Who had the better career? (1 Viewer)

[Tau837]

the lack of a dominant DB during Rice's era is because defenses could not attack the pass as much as they previously could.

There were dominant DBs during Rice's era, including Deion Sanders, Rod Woodson, Ronnie Lott, Darrell Green, and Aeneas Williams off the top of my head.

 

[49erBamBam52]

I would say that D's were more designed to shut down the passing game because of the Rule Book back in the 1940's, and the lack of a dominant DB during Rice's era is because defenses could not attack the pass as much as they previously could.

Who were these people if there were no dominant CB/DB in the NFL during rices era...?Ronnie Lott, Darrell Green, Deion Sanders, Rod Woodson, Ronnie Lott (niners fan... forgive me), Aeneas Williams, Steve Atwatter + many many more, that i do not have the energy to type right now.IMHO it was actually one of the most dominating era's for DB's, that is to say those regarded as bieng the NFL's best (alla the ones listed above) came from that era...Name for me a CB that is or was more dominant that Primetime, or a Safety that was more dominant than Lott.I will post the results of the Packers web site poll that my buddy put up tomorow, to allow for ample voting time, but right now after two hours, it is rice winning 13-11... that result alone speaks volumes (remember this is a packers site)...BAM

 

[49erBamBam52]

the lack of a dominant DB during Rice's era is because defenses could not attack the pass as much as they previously could.

There were dominant DBs during Rice's era, including Deion Sanders, Rod Woodson, Ronnie Lott, Darrell Green, and Aeneas Williams off the top of my head.

Damn beat me to it...Bam

 

[TBIST]

Sounds like Don Hutson was a pretty good athlete who could play in today's NFL. Supposedly he ran a 9.7 100-yard dash. His acheivements are very remarkable... Definitely doesn't seem to get enough praise.

Also led the league in interceptions in a season? Played defense and special teams. Big ups.

 

[thesurfshop19]

Love this debate. Most fans are so uninformed they wouldn't even consider Hutson in the top 5. Many people here get downright defensive that someone would dare think that Hutson is merely as good as Rice.

Those talking about his records have to consider another point. Say we increase the number of games in a season from 16 to 25. How many of Rice's records would remain, and for how long? Why are we so unwilling to consider that Hutson's records were affected not only by era, but also by season length?

 

[TBIST]

Love this debate. Most fans are so uninformed they wouldn't even consider Hutson in the top 5. Many people here get downright defensive that someone would dare think that Hutson is merely as good as Rice.

Those talking about his records have to consider another point. Say we increase the number of games in a season from 16 to 25. How many of Rice's records would remain, and for how long? Why are we so unwilling to consider that Hutson's records were affected not only by era, but also by season length?

Seriously... I'm just shocked he can run a 9.7 100 yard dash... It's not like the guy was some 5 second 40 white guy from the stone age.

 

[Jason Wood]

Love this debate. Most fans are so uninformed they wouldn't even consider Hutson in the top 5. Many people here get downright defensive that someone would dare think that Hutson is merely as good as Rice.

Those talking about his records have to consider another point. Say we increase the number of games in a season from 16 to 25. How many of Rice's records would remain, and for how long? Why are we so unwilling to consider that Hutson's records were affected not only by era, but also by season length?

I don't think many informed football fans, particularly those in the Shark Pool, are either unaware or dismissive of Don Hutson. But again, I think comparing his era with Rice's is not only difficult, it's impossible. The Pro Football Hall of Fame delineates its inductees between Modern Era and Pre-Modern Era. That tells you all you need to know. Why can't they BOTH be respected as dominant players?

 

[gump]

Quick related trivia question:Who started alongside Hutson in their college backfield?

This is a good question, I learned it as I was researching why Hutson>Rice, that team turned out two great ones and a lot of guys that went on to have very good careers.

Anyone other than Oddibe?

 

[Koya]

Now, imagine if Player A was also a hall of fame caliber DEFENSIVE BACK in addition to his offensive prowess.

Oh, wait.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Both players defined their eras and were heads and shoulders above their contemporaries. Hutson defined the WR position.

RICE re-defined it!

Yeah, but Odibe makes a good point and when most people compare athletes the only real way to compare is to compare their dominance per the era they played. Babe Ruth was the most dominant player ever, he out homered teams, but if you compare his HR's to others he falls short. Of course, his amazing OBP does place him at or near the top, but when you look at era's Ruth is the best ever. This is why you can't just take Ruth and compare to Bonds as it isn't fair.

 

[gump]

Quick related trivia question:Who started alongside Hutson in their college backfield?

This is a good question, I learned it as I was researching why Hutson>Rice, that team turned out two great ones and a lot of guys that went on to have very good careers.

Anyone other than Oddibe?

Obviously the suspense is killing you guys...Paul Bryant.

 

[Thorpe]

When Hutson played, they did not allow blacks in the league, and almost all of the best athletes played baseball. Still, they played a lot dirtier game back then and no one came back from any kind of knee injury. Anybody that played more than a handful of seasons before 1960 gets a ton of respect from me.

 

[Chaka]

Hutson was Jerry Rice before there was a Jerry Rice.

 

[Chaka]

Both players defined their eras and were heads and shoulders above their contemporaries. Hutson defined the WR position.

RICE re-defined it!

Yeah, but Odibe makes a good point and when most people compare athletes the only real way to compare is to compare their dominance per the era they played. Babe Ruth was the most dominant player ever, he out homered teams, but if you compare his HR's to others he falls short. Of course, his amazing OBP does place him at or near the top, but when you look at era's Ruth is the best ever. This is why you can't just take Ruth and compare to Bonds as it isn't fair.

My decoder ring is having trouble with your post but how does Ruth fall short in any objective measure of home runs?

 

[OddibeMcD]

Love this debate. Most fans are so uninformed they wouldn't even consider Hutson in the top 5. Many people here get downright defensive that someone would dare think that Hutson is merely as good as Rice.

Those talking about his records have to consider another point. Say we increase the number of games in a season from 16 to 25. How many of Rice's records would remain, and for how long? Why are we so unwilling to consider that Hutson's records were affected not only by era, but also by season length?

I don't think many informed football fans, particularly those in the Shark Pool, are either unaware or dismissive of Don Hutson. But again, I think comparing his era with Rice's is not only difficult, it's impossible. The Pro Football Hall of Fame delineates its inductees between Modern Era and Pre-Modern Era. That tells you all you need to know. Why can't they BOTH be respected as dominant players?

From name your top 5 WR's of all time:Of the people who did not specify that they were listing players only from a certain era.

1. Jerry Rice

2. Terrell Owens

3. Fred Biletnikoff

4. Lance Alworth

5. Marvin Harrison

1 Jerry Rice

2 Randy Moss

3 Steve Largent

4 Freddy B

5 James Lofton

1 jerry rice

2 steve largent

3 lance alworth

4 moss/holt/harrison

1. Jerry Rice

2. Don Hutson

3. Fred Biletnikoff

4. Steve Largent

5. Terrell Owens

1 J. Rice

2 R. Berry

3 R. Moss

4 M. Harrison

5 S. Largent

1 Jerry Rice

2 Don Hutson

3 Cris Carter

4 James Lofton

5 Art Monk

1) GOAT

2) Carter

3) Hutson

4) Alworth

5) T.Brown

1 Rice

2 Hutson

3 Harrison

4 Largent

5 Carter

1) Rice

2) Largent

3) Moss

4) Harrison

5) Carter

(From Assani Fisher, GB Icy Pots)

1. Hutson

2. Rice

3. Owens

4. Moss

5. Carter

My list is correct and dominates all of your stupid lists.

1 Rice

2 Moss

3 Largent

4 Monk

5 Alworth

1. Rice

2. Moss

3. Houston

4. Berry

5. Hutson

(From Just Win Baby)

1. Rice

2. Hutson

3. Largent

(I have a feeling someone is a Packers fan)

1. James Lofton

2. Don Hutson

3. Sterling Sharpe

4. Boyd Dowler

5. Max McGee

1. Rice

2. Harrison- by the time he is done

3. Moss- same as harrion

4. Carter

5. Brown- would put a # of WR here

1) Rice

2) C.Carter

3) Moss

4) Hutson

5) Brown

1. Jerry Rice

2. Don Hutson

3. Terrell Owens

4. Randy Moss

5. Steve Largent

So, in 17 lists, Hutson is listed first once, second seven times, third once, fourth once and fifth once. Six people did not think that Don Hutson was one of the five best WR’s ever. My tally did not include those posters, such as Maurile, who only felt comfortable commenting on players they actually saw.

Conclusion: A full third of the participants in this unscientific survey did not include Don Hutson, indicating they were either unaware of dismissive of his accomplishments.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Both players defined their eras and were heads and shoulders above their contemporaries. Hutson defined the WR position.

RICE re-defined it!

Yeah, but Odibe makes a good point and when most people compare athletes the only real way to compare is to compare their dominance per the era they played. Babe Ruth was the most dominant player ever, he out homered teams, but if you compare his HR's to others he falls short. Of course, his amazing OBP does place him at or near the top, but when you look at era's Ruth is the best ever. This is why you can't just take Ruth and compare to Bonds as it isn't fair.

My decoder ring is having trouble with your post but how does Ruth fall short in any objective measure of home runs?

You might need to by more cereal so you can get a new decoder ring Ruth was the best player of all time IMO and what he did was simply amazing, so arguing this point is somewhat silly, but you have ignored the concept of my post and are asking for justification of my one point about HR's. It should also be noted that I never said "any objective measure" as you did.

That being said, we have been talking about the best in the discussion and if you look at single season HR records, Ruth isn't even in the top 5.

Bonds = 73

McGwire = 70

Sosa = 66

Sosa = 63

Maris = 61

And obviously, Bonds now has more HR's for a career and there is a solid shot that ARod could be up there as well and many other new comers have a shot with guys breaking 50 at a MUCH more consistent basis.

Again, Ruth was simply amazing, but the concept of my post was that adjusting for era and/or comparing to era differential is a more solid way to judge how good a player was compared to just putting up the stats of each guy who played "50" years apart.

 

[Despyzer]

Do you realize that Hutson set the single season receiving TD record 5 times. By the time that Hutson retired the record for TD receptions in a season had gone from 5 to 17. This is the equivalent of Jerry Rice taking the record from Mark Clayton's 18 to 60+. In receiving yards, Hutson nearly doubled the record. In receptions, the record before Hutson was 26, after Hutson 74, nearly triple the output. Furthermore, Hutson's best season was in 1942 and he retired in 1945. His reception record was broken in 1949, his receiving yardage record was broken in 1951, his receiving TD record was broken in 1984 (tied in 1951 and 1961). Rice never had the reception record, his yardage record is still going strong and his TD record lasted for 20 years. Both players defined their eras and were heads and shoulders above their contemporaries. Hutson defined the WR position.

I have a hard time getting excited about players breaking records at the near-inception of the league. This would be like getting excited over someone holding franchise records for the Jaguars ten years ago.

 

[Despyzer]

Break down their statistics per game for catches, yards, yards per catch, and touchdowns per game and hutson is a bieast even against the modern pass happy era, and he came from a non-throwing, mug the reciever era.

Now this is a valid point.

 

[Despyzer]

There were only 10 teams in the NFL in 1945, some would consider Rice's competition watered down. There was also a war, that some athletes actually attended...

The interest in playing in the NFL was so low at that time that a #1 draft choice passed up pro football to sell cars or something. The war would take good athletes away from the game, not add to it.The players were much better in Rice's day then Hutson's, and it seems ridiculous to dispute it.