This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Rice's records may be reachable, but not by Harrison. Harrison needs 75 more TDs to catch Rice. (85 if you count rushing TDs, which Harrison has none of). If Harrison plays until he's 40, and equals his best 5 TD seasons in his next 5 years, he'll still be short of Jerry's record.Marvin has had a great career and will be in the Hall of Fame. He could wind up as #2 in all the major receiving categories. But there's virtually no chance he'll catch Jerry Rice.
Have you looked how far behind Harrison is? If he duplicates his outstanding 2006 season for the next three years--that is, if he's playing at age 37, and still playing at the level he did at age 34, and doesn't get injured at any time during the next three years--Rice's lead will be cut to:250 receptions
You are right, and I edited my initial post. He won't catch Rice because he won't play 20 years. He's been in the league 11 years now. If he did play 20 years, Rice's numbers would be toast. Just goes to show how much Rice needed the NFL.
Harrison after 11 years: 170 games, 13697 receiving yards, 122 receiving TDsRice after 11 years: 172 games, 15123 receiving yards, 146 receiving TDs(Rice also had over 500 more rushing yards and 9 more rushing TDs.)
Huh?
True. Mike Tyson is the Jerry Rice of lisp. Untouchable.
Jerry Rice is more of a finesse lisper, while Tyson is an old school power and saliva-control lisper. Different styles.
Harrison is a great receiver, but Rice is the best. He played 20yrs yes, but don't let that fool you. As posted above, he put up monster stats in the first half of his career. I have watched both through there entire careers and noone is better than Jerry. He played 20yrs because he kept himself in great shape and because he loved the game. Not because he needed football. I wish more people in todays game respected football like he did.
stat pad, 20 yrs worth.
You can't be serious.
I admire Jerry Rice more than anyone. He just didn't know when to quit. He actually hurt his legacy IMO.
Yeah, just like this crappy QB:
| 1968 bal | 5 | 11 32 34.4 139 4.3 2 4 | 3 -1 0 || 1969 bal | 13 | 178 327 54.4 2342 7.2 12 20 | 11 23 0 || 1970 bal | 14 | 166 321 51.7 2213 6.9 14 18 | 9 16 0 || 1971 bal | 13 | 92 176 52.3 942 5.4 3 9 | 9 5 0 || 1972 bal | 8 | 88 157 56.1 1111 7.1 4 6 | 3 15 0 || 1973 sdg | 5 | 34 76 44.7 471 6.2 3 7 | 0 0 0 |Ok, lol.
Somehow I don't think anyone will ever compare Jerry Rice to JohnnyU. It will never happen. Have a nice day.
He had 14 thousand-yard seasons. He put up a 1200 yard season when he was 39.And even if he retired ten years earlier he'd have the career record in receiving yards and receiving TDs.
You're right. Jerry Rice is so far ahead of all other WRs from all other eras (with the possible exception of Don Hutson), it's crazy. There are only a few retrogrouch holdouts who try to claim that Unitas can compete with the best QBs of today. No comparison.
Ah, I said 39, but I was just guessing.
No doubt about that. I bet if Harrison played 20 years this wouldn't be much of a discussion.
He turned 40 during the season, to be accurate. (October).
If Harrison played well for 20 years (and that's still an if) he'd pass Tim Brown, but he's not on pace to catch Rice. He's just not.
You're absolutely right. Historians would never bring up Unitas in best ever player discussions. He just wasn't good enough. He deserves mention as a best ever QB candidate (Doesn't reach the finals though), but that is it.Rice, however, ...As for the discussion before this psychotic interlude, Moss WAS the only player with a chance to catch some of Rice's numbers, but that ain't happening. Harrison is probably the only 30+ year old who I could see being productive at 40 like Rice, but the likelyhood of it is very small. And, even if he is that productive, he still is only going to have a CHANCE to break the Receiving TD numbers. Receptions and Yards are going to Jerry's for a very long time.
This is straight up revisionist history. Rice complained for the ball plenty of times in his career, particularly late with the 49ers, even after wins.I know Rice is the greatest blah blah of all time, but let's not halo up everything. The man's not perfect.
No, the main argument for Rice is career numbers, and a few of the the best WR seasons of all time, and three Super Bowl wins, including averaging over 170 yards in those three wins and scoring seven TDs, and coming back from what everyone assumed would be the end of his career to lead a different team in receiving at age 40 and bring that team to the Super Bowl. It's hard to imagine what else it would be possible for a WR to do. I really think Rice is the Babe Ruth situation. Others may eclipse his numbers, but only once the game has fundamentally changed, and he'll always be remembered as the best WR, and probably the best football player of his era.
The only advantage Fitzgerald has over Rice is that he started younger. First three years in the league:Fitzgerald: 230/3135, 24 TD
Well said. Even if the game changes to where 1800 yard seasons grow on trees, people will still take into account how Rice did compared to his peers in the time that he played, and that's probably the truest measure of greatness that you can use for comparing players of different eras. Like Hutson, that will never change for Rice.Rice vs his peers isn't quite up there with say, Gretzky, but it's not far off.
Ugh. I didn't need yet another list of Rice's many accomplishments. I was simply asking a hypothetical question of what it would take for another receiver to supplant Rice.It's a tough question, one that may be impossible to answer.
I think it's a rather silly hypothetical. 2/3rds of Rice's stats would be 1032/15263/131. 1/2 of Rice's games would be 152. So, you'd be looking at someone who is #2 in all-time receiving yards and TDs to Rice (yes, 2/3rds of Rice is still more than anyone else), and who averaged 1600 yards and 14 TDs per season. Yes, if that happens, it'd be a challenge to Rice's supremacy. But it won't.
How answer the latter question without discussing the former?
Fair enough.Let's ground this in a different direction.
)
The latter wasn't discussed.How answer the latter question without discussing the former?
Note that Rice had 2/3 of his touchdowns in the first half of his career. After 10 years (156 / 303 games), he had:139 / 207 TD13786 / 23540 yardsOver his first 10 years, that's 88.4 YPG and 0.89 TDPG, or 1400/14 in a 16-game season.To have 2/3 of Rice's eventual stats in 1/2 the games, you'd need 100.6 YPG and 0.88 TDPG, i.e. same amount of TD's, about 12 more YPG. That would mean 1610 / 14 in an average 16-game season.It's hard to say for sure, but I think those stats make somebody the best ever. 1600 yards is a superb season (Rice, Moss, Harrison, Holt have done it 7 times total), let alone a career average.To answer the question a bit more philosophically. I measure greatness mostly on performance during the prime of one's career, rather than the downside--provided that the prime is sufficiently long.
With Tomlinson, it's not about the need to amass cumulative stats, it's about the need to show that his performance this year wasn't a fluke. Up until this year, he has looked like an upper echelon historical RB. This year he looked like a God on Earth. It's reasonable to assume that the larger set is more indicative of his true abilities--until and unless he proves otherwise in the next few years.A lot of people think that Tomlinson is the best RB in NFL history *now*. Others say he needs better numbers. At what point does what you see transcend what the numbers say? Or are these discussions all meaningless until the end of a player's career? I'm approaching this from a more philosophical perspective, but I think we're on the same page here.
Numbers have nothing to do with it. The main argument for Rice is that he was better than anyone else.To answer your question, if somebody comes along who is better than Rice (regardless of numbers), then yes, that guy would be considered the best ever.
Poor wording choice on my part. Mention Rice on these forums and the first thing 100% of people will post is his career numbers.I personally think his other numbers, like # of seasons leading the league (or being top 3, etc.) in receptions, yards, and TDs, are far more important. That's the only stats I really pay attention to, as opposed to the total career stats that are cited here.I think I should have said the main EVIDENCE "most people" use is career numbers. Not what I'd use because I think the other stats make the point better. The other stats (# of times leading the league) is why I put Rice and Hutson as co-#1.I've said this in the past and most Rice fans acted like I'd run over their dogs because I ignored the career numbers. I'm glad most people in this thread don't think that way!
That's a bit like saying the main argument why the Patriots are better than the Texans is that they won more games. It's an understatement, and even then it's just one of many good arguments. Here is an article I did awhile back that shows that Jerry Rice essentially had two complete hall of fame careers.This is all receivers who debuted in the 1980s, with Jerry in there twice:
stat pad? huh? you still aren't making ANY sense.
Doug,
I know, and I'm mostly bull-sh----g.
No real argument on your treatment of those three players, although I think that you could/should include a QB or two in the discussion of best all time (skill position) players. I do agree that modern people seem to underestimate Jim Brown and merely include him in these discussions because it's the "right thing to do". Brown was essentially Bo Jackson x 9 years. The guy was a monster and he's one of the few athletes from his era who I believe would have been just as good had he played 30-40 years later as he was when he played. He was simply phenomenal.radballs said:
Certainly the most dominate player I've ever seen.Dominate (1965-current)
