Liquid Tension
Footballguy
FixedTC said:Doo said:Certainly the most dominate player I've ever seen.Dominate (1965-current)
1. WR Rice
2. LB Taylor
3. DE Page
4. RB Simpson JIM BROWN
5. ?? ??
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
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!
What records will Harrison break of Rice (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter ginman999
- Start date
Liquid Tension
Footballguy
Not sure what you mean by LT2 being the best *now*? Are you saying that people are saying his season was the best of all time? Are you saying that what he does all around on the field is the best of all time?In general people will overrate what they see now, but it is hard to think of anyone but Jim Brown being more dominating compared to his era at RB.thesurfshop19 said:Fair enough.Let's ground this in a different direction.CalBear said:
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.
(For what it's worth, I think that Rice's records, assuming 32-team NFL and 16-game schedule, are safe. He and Hutson are tied as the #1 WR in NFL history, as both changed the game in different ways. I can't see another WR with the stats, big game performance, AND impact on the game as either of those two. But I like to approach the question with a little more sophistication than "it can't happen".)
BTW, I think LT2 is great and can do it all. Where he ranks when he hangs it up, I don't know, but I have been saying for 3 years that he is the best RB in football.
In closing Bo Jackson was the best guy I ever saw, but he simply didn't play enough to rank high up on the list.
thesurfshop19
Footballguy
Good post.You hear a lot of "LT is the best ever" type stuff already. Of course, most of this is because of the "out of sight, out of mind" thing. But there could be at least a little bit of truth there.
So the question is, on a theoretical level, does a player have to own all the career total stats (during HIS career) to be the greatest at his position? Or can he fall short of the stats but make it up some other way?
This is NOT an attack on Jim Brown or Jerry Rice. This is purely theoretical.
Last edited by a moderator:
CalBear
Footballguy
No; career totals are important, but not the only consideration. Most people would rank Barry Sanders ahead of Emmitt Smith, despite Emmitt's gaudy stats.
thesurfshop19
Footballguy
Again, I appreciate your comments, but the overall question (not specifically in that post, I suppose) is what is the level of your tradeoffs here, not do the tradeoffs exist (they do; that's not an interesting issue).Barry Sanders vs. Emmitt Smith is a fairly good example, although Barry Sanders "would have" had the all-time rushing title had he not retired in 1999 so it's not exactly the same.
But even in this case, if Barry Sanders had been far short of holding the career rushing total, is there any consideration for being the best RB in history?
Last edited by a moderator:
thesurfshop19
Footballguy
Just wanted to re-iterate my question, because I think it's an interesting topic. It's unfortunate that I didn't word it well; some of the posters I have tremendous respect for (MT, Doug) cherry-picked one poorly worded phrase and that seems to be clouding everything.
My question is not "was Jerry Rice dominant?". That's obvious. (Yes.)
My question is not "is career stats the only thing great about Jerry Rice?" That's obvious. (No.)
My question isn't even about Jerry Rice. (Although Rice fans will make it about him.)
My question is:
For a player to be considered the greatest RB or WR of all time, is there any way he can fall far short of the career total leaders and still be in the mix?
My very first question in this thread was worded:
Here's a question -- while Rice's numbers may be untouchable, is there any scenario in which a player plays, say, 13 years, and is generally considered to be better than Rice?
If this is not an interesting question, well, that's fine. But this is the question, not whether or not Rice is awesome.
EDIT: And the part about falling short of career totals is at the time of the player's retirement. Jim Brown and Don Hutson owned the record book when they retired. Barry Sanders came close. Jerry Rice of course owns everything now.
My question is not "was Jerry Rice dominant?". That's obvious. (Yes.)
My question is not "is career stats the only thing great about Jerry Rice?" That's obvious. (No.)
My question isn't even about Jerry Rice. (Although Rice fans will make it about him.)
My question is:
For a player to be considered the greatest RB or WR of all time, is there any way he can fall far short of the career total leaders and still be in the mix?
My very first question in this thread was worded:
Here's a question -- while Rice's numbers may be untouchable, is there any scenario in which a player plays, say, 13 years, and is generally considered to be better than Rice?
If this is not an interesting question, well, that's fine. But this is the question, not whether or not Rice is awesome.
EDIT: And the part about falling short of career totals is at the time of the player's retirement. Jim Brown and Don Hutson owned the record book when they retired. Barry Sanders came close. Jerry Rice of course owns everything now.
Last edited by a moderator:
switz
Footballguy
Right, Rice is a WR, the BEST of All Time so far. Unitas was a QB, a great one for a few years, in an era without many great QBs.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
I think a WRs stats would at least have to be significantly better than Rice's over thirteen seasons to be considered as having a better career. In which case Rice is still probably safe.
Among skill position players Rice is THE most dominant NFL player ever in my mind. But WRs aren't in a position to influence a game the same way RBs and QBs are. At most they see the ball ~8 per game.
If Rice had lapped the field the way he did as a QB or a RB I think we'd talk about him as the greatest individual in the history of team sports (Gretzky).
Among skill position players Rice is THE most dominant NFL player ever in my mind. But WRs aren't in a position to influence a game the same way RBs and QBs are. At most they see the ball ~8 per game.
If Rice had lapped the field the way he did as a QB or a RB I think we'd talk about him as the greatest individual in the history of team sports (Gretzky).
switz
Footballguy
As someone who feels power backs are a lesser calibre RB than powerful finesse backs, I have to leave guys like Csonka, Riggins, Campbell, even Jim Brown out of the conversation for best all time. With one caveat, I don't recall seeing Jim Brown play - he just strikes me as a power back, run over you, type of guy.When I see LT, I see comparisons to Sayers, Payton, Dickerson. Better than Emmitt, Barry, Dorsett, Simpson, Thomas, Faulk, Holmes, TDavis, BJackson. Some of which are already shoe ins for the HOF, others many regard as HOF worthy.So, looking at this specific example.Is it career stats? No. But there has to be some length of time the player performs at a high level, more than say 3-4 years (the average life of an RB). For that reason, guys like Holmes and Jackson will not be HOF material in my opinion.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.
shakeybarn
Footballguy
Right... at age 40 in a skill speed position... posting 92 rec for 1,200+ and 7 TDs... surely dilutes down the 1848/15 during his prime. When I think of Jerry, all I think about is that "Old Yeller" phase when he shoulda been shot... or maybe it's at age 42 posting 8 for 145 and a touch vs Dallas. His achievements during his final years, at his age, for his position.... ADD to the legacy. Kncukle.Since it is SuperBowl week... Jerry's SB performances'88 - 11/215/1'89 - 7/148/3'94 - 10/149/3'02 - 5/77/1 - at age 40Marvin's stats for all 3 games during this '06 postseason... 10/134/0Talking about a fishing expedition.....and I will call you a clown (rarely insult folk on this board... but you probably are seeking the attention).Guess you aren't a big fan of Favre or Ripken, either....
shakeybarn
Footballguy
Stats always help... raw talent that can't be deined... a la Bo Jackson, can't be denied either. Personally, I need to see big game performances (e.g. AFC Championships, SuperBowl) or just single handedly changing the course of a game/team. I think LT2 makes a very strong case, even at this point. The TDs are one thing... but does he get 28 TDs on Arizona... obviously not. Barry Sanders ran at 5.0/carry his career.. LT2 is "only" at 4.5. Right there with SA... or guys like Faulk, Emmit, etc... at the equivalent points in their career. Turner is at 6.0. Which I'm curious to see what he does on another team. I think LT gets some benefit from that line.Remember when Priest busted out for KC... went down... Derrick Blaylock busted out... then LJ. Me thinks any decent RB looks good in SD. But we'll never know. I think LT will break down, very soon.As someone who feels power backs are a lesser calibre RB than powerful finesse backs, I have to leave guys like Csonka, Riggins, Campbell, even Jim Brown out of the conversation for best all time. With one caveat, I don't recall seeing Jim Brown play - he just strikes me as a power back, run over you, type of guy.When I see LT, I see comparisons to Sayers, Payton, Dickerson. Better than Emmitt, Barry, Dorsett, Simpson, Thomas, Faulk, Holmes, TDavis, BJackson. Some of which are already shoe ins for the HOF, others many regard as HOF worthy.So, looking at this specific example.Is it career stats? No. But there has to be some length of time the player performs at a high level, more than say 3-4 years (the average life of an RB). For that reason, guys like Holmes and Jackson will not be HOF material in my opinion.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.
GregR_2
Footballguy
Someone once said something about Rice that stuck with me... I want to say it was Rod Woodson on NFL Network, but might be mistaken on that.
Anyway, whoever it was was talking about Rice in his final days in the NFL, and he put it like this. When Rice was at his prime, he couldn't be covered. Then he got older and he lost a step. And after losing a step, the DBs were finally able to cover him, but only as well as they could any other top notch WR. It wasn't until he lost 2 and 3 steps that the DBs were able to finally neutralize the guy.
Part of what's amazing about Rice is that he didn't just play a long time and accumulate stats, but that he was so dominant he could have his physical ability start to drop off due to age and still be as good as he was.
So if someone plays 13 years and ends up with numbers equal to what Rice did in his first 13 years, you can maybe make an argument they were as good as each other at their peak. But to equal Rice overall the other guy would have to make it past that. He'd have to eclipse Rice's first 13 or have something else that Rice didn't to have equal out the fact his effectiveness dropped off quicker.
If he walked away from the game still at his peak he'd probably get some extra credit for the years he didn't play, ala Barry, but not as much as Rice since what Rice did isn't to be expected normally.
Anyway, whoever it was was talking about Rice in his final days in the NFL, and he put it like this. When Rice was at his prime, he couldn't be covered. Then he got older and he lost a step. And after losing a step, the DBs were finally able to cover him, but only as well as they could any other top notch WR. It wasn't until he lost 2 and 3 steps that the DBs were able to finally neutralize the guy.
Part of what's amazing about Rice is that he didn't just play a long time and accumulate stats, but that he was so dominant he could have his physical ability start to drop off due to age and still be as good as he was.
So if someone plays 13 years and ends up with numbers equal to what Rice did in his first 13 years, you can maybe make an argument they were as good as each other at their peak. But to equal Rice overall the other guy would have to make it past that. He'd have to eclipse Rice's first 13 or have something else that Rice didn't to have equal out the fact his effectiveness dropped off quicker.
If he walked away from the game still at his peak he'd probably get some extra credit for the years he didn't play, ala Barry, but not as much as Rice since what Rice did isn't to be expected normally.
Last edited by a moderator:
switz
Footballguy
Wow, talk about short memories. SD since LT was drafted has had one of the WORST lines in the NFL, UNTIL THIS SEASON when they drafted McNeil, who improved the entire line.Sorry, LT makes his line look good.Also, Turner benefits very much from situational running. And I'm a HUGE Turner fan, even stating on this board he was one of the best backs in his class. Of course everyone here scoffed.Regardless, LT is not doing well because of the line. He's doing well because he's LT.
Of course. Stats don't matter, IMO. Who was the best offensive tackle of all time? What were his stats?Stats are a proxy for effectiveness, but not a perfect one.
Barry Sanders was better than Emmitt Smith. (LaDainian Tomlison, for that matter, is better than Emmitt Smith.)
It depends on how good he was. If he was better than Rice, regardless of stats, I'd consider him better than Rice.
thesurfshop19
Footballguy
I think I'd tend to agree here.I don't think that public perception will ever put another player ahead of Rice if he doesn't at least have some longevity (~15 years) in there.
Rice's numbers are truly a perfect storm of talent, work ethic, and circumstance (weight the 3 however you choose, thats not the argument here). If we make a deadline of, say, 2050, I could see something similar happening maybe one more time.
The line played okay in 2004 under Hudson Houck, and they played well this year, but yes, the Chargers' OL has been well below average for most of Tomlinson's career. He still broke Jim Brown's and Emmitt Smith's record for scoring 100 TDs in the fewest games.(To be fair, though, the OL has generally been better at run-blocking than pass-blocking. The 2003 line in particular were atrocious at pass-blocking but at least average at run-blocking.)
Last edited by a moderator:
thesurfshop19
Footballguy
Agreed. I think this was my point, but I'm not sure.
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
Here's some juicy Rice stats. He debuted at age 23, and scored the 64th most FPs by any 23 year old WR in NFL history. Here's a look at Rice's fantasy rank for each age:
23: 64
24: 1
25: 1
26: 14
27: 1
28: 3
29: 8
30: 8
31: 1
32: 1
33: 1
34: 3
35: Injured
36: 1
37: 2
38: 2
39: 1
40: 1
41: 1
42: 1
Now to be fair, Rice is the only receiver to ever record statistics in his 40s, and only Joiner had a catch at the age of 39. So those last four years of "1s" might (or might not) seem less impressive.
But he still holds the record for most fantasy points scored by a 24 year old, 25 year old, 27 year old, 31 year old, 32 year old, 33 year old and 36 year old (coming off ACL surgery). You can talk about Rice being the best ever in his peak, and he of course was. But it's not like he was any less impressive relative to his age later on. He was the best 27 year old receiver ever, for sure, but he was also the best 36 year old receiver ever and the best 41 year old receiver ever.
23: 64
24: 1
25: 1
26: 14
27: 1
28: 3
29: 8
30: 8
31: 1
32: 1
33: 1
34: 3
35: Injured
36: 1
37: 2
38: 2
39: 1
40: 1
41: 1
42: 1
Now to be fair, Rice is the only receiver to ever record statistics in his 40s, and only Joiner had a catch at the age of 39. So those last four years of "1s" might (or might not) seem less impressive.
But he still holds the record for most fantasy points scored by a 24 year old, 25 year old, 27 year old, 31 year old, 32 year old, 33 year old and 36 year old (coming off ACL surgery). You can talk about Rice being the best ever in his peak, and he of course was. But it's not like he was any less impressive relative to his age later on. He was the best 27 year old receiver ever, for sure, but he was also the best 36 year old receiver ever and the best 41 year old receiver ever.
And it's probably a lot more impressive using VBD points instead of fantasy points since offenses throw for more yards in general now than they did in the mid eighties (I think).
Liquid Tension
Footballguy
I agree with CalBear that "no" a player does not need to hold ALL the records to be considered the best of all time. Obviously, "all" was not the correct word here, but my assumption is that you mean "most." My answer would still be no the person does not need to hold most. The position dictates a lot as well. CalBear used the emmitt and Barry example, and Barry is probably the hardest guy to use as an example, because his style of play was polar opposite of Emmitt. You can make a mental adjustment about the huge disparity of OL's the two of them played behind, but one could argue that Emmitt was better for Dallas than Barry could have been (different discussion)In football there are a lot of things that a player could do that really help an NFL team (believe it or not but have no bearing fantasy wise) but do not show up in their personal stats. For example, Hines Ward is a better player than most people think because he is a great run blocker. Ronnie Brown on the Dolphins is the best pass protecting RB I have seen in some time. I watched every Dolphin play last year and I do not think he got beat once for a sack. The stats we look at won't show that.
The question to me is more about longevity and the opportunities with the talent around you. Longevity only matters if you are effective. Compiling stats while you are playing at a mediocre level really should not help your status at all. However, retiring young while not playing at a peak level for as long as someone else should hurt your status.
The HOF discussions are always touch ones for me because my qualifications are higher and I would have very few players. Guys like Lynn Swann getting in just lower the bar and in baseball guys like Phil Rissutto as well (I am a Yankee fan)
thesurfshop19
Footballguy
Great post. The fundamental question is interesting because, frankly, I can't think of a RB or WR who is considered the greatest of all time who wasn't at least close to owning most of the career total records at the time of his retirement. There's no real precedent there.Jim Brown -- total rushing leader. Walter Payton -- same. Barry Sanders -- finished close to Payton in fewer games. Emmitt Smith -- total rushing leader. Don Hutson -- for practical purposes, invented the receiving record book. Jerry Rice -- for practical purposes, reinvented the receiving record book.So I think it's interesting looking forward. Emmitt and Jerry have put up some really impressive career total numbers that dwarf even their all-time-great predecessors. So now, in the context of Emmitt and Jerry's numbers, can we ever go back? If Jim Brown v2.0 is in the NFL from 2015 to 2023, do we have the same appreciation for him even if he doesn't even come close to the career numbers? Is there a tipping point here?We as a society have trended towards defining greatness through numbers -- more so in baseball, but a lot in football as well -- so it's interesting to me as the numbers continue to grow.
thesurfshop19
Footballguy
Re: Barry Sanders ...
I can say with complete confidence that the Cowboys would never have traded Emmitt Smith for Barry Sanders straight up.
I'd also probably assert that the Broncos would never have traded Terrell Davis for Barry Sanders straight up.
Thoughts?
EDIT: Not saying this proves anything. Circumstances have everything to do with this, and by no means do I think TD was a better player than Barry. He was exactly what Denver needed though.
I can say with complete confidence that the Cowboys would never have traded Emmitt Smith for Barry Sanders straight up.
I'd also probably assert that the Broncos would never have traded Terrell Davis for Barry Sanders straight up.
Thoughts?
EDIT: Not saying this proves anything. Circumstances have everything to do with this, and by no means do I think TD was a better player than Barry. He was exactly what Denver needed though.
Last edited by a moderator:
Liquid Tension
Footballguy
You Turner point was valid as well. As for LT2, he cuts shar and at full speed, he has excellent balance, speed, quickness and vision. He also has very good leg strength for short yardage. He is also a very potent receiver who pass protects decent as well. He is complete and as good as any back I have ever seen.BTW, Jim Brown had great speed as well as power
GregR_2
Footballguy
And the Lions wouldn't have traded Barry straight up for Emmitt, so my thoughts are that doesn't necessarily mean much as far as this sort of discussion.
thesurfshop19
Footballguy
Agreed. (See edit)
switz
Footballguy
I wish I'd had the opportunity to see him play
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
I think Harrison is close to Rice.
Harrison's first 170 games: 1022 receptions, 13697 yards, 122 TDs
Average per game: 6.0 receptions, 80.6 yards, .72 TDs
Rice's first 170 games: 942 receptions, 15123 yards, 146 TDs
Average per game: 5.5 receptions, 89.0 yards, .86 TDs
Pretty close IMO.
Harrison's first 170 games: 1022 receptions, 13697 yards, 122 TDs
Average per game: 6.0 receptions, 80.6 yards, .72 TDs
Rice's first 170 games: 942 receptions, 15123 yards, 146 TDs
Average per game: 5.5 receptions, 89.0 yards, .86 TDs
Pretty close IMO.
Tau837
Footballguy
First off, I think you are using Rice's first 172 regular season games (i.e., his first 11 seasons) vs. Harrison's career to date, which includes 170 regular games. In this same time period:1. Rice had 69/547/9 rushing, compared to Harrison's 10/28/0. Rice also added a return TD and a passing TD (and an interception).2. In 19 playoff games, Rice had 111/1656/17 receiving and played on 3 Super Bowl winners. Harrison had 55/776/2 receiving in 13 playoff games.3. Rice had multiple MVP/POY awards to none for Harrison.I guess you were focusing only on the regular season receiving numbers, but even those aren't that close IMO. Just in receiving, Rice had 10.4% more yards and 19.7% more receiving TDs. Rice also averaged 16.1 ypr to Harrison's 13.4, doing more with less opportunities.
Question:
What's the latest into a 'new era' WR's career has he been on target with Rice?
RMoss must have been toe to toe with Rice's start early in career. Obviously that has gone to crap more and more every year since about 2003.
Quick math:
First 6 Seasons
Moss 525 catches for 8375 yards and 77 TDs
Rice 446 catches for 7866 yards and 79 TDs
After all 9 of Moss' seasons:
676 10700 101
708 11776 118
He's lost ground and without going to a team that he cares to play for, he'll keep on falling further and further behind.
What's the latest into a 'new era' WR's career has he been on target with Rice?
RMoss must have been toe to toe with Rice's start early in career. Obviously that has gone to crap more and more every year since about 2003.
Quick math:
First 6 Seasons
Moss 525 catches for 8375 yards and 77 TDs
Rice 446 catches for 7866 yards and 79 TDs
After all 9 of Moss' seasons:
676 10700 101
708 11776 118
He's lost ground and without going to a team that he cares to play for, he'll keep on falling further and further behind.
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't know... I remember all the hype Moss was getting after a couple years in the league, and how he was "on pace" to break so many of Jerry's records. I think you'd have a lot of people in here saying that Moss was the best ever had he suffered some sort of career ending injury during his peak years (not that I'd agree with that). Bo Jackson is getting a lot of love in this thread, despite the lack of career stats.
CalBear
Footballguy
And there are people who think Kobe Bryant is better than Michael Jordan. So what?
He said public perception would never put a player without longetivity ahead of a player like Rice. I think a lot of people would, especially those that may not be as well informed as some of the people on this board.
pizzatyme
Footballguy
This is one of the most asinine statements I've read on this board, EVER!
nygiants56
Footballguy
Harrison could probably play another 10-15 years, the guy never takes a hit , always runs for 5-10 yards after a catch, and falls down or runs out of bounds.. or scores on a long TD catch.
He never makes that tough catch over the middle of the field like Keyshawn or T.O. would..
Harrison's nickname is Charmin, he's as soft as they come.
I hope he never breaks Rice's records.
He never makes that tough catch over the middle of the field like Keyshawn or T.O. would..
Harrison's nickname is Charmin, he's as soft as they come.
I hope he never breaks Rice's records.
This would be correct. Currently Harrison is behind Rice in all stats at the same age. Basically 2 years worth of numbers behind in yards. 2-3 years behind in TD's. No chance he plays as long as Rice either. He would have to play at least 6 more years at current production to take the catch record.
Wow. You ain't kidding. That was awful.
thesurfshop19
Footballguy
Doo said:Same could be said for Manning/MontanaManning - would be ecstatic if he had 300 yards, 3 TDs even if his team lostMontana - would not let his team lose - that's the difference between the two.
Liquid Tension
Footballguy
I know this doesn't mean that much to most people, but my dad was a huge sports fan (which is probably why I have 5 TV's in 1 room to watch sports). When people used to talk about how different the modern athlete is an how much bigger and faster they are my dad would say, that it is true, older players if dropped into the game today with the exact same skill set would NOT be nearly as good. But, he said only one player could have played at a high level and it was Jim Brown. He was a man among boys. The closest thing he had seen was the way Bo Jackson looked in the short time he played.
Liquid Tension
Footballguy
What is even funnier is that Doo and ButtMonkey think alike...I acn only hope they are the same personDoo said:
