Most Top 5 WR Seasons in Rec/Yds/TD (1 Viewer)

[David Yudkin]

Here is a list of all the WR since 1960 that have ranked in the Top 5 in either receptions, receiving yards, or receiving TD in a season at least a total of 5 times. A player got credit for each time ranking in the Top 5 in a category, so it would be possible to rank in the Top 5 three times in one season. For players that played some of their careers pre-1960, their totals are incomplete. I listed the times in the Top 5 in each of those categories (Rec/Yds/TD). Note that the rankings are based on WR totals only and are not pure Top 5 seasonal rankings (basically, totals for RB or TE have been filtered out). So all these players ranked Top 5 in WR totals.

Jerry Rice 9 10 11 30

Randy Moss 2 7 9 18

Steve Largent 7 5 6 18

Marvin Harrison 5 4 8 17

Lance Alworth 4 5 5 14

Art Powell 5 4 4 13

Cris Carter 6 0 6 12

Sterling Sharpe 4 4 4 12

Terrell Owens 2 3 7 12

Andre Rison 4 3 4 11

John Stallworth 3 3 4 10

Lionel Taylor 6 3 1 10

Torry Holt 4 4 2 10

Bob Hayes 1 2 6 9

Don Maynard 3 3 3 9

Harold Carmichael 2 2 5 9

Larry Fitzgerald 3 3 3 9

Reggie Wayne 3 4 2 9

Ahmad Rashad 5 2 1 8

Fred Biletnikoff 4 1 3 8

Gary Garrison 1 5 2 8

John Jefferson 2 3 3 8

Tim Brown 2 4 2 8

Chad Ochocinco 2 4 1 7

Charley Taylor 6 0 1 7

Drew Pearson 2 4 1 7

Dwight Clark 3 1 3 7

Gary Clark 2 4 1 7

Henry Ellard 2 4 1 7

James Lofton 2 4 1 7

Jimmy Smith 2 5 0 7

Lynn Swann 2 2 3 7

Otis Taylor 2 3 2 7

Rod Smith 3 2 2 7

Andre Johnson 4 2 0 6

Andre Reed 3 2 1 6

Bobby Mitchell 2 2 2 6

Cliff Branch 1 2 3 6

Gene Washington 1 3 2 6

Harold Jackson 3 2 1 6

Herman Moore 3 1 2 6

Hines Ward 2 1 3 6

Ken Burrough 1 3 2 6

Michael Irvin 3 3 0 6

Mike Quick 1 2 3 6

Tommy McDonald 1 3 2 6

Anquan Boldin 2 2 1 5

Bob Chandler 3 0 2 5

Brandon Marshall 4 0 1 5

Charlie Brown 1 2 2 5

Charlie Hennigan 2 2 1 5

Charlie Joiner 3 1 1 5

Del Shofner 0 3 2 5

Derrick Mason 3 1 1 5

Drew Hill 2 2 1 5

Isaac Bruce 1 3 1 5

Isaac Curtis 1 2 2 5

JT Smith 3 1 1 5

Mark Clayton 1 0 4 5

Muhsin Muhammad 3 1 1 5

Paul Warfield 0 1 4 5

Roy Green 2 1 2 5

Steve Smith 2 2 1 5

Wes Chandler 1 2 2 5

Wes Welker 4 1 0 5

Wesley Walker 1 1 3 5

 

[smackdaddies]

■Most seasons leading league in pass receptions (8)

■Most consecutive seasons leading league in pass receptions (5)

■Most seasons leading league in pass receiving yards gained (7)

■Most consecutive seasons leading league in pass receiving yards gained (4)

■Most seasons leading league in pass receiving touchdowns (9)

■Most consecutive seasons leading league in pass receiving touchdowns (5)

■Most seasons leading league in scoring (5)

■Most consecutive seasons leading league in scoring (5)

Best WR ever is not on your list - just saying

 

[David Yudkin]

And if Don Hutson were able to do that in the 60s or later (as opposed to the 30s and 40s) then he'd be on the list.

I'm also going to guess that it was easier to lead the league in receptions when there were 9 teams in 1936 than 32 teams in 2010.

 

[Ilov80s]

2 things jumped out: No matter how you look at the stats or performances, Rice is the best player in NFL history and the gap is large. Secondly, Steve Largent is as underrated as it gets.

 

[Multiple Scores]

Agree with all that lov80 said. It's also a shame Cris Carter is not in the hof, look at all those names below him in the hof. He has the numbers and also the infamous eyeball test over hofers swann, stallworth, monk and Irvin.

 

[smackdaddies]

And if Don Hutson were able to do that in the 60s or later (as opposed to the 30s and 40s) then he'd be on the list.I'm also going to guess that it was easier to lead the league in receptions when there were 9 teams in 1936 than 32 teams in 2010.

So, statistics matter, except when you don't like them?The only way to compare players is to compare how they did against everyone else in the league the same year - which is exactly what your stats do....other than the fact you exclude those years that prove someone else is the best wr ever.I also suspect Don would of been better if he roided up, or had a modern diet, or modern exercise program, or any other of 100 reasons.If your going to use statistics to compare players who did not play at the same time, you use all the statistics, not just cherry picked ones.

 

[Clarence the barber]

And if Don Hutson were able to do that in the 60s or later (as opposed to the 30s and 40s) then he'd be on the list.I'm also going to guess that it was easier to lead the league in receptions when there were 9 teams in 1936 than 32 teams in 2010.

But you really have no idea how hard it was to be a receiver back then.

 

[David Yudkin]

And if Don Hutson were able to do that in the 60s or later (as opposed to the 30s and 40s) then he'd be on the list.I'm also going to guess that it was easier to lead the league in receptions when there were 9 teams in 1936 than 32 teams in 2010.

But you really have no idea how hard it was to be a receiver back then.

My point through all this was not to shoot down Hutson's abilities. He was a great player and one of the all time greats. But the math alone certainly makes it much harder to lead the league in receptions (and all other categories). In 1936, there were 116 players that caught a pass. This year, there were 436. It may have been nearly impossible to catch passes in the 30s and 40s, but there were 3 times as may players noe than then.

 

[Ilov80s]

And if Don Hutson were able to do that in the 60s or later (as opposed to the 30s and 40s) then he'd be on the list.I'm also going to guess that it was easier to lead the league in receptions when there were 9 teams in 1936 than 32 teams in 2010.

But you really have no idea how hard it was to be a receiver back then.

My point through all this was not to shoot down Hutson's abilities. He was a great player and one of the all time greats. But the math alone certainly makes it much harder to lead the league in receptions (and all other categories). In 1936, there were 116 players that caught a pass. This year, there were 436. It may have been nearly impossible to catch passes in the 30s and 40s, but there were 3 times as may players noe than then.

What is the difference between number of passes thrown in 36 vs. number of passes thrown in 2010? There might be more teams thus more competition, but as the number of teams increases, so does the amount opportunities to catch a pass.

 

[David Yudkin]

And if Don Hutson were able to do that in the 60s or later (as opposed to the 30s and 40s) then he'd be on the list.I'm also going to guess that it was easier to lead the league in receptions when there were 9 teams in 1936 than 32 teams in 2010.

But you really have no idea how hard it was to be a receiver back then.

My point through all this was not to shoot down Hutson's abilities. He was a great player and one of the all time greats. But the math alone certainly makes it much harder to lead the league in receptions (and all other categories). In 1936, there were 116 players that caught a pass. This year, there were 436. It may have been nearly impossible to catch passes in the 30s and 40s, but there were 3 times as may players noe than then.

What is the difference between number of passes thrown in 36 vs. number of passes thrown in 2010? There might be more teams thus more competition, but as the number of teams increases, so does the amount opportunities to catch a pass.

It makes no difference whether there's more passing now. It's a comparison against peers. So all 1936 players vs. all 1936 players and all 2010 players against all 2010 players. The more players you factor in, the harder it gets. If the participants are closely matched, it's harder to win a race with 436 people than one with 116.And none of this really matters, as the point of the thread was to compare modern era players, not guys from before that. I don't suspect anyone will argue against Hutson being a great player.

 

[Tau837]

And if Don Hutson were able to do that in the 60s or later (as opposed to the 30s and 40s) then he'd be on the list.I'm also going to guess that it was easier to lead the league in receptions when there were 9 teams in 1936 than 32 teams in 2010.

Funny that you said this in a response about Hutson, when it was my first thought in looking at your list that the older guys had a lot less competition for top 5 than the current/recent day players. For example, in every season that Alworth recorded a top 5 performance cited here, he played in the AFL, which had 8-10 teams. Not a very high bar there.

 

[Tau837]

2 things jumped out: No matter how you look at the stats or performances, Rice is the best player in NFL history and the gap is large. Secondly, Steve Largent is as underrated as it gets.

... and the bolded was my second thought.

 

[Tau837]

I also suspect Don would of been better if he roided up, or had a modern diet, or modern exercise program, or any other of 100 reasons.

This kind of logic cuts both ways. If Hutson had any of these things, then so would other receivers, the defenders he faced, etc. There are just as many reasons that would work against him as would work for him if you play the speculation game... which is exactly the problem with doing that. And Hutson doesn't need it anyway, his accomplishments are impressive enough.

 

[David Yudkin]

And if Don Hutson were able to do that in the 60s or later (as opposed to the 30s and 40s) then he'd be on the list.I'm also going to guess that it was easier to lead the league in receptions when there were 9 teams in 1936 than 32 teams in 2010.

Funny that you said this in a response about Hutson, when it was my first thought in looking at your list that the older guys had a lot less competition for top 5 than the current/recent day players. For example, in every season that Alworth recorded a top 5 performance cited here, he played in the AFL, which had 8-10 teams. Not a very high bar there.

The players from the 60s, I combined the two leagues into one list, so someone in the Top 5 was out of all 20 some odd teams, not just 8 or 9. I realize that they were really seperate leagues with independent schedules, but for this exercise I condidered them as one league.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Wow, great thread topic. A few observations:

- Art Monk isn't even on the list. Most overrated WR of alltime

- Hines Ward is WAY down the list despite playing in an era of high passing/receiving totals

- Sterling Sharpe is pretty high up the list despite having a career cut short by injury

- How underrated is Lance Alworth? Ditto for Bad Moon Rison.

- Jerry Rice is far and above the best WR ever. Wow.

- I was pleased to see my boy John Jefferson on the list. He and Lofton were so fun to watch for a couple of years in GB. JJ was even more fun with Fouts and the Chargers. Remains my favorite alltime player. I still have his autograph somewhere in my attic.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

And if Don Hutson were able to do that in the 60s or later (as opposed to the 30s and 40s) then he'd be on the list.I'm also going to guess that it was easier to lead the league in receptions when there were 9 teams in 1936 than 32 teams in 2010.

Funny that you said this in a response about Hutson, when it was my first thought in looking at your list that the older guys had a lot less competition for top 5 than the current/recent day players. For example, in every season that Alworth recorded a top 5 performance cited here, he played in the AFL, which had 8-10 teams. Not a very high bar there.

Cherry-picking stats. Alworth was 31 years old when he joined the Cowboys in 1971.

 

[Zeff]

I wonder to what degree the guys lower down, who still generate HOF discussion...the Bruces, Wards, Reeds, etc...would jump past a lot of the competition above them if this were top 10 instead of top 5.

Now, before anybody says it, I get that top 10 is arbitrary. As is top 5. Or top 100. I'm simply wondering about a number that most would still agree is very good, year to year, and whether the notorious HOF-questionable "compiler" guys were routinely "pretty dang good" a lot more often than some of the Dwight Clark, Herman Moore, Mike Quick types.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

And none of this really matters, as the point of the thread was to compare modern era players, not guys from before that. I don't suspect anyone will argue against Hutson being a great player.

It's not just that he was a great player. He was one of the most dominant players --- versus his "era" --- in pro football history.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

I wonder to what degree the guys lower down, who still generate HOF discussion...the Bruces, Wards, Reeds, etc...would jump past a lot of the competition above them if this were top 10 instead of top 5.Now, before anybody says it, I get that top 10 is arbitrary. As is top 5. Or top 100. I'm simply wondering about a number that most would still agree is very good, year to year, and whether the notorious HOF-questionable "compiler" guys were routinely "pretty dang good" a lot more often than some of the Dwight Clark, Herman Moore, Mike Quick types.

Sure, top-10 would be interesting to see too.

 

[David Yudkin]

The other factor embedded in this is that is there really much difference in ranking 6th with one less catch, one less yard, or one less TD? So that guy could get 0 points in having essentially the same season (or very close to it).

Conversely, there were seveal times when the #5 player was LIGHT YEARS away from the #1 guy, but he still ranked Top 5 so he gets credit when his production was still pretty far away from the top dog.

 

[David Yudkin]

And none of this really matters, as the point of the thread was to compare modern era players, not guys from before that. I don't suspect anyone will argue against Hutson being a great player.

It's not just that he was a great player. He was one of the most dominant players --- versus his "era" --- in pro football history.

But the point was not to even talk about him at all. It's like starting a discussion on the greatest films of the 1990s and people saying The Sting was not included and was better than all the 1990s films. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but it didn't fit the discussion.

 

[Ilov80s]

Wow, great thread topic. A few observations:

- Art Monk isn't even on the list. Most overrated WR of alltime

- Hines Ward is WAY down the list despite playing in an era of high passing/receiving totals

- Sterling Sharpe is pretty high up the list despite having a career cut short by injury

- How underrated is Lance Alworth? Ditto for Bad Moon Rison.

- Jerry Rice is far and above the best WR ever. Wow.

- I was pleased to see my boy John Jefferson on the list. He and Lofton were so fun to watch for a couple of years in GB. JJ was even more fun with Fouts and the Chargers. Remains my favorite alltime player. I still have his autograph somewhere in my attic.

Teams throw more today which would boost his career totals as compared to guys from the past, but it wouldn't make a difference when talking about league leaders each season. Ward's competition for top 5 was also benefiting from the increased pass numbers.

 

[King of the Jungle]

Agree with all that lov80 said. It's also a shame Cris Carter is not in the hof, look at all those names below him in the hof. He has the numbers and also the infamous eyeball test over hofers swann, stallworth, monk and Irvin.

Good point....Carter is about as underrated as it comes.

 

[Clarence the barber]

And if Don Hutson were able to do that in the 60s or later (as opposed to the 30s and 40s) then he'd be on the list.I'm also going to guess that it was easier to lead the league in receptions when there were 9 teams in 1936 than 32 teams in 2010.

But you really have no idea how hard it was to be a receiver back then.

My point through all this was not to shoot down Hutson's abilities. He was a great player and one of the all time greats. But the math alone certainly makes it much harder to lead the league in receptions (and all other categories). In 1936, there were 116 players that caught a pass. This year, there were 436. It may have been nearly impossible to catch passes in the 30s and 40s, but there were 3 times as may players noe than then.

That's not the only difference in the game, but you are boiling it down to that, and dismissing him.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

And none of this really matters, as the point of the thread was to compare modern era players, not guys from before that. I don't suspect anyone will argue against Hutson being a great player.

It's not just that he was a great player. He was one of the most dominant players --- versus his "era" --- in pro football history.

But the point was not to even talk about him at all. It's like starting a discussion on the greatest films of the 1990s and people saying The Sting was not included and was better than all the 1990s films. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but it didn't fit the discussion.

Understood David. I'm reacting to your description of him as "a great player."

 

[David Yudkin]

And if Don Hutson were able to do that in the 60s or later (as opposed to the 30s and 40s) then he'd be on the list.I'm also going to guess that it was easier to lead the league in receptions when there were 9 teams in 1936 than 32 teams in 2010.

But you really have no idea how hard it was to be a receiver back then.

My point through all this was not to shoot down Hutson's abilities. He was a great player and one of the all time greats. But the math alone certainly makes it much harder to lead the league in receptions (and all other categories). In 1936, there were 116 players that caught a pass. This year, there were 436. It may have been nearly impossible to catch passes in the 30s and 40s, but there were 3 times as may players noe than then.

That's not the only difference in the game, but you are boiling it down to that, and dismissing him.

I'm not dismissing him at all. It was a 50 year study and he didn't play in the past 50 years.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Wow, great thread topic. A few observations:

- Art Monk isn't even on the list. Most overrated WR of alltime

- Hines Ward is WAY down the list despite playing in an era of high passing/receiving totals

- Sterling Sharpe is pretty high up the list despite having a career cut short by injury

- How underrated is Lance Alworth? Ditto for Bad Moon Rison.

- Jerry Rice is far and above the best WR ever. Wow.

- I was pleased to see my boy John Jefferson on the list. He and Lofton were so fun to watch for a couple of years in GB. JJ was even more fun with Fouts and the Chargers. Remains my favorite alltime player. I still have his autograph somewhere in my attic.

Teams throw more today which would boost his career totals as compared to guys from the past, but it wouldn't make a difference when talking about league leaders each season. Ward's competition for top 5 was also benefiting from the increased pass numbers.

Of course. And it explains why his career totals for receptions, yards and TDs are high despite not being a particularly special player.

 

[Tau837]

And if Don Hutson were able to do that in the 60s or later (as opposed to the 30s and 40s) then he'd be on the list.I'm also going to guess that it was easier to lead the league in receptions when there were 9 teams in 1936 than 32 teams in 2010.

Funny that you said this in a response about Hutson, when it was my first thought in looking at your list that the older guys had a lot less competition for top 5 than the current/recent day players. For example, in every season that Alworth recorded a top 5 performance cited here, he played in the AFL, which had 8-10 teams. Not a very high bar there.

Cherry-picking stats. Alworth was 31 years old when he joined the Cowboys in 1971.

Not sure what you are saying here. Who is cherry picking stats? My point was that it was a lot easier to be top 5 in the AFL, which had 8-10 teams than it would be in the modern day NFL, which has so many more teams. David has since clarified that he merged the stats together, which makes top 5 a stronger accomplishment in those years, although one might question if it makes sense to combine results from different leagues like that. Regardless, I didn't knock Hutson in any way; I merely used him as an example.

 

[Tau837]

The other factor embedded in this is that is there really much difference in ranking 6th with one less catch, one less yard, or one less TD? So that guy could get 0 points in having essentially the same season (or very close to it).Conversely, there were seveal times when the #5 player was LIGHT YEARS away from the #1 guy, but he still ranked Top 5 so he gets credit when his production was still pretty far away from the top dog.

Yes, it would probably be more useful to see how many times players finished within 10% of the leader in each of these categories every season. That would help negate the differences in the number of teams, and would also not arbitrarily include a weak #5 or exclude a strong #6.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

And if Don Hutson were able to do that in the 60s or later (as opposed to the 30s and 40s) then he'd be on the list.I'm also going to guess that it was easier to lead the league in receptions when there were 9 teams in 1936 than 32 teams in 2010.

Funny that you said this in a response about Hutson, when it was my first thought in looking at your list that the older guys had a lot less competition for top 5 than the current/recent day players. For example, in every season that Alworth recorded a top 5 performance cited here, he played in the AFL, which had 8-10 teams. Not a very high bar there.

Cherry-picking stats. Alworth was 31 years old when he joined the Cowboys in 1971.

:(Not sure what you are saying here. Who is cherry picking stats? My point was that it was a lot easier to be top 5 in the AFL, which had 8-10 teams than it would be in the modern day NFL, which has so many more teams. David has since clarified that he merged the stats together, which makes top 5 a stronger accomplishment in those years, although one might question if it makes sense to combine results from different leagues like that. Regardless, I didn't knock Hutson in any way; I merely used him as an example.

Your message (not exactly cherry-picking, poor turn of phrase on my part) implied that somehow Alworth could only produce vs AFL teams. He was an old man (31) by the time he joined Dallas.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

The other factor embedded in this is that is there really much difference in ranking 6th with one less catch, one less yard, or one less TD? So that guy could get 0 points in having essentially the same season (or very close to it).Conversely, there were seveal times when the #5 player was LIGHT YEARS away from the #1 guy, but he still ranked Top 5 so he gets credit when his production was still pretty far away from the top dog.

Yes, it would probably be more useful to see how many times players finished within 10% of the leader in each of these categories every season. That would help negate the differences in the number of teams, and would also not arbitrarily include a weak #5 or exclude a strong #6.

Very good idea.

 

[Tau837]

And if Don Hutson were able to do that in the 60s or later (as opposed to the 30s and 40s) then he'd be on the list.I'm also going to guess that it was easier to lead the league in receptions when there were 9 teams in 1936 than 32 teams in 2010.

Funny that you said this in a response about Hutson, when it was my first thought in looking at your list that the older guys had a lot less competition for top 5 than the current/recent day players. For example, in every season that Alworth recorded a top 5 performance cited here, he played in the AFL, which had 8-10 teams. Not a very high bar there.

Cherry-picking stats. Alworth was 31 years old when he joined the Cowboys in 1971.

:(Not sure what you are saying here. Who is cherry picking stats? My point was that it was a lot easier to be top 5 in the AFL, which had 8-10 teams than it would be in the modern day NFL, which has so many more teams. David has since clarified that he merged the stats together, which makes top 5 a stronger accomplishment in those years, although one might question if it makes sense to combine results from different leagues like that. Regardless, I didn't knock Hutson in any way; I merely used him as an example.

Your message (not exactly cherry-picking, poor turn of phrase on my part) implied that somehow Alworth could only produce vs AFL teams. He was an old man (31) by the time he joined Dallas.

IMO it does not imply that at all. I don't care about Alworth's performance, I just chose him as an older player to use as an example. Alworth probably would have dominated if the AFL had 30 teams. But it didn't. It had 8-10. I was simply stating a fact, that a top 5 performance in a smaller league like that is not as impressive as top 5 performance in today's NFL. At least not on its face, without more information or context.

 

[David Yudkin]

The other factor embedded in this is that is there really much difference in ranking 6th with one less catch, one less yard, or one less TD? So that guy could get 0 points in having essentially the same season (or very close to it).Conversely, there were seveal times when the #5 player was LIGHT YEARS away from the #1 guy, but he still ranked Top 5 so he gets credit when his production was still pretty far away from the top dog.

Yes, it would probably be more useful to see how many times players finished within 10% of the leader in each of these categories every season. That would help negate the differences in the number of teams, and would also not arbitrarily include a weak #5 or exclude a strong #6.

Very good idea.

Good idea, but still impractical in some seasons. How many guys were within 10% of Randy Moss' 23 TDs?The best way would be to assign a % of the league leader in each category, but not sure then what level to consider elite at.

 

[Ilov80s]

And if Don Hutson were able to do that in the 60s or later (as opposed to the 30s and 40s) then he'd be on the list.

I'm also going to guess that it was easier to lead the league in receptions when there were 9 teams in 1936 than 32 teams in 2010.

But you really have no idea how hard it was to be a receiver back then.

My point through all this was not to shoot down Hutson's abilities. He was a great player and one of the all time greats. But the math alone certainly makes it much harder to lead the league in receptions (and all other categories). In 1936, there were 116 players that caught a pass. This year, there were 436. It may have been nearly impossible to catch passes in the 30s and 40s, but there were 3 times as may players noe than then.

What is the difference between number of passes thrown in 36 vs. number of passes thrown in 2010? There might be more teams thus more competition, but as the number of teams increases, so does the amount opportunities to catch a pass.

It makes no difference whether there's more passing now. It's a comparison against peers. So all 1936 players vs. all 1936 players and all 2010 players against all 2010 players. The more players you factor in, the harder it gets. If the participants are closely matched, it's harder to win a race with 436 people than one with 116.

And none of this really matters, as the point of the thread was to compare modern era players, not guys from before that. I don't suspect anyone will argue against Hutson being a great player.

That is only assuming that all of those 436 are closely matched- which they are not. I would suspect (beyond expansion) there are so many more people catching the ball because of multiple WR sets that we didn't see in the past. Those 3/4/5 WRs don't have anywhere near the same odds of leading the league in any statistical category as teams 1/2 WRs.

 

[Clarence the barber]

And if Don Hutson were able to do that in the 60s or later (as opposed to the 30s and 40s) then he'd be on the list.I'm also going to guess that it was easier to lead the league in receptions when there were 9 teams in 1936 than 32 teams in 2010.

But you really have no idea how hard it was to be a receiver back then.

My point through all this was not to shoot down Hutson's abilities. He was a great player and one of the all time greats. But the math alone certainly makes it much harder to lead the league in receptions (and all other categories). In 1936, there were 116 players that caught a pass. This year, there were 436. It may have been nearly impossible to catch passes in the 30s and 40s, but there were 3 times as may players noe than then.

That's not the only difference in the game, but you are boiling it down to that, and dismissing him.

I'm not dismissing him at all. It was a 50 year study and he didn't play in the past 50 years.

Didn't read that. Was that in the original post? If so, let this be a lesson to you.

 

[David Yudkin]

Didn't read that. Was that in the original post? If so, let this be a lesson to you.

The FIRST LINE reads . . .

Here is a list of all the WR since 1960 that have ranked in the Top 5

 

[Clarence the barber]

Didn't read that. Was that in the original post? If so, let this be a lesson to you.

The FIRST LINE reads . . .

Here is a list of all the WR since 1960 that have ranked in the Top 5

I know. Figured you stealth edited that.

 

[otis68]

The other factor embedded in this is that is there really much difference in ranking 6th with one less catch, one less yard, or one less TD? So that guy could get 0 points in having essentially the same season (or very close to it).Conversely, there were seveal times when the #5 player was LIGHT YEARS away from the #1 guy, but he still ranked Top 5 so he gets credit when his production was still pretty far away from the top dog.

Yes, it would probably be more useful to see how many times players finished within 10% of the leader in each of these categories every season. That would help negate the differences in the number of teams, and would also not arbitrarily include a weak #5 or exclude a strong #6.

Very good idea.

Good idea, but still impractical in some seasons. How many guys were within 10% of Randy Moss' 23 TDs?The best way would be to assign a % of the league leader in each category, but not sure then what level to consider elite at.

It's all requires some handwaving, but interesting process. I went back 5 years looking at the number of players that finished within 10% of the stats of the #1 player in each category, 5% of #2 and 2.5% of #3. If the formatting holds up, the list gives # recepts to qualify and # of players that did (in parenthesis), followed by TDs and yards. I'd say using those that come within 2.5% of #3 consistently yields elite performances without excluding too many very close but not quite there performances.2010 Recept # players TD # players yd # players10% of#1 103.5 (1) 13.5 (1) 1303.2 (3)5% of #2 105.4 (2) 11.4 (3) 1319.5 (3)2.5% of #3 91.6 (4) 11.7 (3) 1321.1 (3)2009 10% of#1 110.7 (1) 11.7 (3) 1412 (1)5% of #2 101.7 (2) 12.4 (3) 1280.6 (4)2.5% of #3 98.5 (6) 12.6 (3) 1316.7 (3)2008 10% of#1 103.5 (3) 10.8 (4) 1417 (3)5% of #2 105.5 (2) 11.4 (2) 1359.5 (4)2.5% of #3 101.4 (3) 10.7 (4) 1385.5 (3)2007 10% of#1 100.8 (5) 20.7 (1) 1359 (4)5% of #2 106.4 (2) 15.2 (2) 1418.5 (3)2.5% of #3 101.4 (5) 14.6 (3) 1404 (4)2006 10% of#1 92.6 (4) 11.7 (2) 1231.1 (6)5% of #2 93.1 (3) 11.4 (2) 1298 (4)2.5% of #3 92.6 (4) 9.8 (5) 1277.3 (6)

 

[Ice Cream Man]

Is there really more competition in today's NFL at the receiver position?

Does Larry Fitzgerald really have to worry about receivers on the Bears, Jaguars, Titans, etc [i.e., receivers on defensive minded teams] for challenging him to a top-5 category? It seems to me that, while the league has grown, teams have also specialized greatly in their schemes. Perhaps, and I'm not saying this is the case, teams in the 1950-60s had relatively similar offensive philosophies, so even if the number of teams were half of today's, the level of legitimate competition for top-5 finishes was much greater.

Perhaps a team's offensive philosophy is endogeneous - that is, it is driven by which players are on the team in the first place. In that case, I'm not exactly sure what you're measuring here either. Which WR played with good QB the longest? Either way, I don't think more teams produce more stat competition necessarily.

Moreover, and I could be wrong, but receivers in the 1950-60s it seems were mauled to a far greater degree than they are now. This would also serve to level the playing field in that era, as it inhibits the best players to show their abilities [or at least the abilities we think of in a modern receiver].

In any case, while I find the numbers produced here to be moderately interesting, my personal view is that number crunching is a crutch used for far too many people. Numbers are just one - highly subjective - way to make an argument or analysis -- particularly when it comes to examining the sport of football.

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

Wow, great thread topic. A few observations:

- Art Monk isn't even on the list. Most overrated WR of alltime

- Hines Ward is WAY down the list despite playing in an era of high passing/receiving totals

- Sterling Sharpe is pretty high up the list despite having a career cut short by injury

- How underrated is Lance Alworth? Ditto for Bad Moon Rison.

- Jerry Rice is far and above the best WR ever. Wow.

- I was pleased to see my boy John Jefferson on the list. He and Lofton were so fun to watch for a couple of years in GB. JJ was even more fun with Fouts and the Chargers. Remains my favorite alltime player. I still have his autograph somewhere in my attic.

Teams throw more today which would boost his career totals as compared to guys from the past, but it wouldn't make a difference when talking about league leaders each season. Ward's competition for top 5 was also benefiting from the increased pass numbers.

Of course. And it explains why his career totals for receptions, yards and TDs are high despite not being a particularly special player.

Except that for most of his career he played on a run first team. It is what teh team does not what era you are in that makes that comparison worthwhile and in that context his top 5's are more impressive.

 

[David Yudkin]

Except that for most of his career he played on a run first team. It is what teh team does not what era you are in that makes that comparison worthwhile and in that context his top 5's are more impressive.

Since 2000, Ward's annual rankings in WR targets:50, 9, 5, 5, 25, 26, 18, 25, 17, 11, 39By comparison . . .Randy Moss:18, 6, 2, 2, 43, 22, 38, 1, 18, 8, 75

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Except that for most of his career he played on a run first team. It is what teh team does not what era you are in that makes that comparison worthwhile and in that context his top 5's are more impressive.

Since 2000, Ward's annual rankings in WR targets:50, 9, 5, 5, 25, 26, 18, 25, 17, 11, 39By comparison . . .Randy Moss:18, 6, 2, 2, 43, 22, 38, 1, 18, 8, 75

Solid comparison selection you landed upon.

 

[Bri]

And if Don Hutson were able to do that in the 60s or later (as opposed to the 30s and 40s) then he'd be on the list.

I'm also going to guess that it was easier to lead the league in receptions when there were 9 teams in 1936 than 32 teams in 2010.

So, statistics matter, except when you don't like them?

The only way to compare players is to compare how they did against everyone else in the league the same year - which is exactly what your stats do....other than the fact you exclude those years that prove someone else is the best wr ever.

I also suspect Don would of been better if he roided up, or had a modern diet, or modern exercise program, or any other of 100 reasons.

If your going to use statistics to compare players who did not play at the same time, you use all the statistics, not just cherry picked ones.

He could have had an asterisk and mentioned Huston but geesh ya gotta see how it was a completely different world then and he'd just totally skew the effort David put into his chart above.Jim Thorpe was the greatest athlete to ever play sports-I don't think it's debatable so there I said it.

He had a 95 yard punt to clinch a championship win. You'd think more people would know a punt sealed a championship victory, but no one does. And well, spin it back to you-how come no one ever claims that as a record for longest punt?

here his wiki page if you wanna check on the punt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Thorpe

Yeah I know it's wiki but feel free to google it and find the same fact elsewhere

 

[The Man With No Name]

Shows how awesome a player that Sterling Sharpe was. 7th on the list with 12, and 6 of those he led the league. And was only 29 years old when he caught his last pass.

 

[N Zone]

Shows how awesome a player that Sterling Sharpe was. 7th on the list with 12, and 6 of those he led the league. And was only 29 years old when he caught his last pass.

Sharpe broke the receptions record in '92 and then broke his own record in '93.He was 1st in receptions 3 times and only played for 7 years due to injury/spinal-stenosis.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/lead...ear_by_year.htm

Sterling is a 5-time Pro Bowler & 3-time First-Team All-Pro.

He's my favorite WR ever and I think should be inducted into the HOF and hope he gets in someday.

 

[plyka]

And if Don Hutson were able to do that in the 60s or later (as opposed to the 30s and 40s) then he'd be on the list.I'm also going to guess that it was easier to lead the league in receptions when there were 9 teams in 1936 than 32 teams in 2010.

But you really have no idea how hard it was to be a receiver back then.

My point through all this was not to shoot down Hutson's abilities. He was a great player and one of the all time greats. But the math alone certainly makes it much harder to lead the league in receptions (and all other categories). In 1936, there were 116 players that caught a pass. This year, there were 436. It may have been nearly impossible to catch passes in the 30s and 40s, but there were 3 times as may players noe than then.

This logic is faulty. You are assuming that the league gets cut from 32 teams to 9 teams randomly. Like all of a sudden 2/3 of the players are gone, or out of 32 teams, they take the players on 23 of them and just take them out of the league. But this isn't how it would work. The worst 2/3 of the league would be eliminated from each team. The best players on each team, you know, the guys who would actually be competing for most receptions/tds/etc would still be in the league, they would find a home on the 9 teams and the crappy players who have no shot at getting the most receptions, those guys would be eliminated. So if you agree that luck plays a minor role, then it shouldn't make any difference and the "math" doesn't tell you anything. For instance, if you increase the league to 100 teams next year, it would be the exact same WRs that competed for the records competing again, since they are the best WRs and they would have a home and a chance to compete regardless if there were 32 teams or 100 teams.

 

[Tau837]

And if Don Hutson were able to do that in the 60s or later (as opposed to the 30s and 40s) then he'd be on the list.I'm also going to guess that it was easier to lead the league in receptions when there were 9 teams in 1936 than 32 teams in 2010.

But you really have no idea how hard it was to be a receiver back then.

My point through all this was not to shoot down Hutson's abilities. He was a great player and one of the all time greats. But the math alone certainly makes it much harder to lead the league in receptions (and all other categories). In 1936, there were 116 players that caught a pass. This year, there were 436. It may have been nearly impossible to catch passes in the 30s and 40s, but there were 3 times as may players noe than then.

This logic is faulty. You are assuming that the league gets cut from 32 teams to 9 teams randomly. Like all of a sudden 2/3 of the players are gone, or out of 32 teams, they take the players on 23 of them and just take them out of the league. But this isn't how it would work. The worst 2/3 of the league would be eliminated from each team. The best players on each team, you know, the guys who would actually be competing for most receptions/tds/etc would still be in the league, they would find a home on the 9 teams and the crappy players who have no shot at getting the most receptions, those guys would be eliminated. So if you agree that luck plays a minor role, then it shouldn't make any difference and the "math" doesn't tell you anything. For instance, if you increase the league to 100 teams next year, it would be the exact same WRs that competed for the records competing again, since they are the best WRs and they would have a home and a chance to compete regardless if there were 32 teams or 100 teams.

IMO your logic is also faulty. If next season there were 100 teams, that means there would be 100 QBs. There already aren't enough good QBs, so it is quite possible that a number of great WRs would be stuck in offenses with bad QBs and thus unable to compete effectively to be among the league leaders.