Early Struggles

 

[atl3695]

Lies, Damb Lies, and Statistics.

You can make the stats supports ANY argument that you would like to make. But anyone who actually watches football can tell there is no argument. Jerry Rice has the best CAREER of any wide receiver ever. No one has ever performed at such a high level for so long. From 1986 to 2003, only one year (1997) did he miss more than one game in a season. Consistency has to count for something. Rice was consistently great for 17 YEARS!

 

[cobalt_27]

Oh boy. Look at all the Hutson nonsense going from brain cells to keyboards. Ninety-nine percent of whom wouldn't recognize him in a lineup, let alone ever saw him play.

Jerry Rice is the greatest receiver to ever play the game.

[/thread]

 

[OddibeMcD]

Lies, Damb Lies, and Statistics.

You can make the stats supports ANY argument that you would like to make. But anyone who actually watches football can tell there is no argument. Jerry Rice has the best CAREER of any wide receiver ever. No one has ever performed at such a high level for so long. From 1986 to 2003, only one year (1997) did he miss more than one game in a season. Consistency has to count for something. Rice was consistently great for 17 YEARS!

To prove your statement, please come up with stats that show JaMarcus Russell has a better career than Peyton Manning.Obviously your second statement is false. It is apparent everyone in this thread watches football and some will not concede there is no argument. Ripken holds the record for consecutive games played in baseball, but no one claims he is the best shortstop ever. Consistency counts for something when it comes to a guy like Terrell Davis, but when you have two players of 10+ seasons of great production, consistency means much less.

As for the Pro football is popular argument, I concede that the NFL was the third sport in the national hierarchy, behind baseball and college football. However, pro football was not an afterthought. Attendance rose, especially after the economy picked up. Professional football (though not the NFL) was represented coast-to-coast. Attendance rose and the NFL was on tv well before baseball. Red Grange signing with the NFL helped to raise the profile of the NFL in the 20's and the league continued to grow.

As SSOG posted, it is tough to downgrade on hypotheticals. If I claim that Revis couldn't cover Kobe Bryant on a nine route, I can't legitimately claim that is a flaw of Revis'. All I (or anyone) can do is measure players based on who they played. However, I will point out that a failed basketball power forward, one not considered NBA materia, has become possibly the greatest TE of all time within the past ten years. Potential talent is still drawn away from the NFL.

 

[atl3695]

Lies, Damb Lies, and Statistics.

You can make the stats supports ANY argument that you would like to make. But anyone who actually watches football can tell there is no argument. Jerry Rice has the best CAREER of any wide receiver ever. No one has ever performed at such a high level for so long. From 1986 to 2003, only one year (1997) did he miss more than one game in a season. Consistency has to count for something. Rice was consistently great for 17 YEARS!

To prove your statement, please come up with stats that show JaMarcus Russell has a better career than Peyton Manning.Obviously your second statement is false. It is apparent everyone in this thread watches football and some will not concede there is no argument. Ripken holds the record for consecutive games played in baseball, but no one claims he is the best shortstop ever. Consistency counts for something when it comes to a guy like Terrell Davis, but when you have two players of 10+ seasons of great production, consistency means much less.

As for the Pro football is popular argument, I concede that the NFL was the third sport in the national hierarchy, behind baseball and college football. However, pro football was not an afterthought. Attendance rose, especially after the economy picked up. Professional football (though not the NFL) was represented coast-to-coast. Attendance rose and the NFL was on tv well before baseball. Red Grange signing with the NFL helped to raise the profile of the NFL in the 20's and the league continued to grow.

As SSOG posted, it is tough to downgrade on hypotheticals. If I claim that Revis couldn't cover Kobe Bryant on a nine route, I can't legitimately claim that is a flaw of Revis'. All I (or anyone) can do is measure players based on who they played. However, I will point out that a failed basketball power forward, one not considered NBA materia, has become possibly the greatest TE of all time within the past ten years. Potential talent is still drawn away from the NFL.

1. JaMarcus Russell argument:JaMarcus Russell suffered from an addiction to the Purple Drank in 2009. Substance abuse is a disease so this was not Russell's fault. 2009 shouldnt be considered when looking at his career. So to Russell's entire career was really his the 1 game he started in 2007 (224 yards, 1td, and 1 int.) and 2008. So to compare "careers" you haveto compare apples to apples. Let's compare Russells first 16 starts (his career) vs. Peytons first 16.

Russell: 2647 yards, 14 td's, 9 ints

Peyton: 3739, 26 tds, 28 int's

Looking deeper in the numbers, it is obvious JaMarcuss Russell had the better career. While both passers had career completion rates in the mid 50's, Russell had a much better td to int rate and was much more accurate. Peyton was so inaccurate that he led the league with 28 interceptions. Peyton's interception percentage was almost 5% while Russell's was less than half that. Russell had a higher passer rating at 77 vs. 71. While Peyton threw for more yards this was just a result of more throws as Russell had a higher yards per attempt. Finally, being an NFL quarterback is about leading your team to victory. Both teams were bad the previous year as Peyton and Russell were both #1 picks. However, Russell is a much better leader as his team won 66% more of their games than Petyon's team.

While this argument is obviously ridiculous because we have seen both players play, I bet I could hop on a message board in the year 2070 and convince a few people.

2. Your are correct that my second statement is false as I should not have said anyone or everyone. Hell, some people still think the earth is flat also. Football much more so than baseball or basketball cant be determined by just stats. While a good hitter is a good hitter regardless of teammates, football players production is very much a result of his team. Don Huston retired in 1945. How many of those games were you in the stands for? How many of those games did you on television? Highlights on Sportscenter? Besides a 15 minute clip on NFL Films, I doubt most on this board know ANYTHING about Don Hudson except those stats. While it is hard to compare players from different eras, the level of competition in the NFL now compared to 1945 is immensely higher.

Don Hutson better than Jerry Rice? C'MON SON!!

 

[SSOG]

1. JaMarcus Russell argument:JaMarcus Russell suffered from an addiction to the Purple Drank in 2009. Substance abuse is a disease so this was not Russell's fault. 2009 shouldnt be considered when looking at his career. So to Russell's entire career was really his the 1 game he started in 2007 (224 yards, 1td, and 1 int.) and 2008. So to compare "careers" you haveto compare apples to apples. Let's compare Russells first 16 starts (his career) vs. Peytons first 16.Russell: 2647 yards, 14 td's, 9 intsPeyton: 3739, 26 tds, 28 int'sLooking deeper in the numbers, it is obvious JaMarcuss Russell had the better career. While both passers had career completion rates in the mid 50's, Russell had a much better td to int rate and was much more accurate. Peyton was so inaccurate that he led the league with 28 interceptions. Peyton's interception percentage was almost 5% while Russell's was less than half that. Russell had a higher passer rating at 77 vs. 71. While Peyton threw for more yards this was just a result of more throws as Russell had a higher yards per attempt. Finally, being an NFL quarterback is about leading your team to victory. Both teams were bad the previous year as Peyton and Russell were both #1 picks. However, Russell is a much better leader as his team won 66% more of their games than Petyon's team.While this argument is obviously ridiculous because we have seen both players play, I bet I could hop on a message board in the year 2070 and convince a few people.

I think if you tried to pull that argument out in 2070, everyone would smell it coming from miles away. You know, because it's bull-you-know-what, and they'd know it. Nobody would sit there and say "wow, sure, you had to engage in the most ludicrous statistical gymnastics known to man and you completely glossed over one of the players in the comparison entirely, but outside of that you make a compelling case! Even though what you argued (that Russell's first 16 games were better than Peyton's) was 100% not what you were claiming to argue (that Russell's career was better than Peyton's), but it's the year 2070 and mankind has lost all ability to reason or think critically."Don Hutson's case doesn't require statistical gymnastics. 8 time first-team AP All Pro, 2 time League MVP, set records that stood for decades in some instances and and 40+ years in other instances. 1942 season still is second all time in receiving TDs per game in NFL history (and 9th in receiving yards per game), more than 60 years after he retired. Most #1 finishes of any player at any position in the history of the league. Ditto that for top-3 finishes. And, oh yeah, he pretty much invented the modern WR position with his introduction of the concept of route running.

 

[SSOG]

Oh boy. Look at all the Hutson nonsense going from brain cells to keyboards. Ninety-nine percent of whom wouldn't recognize him in a lineup, let alone ever saw him play.Jerry Rice is the greatest receiver to ever play the game. [/thread]

How many people do you think saw Babe Ruth play? Does that mean that Barry Bonds is a better baseball player? I've never seen Jim Brown play, either, so he must not have been the greatest RB. Plenty of people haven't seen Johnny Unitas play, too. Want me to keep going?

 

[CBower4545]

His best seasons of his Career were from 42 to 45.

He averaged

from 35 to 41

614 yards per year

7.5 tds

from 42 on

921 yards per year

11.5 tds per year

There 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.

Or you could break the splits down like this:1935-1938 ("not yet in his prime") - 514 yards, 7.5 scores

1939-1941 ("in his prime, before the war") - 749 yards, 7.3 scores

1942 ("first year of the war") - 1211 yards, 17 scores

1943-1945 ("in his prime, during the war") - 825 yards, 9.7 scores

Outside of 1942, which was a huge outlier, Hutson's war production wasn't radically better than his pre-war production. If you replaced his last four seasons with four more 749 yards, 7.3 score seasons, he'd only wind up losing ~690 career yards (less than 10% of his career total) and 16 career TDs. His career yardage and receiving TD mark still would have been wholly unchallenged until the 60s. Moreover, Don Hutson had won four consecutive AP All Pros before the war, and he won the league MVP award the year before the war broke out. He would have continued to win All Pros and possibly won another MVP whether America went to war or not.

You keep insisting that the quality of competition was TERRIBLE back in the 1930s and 1940s, which means you either missed this post or you simply have no response. My question, though, is does that really matter? It's not our job to figure out what the league COULD HAVE been. Should we downgrade Darrell Revis because he doesn't have to contain the Usain Bolts of the world? As far as I'm concerned, all those shoulda woulda couldas are irrelevant. All that matters is what happened... and what happened was Hutson dominated the league more than any player has ever dominated the league at any point in history.

Hey you can look at it whatever way you want, but 42 to 45 were the best years of his career. Only 39 and 41 come closing to matching his production over those four years. I have never asked what could have been done or said how I thought he would do. I simply am providing context to the crazy numbers he put up. Given that information the numbers don't do anything for me. Doug Floutie dominated the CFL, but we know how good he is because he got to play against top competition. We will never know about Hutson and I not speculating one way or the other; but we do know Rice got to play top competition and dominated. So choice seems pretty obvious to me. You can speculate on how Hutson could have dominated putting up actual numbers against top competition or you can go with the guy who actually did it.

 

[CBower4545]

Here is how you know your professional football league talent level is not that good. You take your Champion team and play them against college all-stars and lose over and over. They actually did this game this game from 1934 to 1977. In the early years the years Hutson played the NFL teams really struggled. From 1934 to 1947 the NFL Championship teams lost or tied 6 out the 14 games and most were close. In the superbowl era the NFL team never lost and blew the college all stars out alot. 1937 Don Hutson's packers lost to the All stars 6 - 0. And Hutson himself was totally out played by college kids .

Arnold Herber and Don Hutson, Green Bay's famed pass combination, didn't function up to expectations. Hutson caught a few, but he never was able to shake loose for a long gain, and his speed didn't appear to be remarkable in comparison with the All-Stars. Berber's passes couldn't compare with Baugh's for accuracy, and the Green Bay tosser appeared to use too much height on his long pitches, making them easier to defend against than were Baugh's whistling shots.

Hutson NFL pro gets owned by college kidsNFL Champ vs College All Stars Charity Game

I fairness Hutson gets revenge playing very well in1940 and 1945. But tell me do you think Rice would be shutdown in this game. The 49er teams would have tore it up and so would all of the the Champs of that era.

 

[butcher boy]

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.

This is just blatantly incorrect. I remember watching many Rice/Deion matchups. In fact I would look forward to them by circling them on the schedule. It wasnt just the Cowboys. It dates back to when Deion played for the Falcons. I wonder if you even know what you're talking about.

 

[fantasizing]

It's really hard to compare players who played in era's where the style of play was different.

Take Gretzky's records in the NHL as an example. They may never be broken, not because there won't be a player more talented than him,

but because this player may have to play in a league where the style of play (in particular offensive style) is different than what

it was when Gretzky played. It's well known that the era Gretzky played in had a much more wide open, run and gun type style of play

compared to today. The statistical records demonstrate this very clearly. Many players (not just Gretzky) would regularly eclipse 150 points in a season. The best players today barely eclipse 100 points.

In football terms, it's like having the best receivers "routinely" scoring 20 TDs a season instead of 13 TDs a season.

I don't know anything about this Hutson character as I've never see him play and I don't know how the style of play was back 70 years ago.

I think someone mentioned this above, but a good measure of greatness might be to see how a player is doing against his peers in his current era, where all players are subjected to the same style of play, rules, # of games, conditioning, etc. However, even this is too difficult to compare because the level of talent surrounding these players is different on each team. The old argument : did Montana/Young make Rice great or did Rice make Montana/Young great?

One way to get around this argument is to look at how that player has performed while playing for different teams that have different supporting casts.

When you look at this way, Rice was elite because he had great success on 2 teams (albeit only 2 teams).

And when evaluating active WR's today, it is very clear that Moss and Owens are to be considered 2 of the greatest of all time because both of them have

had great success while playing for many different teams, with different QB's and supporting casts.

Can you regard M. Harrison as one of the greatest off all time? His statistical records would say you can, but did Manning have something to do with that? Tough to say....

 

[butcher boy]

Having a good QB is a factor, but a bit overrated.

If it was all because of Montana then why wasn't John Taylor the greatest of all time? If it's all because of Manning, then why isn't Brandon Stokely in Harrison's place?

 

[SSOG]

Having a good QB is a factor, but a bit overrated. If it was all because of Montana then why wasn't John Taylor the greatest of all time? If it's all because of Manning, then why isn't Brandon Stokely in Harrison's place?

Ummm... because by the time Marvin Harrison left the Colts, Stokley was already in Denver? And he did manage to log a 1000/10 season in Indy before he left, too. Reggie Wayne seems to be doing pretty well for himself despite the fact that most people agree he's really not one of the most talented WRs in the league.

 

[cobalt_27]

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.

Statistically, I think it would be accurate to say Hutson was the most dominant receiver in the NFL within his era compared to other receivers in their eras. He's something like 2.7 standard deviations above the mean of the top-10 in yardage in the years he played. So, among the very top receivers in his time, he was an outlier. I think he contributed to something like 46% of GB's passing production (and 24% of overall yardage). Those are staggering statistics. For any era.Still would put Jerry on the pedestal as the greatest, though. All receivers--all players--rely in large part on the system to produce statistics. It's not like baseball, where individual talent dictates success/failure in the matchup between a pitcher v. hitter. Hutson benefited from Curly Lambeau's offense, just as Rice benefited from Walsh. But, what Green Bay was doing with the passing game at the time was such an outlier in and of itself, whereas what the 49ers were doing with their passing game was just a really, really good variation on what already was happening. Not to strip away credit from Hutson or Rice. Put Wayne Millner on the Packers or put Webster Slaughter on the 49ers, it's likely that neither team would have been as successful. But, I do think that Rice's contributions in an already pass-friendly league...and that he remained the elite of the elites in that context...puts him in a higher tier than Hutson.

 

[SSOG]

Statistically, I think it would be accurate to say Hutson was the most dominant receiver in the NFL within his era compared to other receivers in their eras. He's something like 2.7 standard deviations above the mean of the top-10 in yardage in the years he played. So, among the very top receivers in his time, he was an outlier. I think he contributed to something like 46% of GB's passing production (and 24% of overall yardage). Those are staggering statistics. For any era.Still would put Jerry on the pedestal as the greatest, though. All receivers--all players--rely in large part on the system to produce statistics. It's not like baseball, where individual talent dictates success/failure in the matchup between a pitcher v. hitter. Hutson benefited from Curly Lambeau's offense, just as Rice benefited from Walsh. But, what Green Bay was doing with the passing game at the time was such an outlier in and of itself, whereas what the 49ers were doing with their passing game was just a really, really good variation on what already was happening. Not to strip away credit from Hutson or Rice. Put Wayne Millner on the Packers or put Webster Slaughter on the 49ers, it's likely that neither team would have been as successful. But, I do think that Rice's contributions in an already pass-friendly league...and that he remained the elite of the elites in that context...puts him in a higher tier than Hutson.

To be honest, I don't think anyone on the planet can say with absolute conviction who was the better/more dominant/whatever receiver. As far as I'm concerned, when the question is "who was the greatest receiver of all time", there are four "right answers": Rice, Hutson, Alworth, and Moss. I think a case could be made for any of the four. Anyone outside of that quartet, though, is pure schtick. In 4 or 5 years, I think Fitzgerald could possibly work his way into the discussion, too (he's currently a long way out of it, but I would never count out anyone who has ever looked like Fitz did during the '08 playoffs). If truth be told, I might actually throw my hat behind Bambi, the only guy with three of the top 20 seasons in terms of receiving yards per game (although you partly have to discount those accomplishments because he played in the pass-wacky AFL).Anyway, I don't really mind anyone who gives one of those four answers, because that's one of those things where we'll just never know for sure. The guys that bug me are the ones who pretend that Rice is the only possible answer and that no arguments could possibly be made for any other WR in history.