Harrison or Rice?

[Kneel B4 Zod]

[ QUOTE ]
Marvin and myself were very,very good WR's but only great due to the systems we were in. I would take a properly motivated Randy Moss over myself or Marvin any day.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, well I would take a 7 foot tall, 4.1 40 sprinting, glue hands having, perfect route running, stuck kitten in a tree rescuing WR over any of those 3, but he doesn't exist either. we can only go by the results we have.

[AngusThermopyle]

2003-now.
Ask football fans "Who is the best receiver currently playing in the NFL?"
1992-1995
Ask football fans "Who is the best receiver currently playing in the NFL?"

In which period would you get a debate and in which period would you get near unanimity?

[Kneel B4 Zod]

[ QUOTE ]
2003-now.
Ask football fans "Who is the best receiver currently playing in the NFL?"
1992-1995
Ask football fans "Who is the best receiver currently playing in the NFL?"

In which period would you get a debate and in which period would you get near unanimity?

[/ QUOTE ]

does that mean that Albert Pujols today is better than Barry Bonds from 2001 (steroid issues aside)?

[AngusThermopyle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2003-now.
Ask football fans "Who is the best receiver currently playing in the NFL?"
1992-1995
Ask football fans "Who is the best receiver currently playing in the NFL?"

In which period would you get a debate and in which period would you get near unanimity?

[/ QUOTE ]

does that mean that Albert Pujols today is better than Barry Bonds from 2001 (steroid issues aside)?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. It means that it is hard to consider a player the best of all time when he wasn't clearly the best in the game in any given year for a majority of his career

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2003-now.
Ask football fans "Who is the best receiver currently playing in the NFL?"
1992-1995
Ask football fans "Who is the best receiver currently playing in the NFL?"

In which period would you get a debate and in which period would you get near unanimity?

[/ QUOTE ]

does that mean that Albert Pujols today is better than Barry Bonds from 2001 (steroid issues aside)?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. It means that it is hard to consider a player the best of all time when he wasn't clearly the best in the game in any given year for a majority of his career

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you figure Rice would've fared if he'd come out of the 1996 draft. Rice isn't Jesus in cleets, he rran his routes sharp, kept himself in shape well past his physical prime, and was the smartest WR of his day. The same can (will) most likely be said about Harrison.

There are no numbers that can't be brought back to earth with a little dose of logic. Rice was the best WR ever to play. But seeing as how Harrison is almost a full seasons (14 games) ahead of him in terms of catches, it's not an impossibility that Harrison will eclipse Rice.

Cody

[crockpot]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2003-now.
Ask football fans "Who is the best receiver currently playing in the NFL?"
1992-1995
Ask football fans "Who is the best receiver currently playing in the NFL?"

In which period would you get a debate and in which period would you get near unanimity?

[/ QUOTE ]

does that mean that Albert Pujols today is better than Barry Bonds from 2001 (steroid issues aside)?

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't understand your point. are you calling out the two chicago writers who voted for sammy sosa for 2001 mvp? given that bonds won in a near-unanimous vote and pujols didn't even win, it's hard to say albert is receiving more support.

[Pudge714]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2003-now.
Ask football fans "Who is the best receiver currently playing in the NFL?"
1992-1995
Ask football fans "Who is the best receiver currently playing in the NFL?"

In which period would you get a debate and in which period would you get near unanimity?

[/ QUOTE ]

does that mean that Albert Pujols today is better than Barry Bonds from 2001 (steroid issues aside)?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. It means that it is hard to consider a player the best of all time when he wasn't clearly the best in the game in any given year for a majority of his career

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you figure Rice would've fared if he'd come out of the 1996 draft. Rice isn't Jesus in cleets, he rran his routes sharp, kept himself in shape well past his physical prime, and was the smartest WR of his day. The same can (will) most likely be said about Harrison.

There are no numbers that can't be brought back to earth with a little dose of logic. Rice was the best WR ever to play. But seeing as how Harrison is almost a full seasons (14 games) ahead of him in terms of catches, it's not an impossibility that Harrison will eclipse Rice.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

The biggest flaw in your argument is that you are looking at the two eras as if they were the same.
Players greatness should be measured based on their performance relative to their peers.
Don Hutson would be a terrible WR in the current NFL does that make him a bad WR?

[crockpot]

http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/wr2001.php

in the best year of marvin harrison's career (by DPAR), he was the best receiver in football, ahead of a second-place 39-year-old jerry rice. i don't know what the odds are against harrison being the second-best receiver in football when he's 39, but 50-1 seems conservative. how many of you can even name another receiver who was still active at 39?

re: era adjustment, rice played 3/4 of his career under conditions extremely favorable to receivers. at the same time, it's entirely possible he could have hit career highs in the 80s if the game had been different.

i think the ruth-aaron analogy is reasonable, if not perfect. no one should feel slighted by being compared to hank aaron.

[Jerry Rice]

[ QUOTE ]
rice played 3/4 of his career under conditions extremely favorable to receivers.

[/ QUOTE ]

3/4's is even a low estimate, more like 95%

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2003-now.
Ask football fans "Who is the best receiver currently playing in the NFL?"
1992-1995
Ask football fans "Who is the best receiver currently playing in the NFL?"

In which period would you get a debate and in which period would you get near unanimity?

[/ QUOTE ]

does that mean that Albert Pujols today is better than Barry Bonds from 2001 (steroid issues aside)?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. It means that it is hard to consider a player the best of all time when he wasn't clearly the best in the game in any given year for a majority of his career

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you figure Rice would've fared if he'd come out of the 1996 draft. Rice isn't Jesus in cleets, he rran his routes sharp, kept himself in shape well past his physical prime, and was the smartest WR of his day. The same can (will) most likely be said about Harrison.

There are no numbers that can't be brought back to earth with a little dose of logic. Rice was the best WR ever to play. But seeing as how Harrison is almost a full seasons (14 games) ahead of him in terms of catches, it's not an impossibility that Harrison will eclipse Rice.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

The biggest flaw in your argument is that you are looking at the two eras as if they were the same.
Players greatness should be measured based on their performance relative to their peers.
Don Hutson would be a terrible WR in the current NFL does that make him a bad WR?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure we should consider their eras, but again 1930:2000 =/= 1990:2000. In case that's unclear, the difference between Hutson's era and Harrisons is HUGE, the game is totally different. Rice and Harrison played in similar eras, they really aren't all that different, the numbers for catch/year is still resonably close and alot of the strategy in the game is the same (as opposed to Hutson's day when the football playbook refered to passing as "a promising new concept").

Cody