coordi88 Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 owens is pretty much = to moss and they should both be in quick easily the #2 and #3 recievers of all time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 (edited) spinoff from the hines ward thread. there is getting to be a pretty decent glut of WRs who are possibly deserving when it comes to HOF enshrinement. how would you rank them, most deserving to least deserving? let's include active players, but keep it to actual accumulated stats (rather than, "if larry fitz has x more productive years..." type speculation). just throwing out the list, not in any particular order... tim brown cris carter andre reed isaac bruce rod smith jimmy smith hines ward marvin harrison TO randy moss irving fryar torry holt sterling sharpe who am I missing? I really think those first two need to get in before anyone else at the position -- tim brown and cris carter are HOF WRs, period. reed, bruce and harrison I am more ambivalent about -- they have stats that make a good case, but I dunno, I feel like they were in the right place at the right time as much as anything else. there is no way you can keep out TO or moss when their number comes up. hines will probably get in, because for whatever reason steelers always get in before comparable players from other teams. the rest of those guys might be on the outs, much as I love guys like rod and jimmy smith, and much as I think sterling sharpe was one of the most talented of the bunch. The most skilled, hard to deny, reciever on this list was Sterling Sharpe. It is a shame his career was cut short, but it was. With No MVP's and no Superbowls he will never get in. He simply did not impact the history of the game. Moss and T.O. are the best stats guys on the list. Interesting that neither was good enough to win a superbowl. particularly interesting in Owens case since he so clearly jumped around to contending teams. This can argue for the position that W.R.'s really are not nearly as impactful as they think they are and their representation in the HOF should be tightly limited. Still I think both get in on their stats but their biggest contribution to the game was in Moss' case being a one trick pony and in Owens' case being a giant flaming jackhole. I have always argued that the HOF should be for those guys who are integral to the story of the NFL. Did they have a part in the cental history of the game. That means championships or sea changes in the way things are done. The list has several guys with championships. Some of those guys were central to those championships and need consideration beyond their raw stats. I would put Ward and Bruce and Holt in that category. Certainly the Greatest Show on turf produced a cahmpionship, but it also helped usher in the new pass happy era. Football historians are going to be talking about that team and its impact and when you are champions who have cahnged the direction of the game, and you have good to great stats maybe you should get in. I feel that way as to Ward too, to an extent. On Ward, though, if I have to hear any more about him being the best W.R. blocker in the game I am going to puke. His supporters do this to show how complete he was as a player and thats great. I would much favor a guy who plays all out all the time to a loafer like Moss. That said being the best blocking W.R. is sort of like being the best recieving Tackle. Besides, who, other than Pittsburgh fans and parrots in the media have determined this? As for the others, well they are all very good and I do not think th eHOF would be much diminished by their presence. BTW, Rod Smith may be the best throwing W.R., Jimmy Smith the best healing W.R., and Irving Fryar and Cris Carter the best dope procuring W.R.'s (O.K. Hurd but he is not in the discussion) in football, but much like ward's situation I don't enhance their chances due to those factors. Edited March 4, 2012 by Ditkaless Wonders Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 You mean Hutson, then Rice, then Moss. No, I don't. Hutson might not be talented enough to be a ball boy in today's NFL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 No, I don't. Hutson might not be talented enough to be a ball boy in today's NFL. Alternativley a player with his love for the game might take advantage of today's training methods, pharmacology, and one way specialization to be even more devastating than he was, and with extended seasons he might have put up stats that we cannot even imagine. With the old timers I don't try to drag them into the modern times for comparison without acknowleging that they may have benefited from those times. Just as it would be crazy to try to put T.O., in modern gear, back on the Canton Bulldogs. It makes no sense. T.O. back in the olden days would have been shorter, skinnier, perhaps twisted by disease, and of course being black would not have played. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Alternativley a player with his love for the game might take advantage of today's training methods, pharmacology, and one way specialization to be even more devastating than he was, and with extended seasons he might have put up stats that we cannot even imagine. With the old timers I don't try to drag them into the modern times for comparison without acknowleging that they may have benefited from those times. Just as it would be crazy to try to put T.O., in modern gear, back on the Canton Bulldogs. It makes no sense. T.O. back in the olden days would have been shorter, skinnier, perhaps twisted by disease, and of course being black would not have played. Yeah, sure....but Hutson was brought up in answer to a comment. I didn't drag him into the conversation. In fact, my point is that there is no frame of reference for comparing Hutson to Rice and Moss, so I would not include him in the comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Marvin Harrison deserves it above all the rest. As a rookie, with Jim Harbaugh throwing to him, he had 64-836 yards and 8 TD's. The following year, with a hideous assortment of QB's, he had 73-866 yards and 6 TD's. It was not all Peyton Manning. 1,102 reception - third all time 14,580 yards - sixth all time 128 TD's - fifth all time 76.7 yards per game - fifth all time Single season record holder for receptions in a season with 143 1 Super Bowl win Harrsion led the league in one category for a long time. After catching the ball, nobody got to the turf or out of bounds faster than he did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Yeah, sure....but Hutson was brought up in answer to a comment. I didn't drag him into the conversation. In fact, my point is that there is no frame of reference for comparing Hutson to Rice and Moss, so I would not include him in the comparison. More than fair GB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 The hate on Jeff Garcia is utterly inexplicable. I'm not hating Jeff Garcia, or even Culpeppar. The post I was referring to was suggesting Marvin Harrison was the best WR of his generation (better than Moss or Owens, essentially). The post of the homer forgot to bring up the fact that Harrison benefitted greatly from the QB throwing to him, far more than the other two. And, I'd suggest that if you want to do a numbers comparison, the accurate one would be Garcia and Culpeppar without TO or Moss to throw to vs. their numbers when they did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Harrsion led the league in one category for a long time. After catching the ball, nobody got to the turf or out of bounds faster than he did. So would you if you were 6'0" 178 lbs in today's NFL. He wasn't ever gonna be the kind of guy that was going to break a bunch of tackles, but his combination of route running, speed, and hands were unmatched. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 I'm not hating Jeff Garcia, or even Culpeppar. The post I was referring to was suggesting Marvin Harrison was the best WR of his generation (better than Moss or Owens, essentially). The post of the homer forgot to bring up the fact that Harrison benefitted greatly from the QB throwing to him, far more than the other two. And, I'd suggest that if you want to do a numbers comparison, the accurate one would be Garcia and Culpeppar without TO or Moss to throw to vs. their numbers when they did. I didn't say that. I think TO and Moss were much more talented WR's. I also think they were whiny prima donna CHEETOs. I'd rather get Marvin Harrison's career for my homer team than Moss' and Owens'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I didn't say that. I think TO and Moss were much more talented WR's. I also think they were whiny prima donna CHEETOs. I'd rather get Marvin Harrison's career for my homer team than Moss' and Owens'. If you're team was drafting, would you really want Terrell Owens or Randy Moss ahead of Marvin Harrison? Sorry....I interpreted what you said differently.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Sorry....I interpreted what you said differently.... Gotta read more than that first line: If your team was drafting, would you really want Terrell Owens or Randy Moss ahead of Marvin Harrison? Yeah, they had more physical talent. But they also burned bridges, cause team dis-unity, and bounced around the league due to their immaturity. I'd take a guy like Marvin that keeps his mouth shut, practices and plays hard, and plays for the team that drafts him for 12 years. The Vikings, the team that drafted him, only got 7 years from Randy Moss. The 49ers, the team that drafted him, only got 8 years from Terrell Owens. Neither Moss no Owens got to a Super Bowl with the team that drafted them. Oh yeah, Harrison was pretty DAMN good too. That TD at New England at the pylon is one of the greatest catches of ALL TIME. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 SNIP On Ward, though, if I have to hear any more about him being the best W.R. blocker in the game I am going to puke. His supporters do this to show how complete he was as a player and thats great. I would much favor a guy who plays all out all the time to a loafer like Moss. That said being the best blocking W.R. is sort of like being the best recieving Tackle. Besides, who, other than Pittsburgh fans and parrots in the media have determined this? SNIP or the best receiving LB of all time, Mike Vrabel (10 receptions for 10 TDs, the dude was unstoppable) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Rod Smith and Ed McCaffery were great downfield blockers as well. The only reason Ward has this reputation as the "best downfield blocker" is some well publicized cheap shots. . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Rod Smith and Ed McCaffery were great downfield blockers as well. The only reason Ward has this reputation as the "best downfield blocker" is some well publicized cheap shots. . . So if Smith and McCaffery had their cheap shots more well publicized they'd be in contention for for "best downfield blocker". As a Browns fan I have no love for Ward, and I agree that some of those wicked hits seem cheap. But I because of them being highly publicized he gets both the good (best blocker) and bad (cheap shot artist) tags. Who knows, maybe the Steelers had a bounty system in place as well and Ward was just trying to earn some extra $$. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bizkit34 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Not really sure how anyone can be considered a lock to get in. When Chris Carter retired he was ranked # 2 in the history of the game in Receptions, Rec Yards and TD's all behind Rice. If he hasn't gotten in yet none of these others belong in before he does Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennykravitz2004 Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 reed, bruce and harrison I am more ambivalent about -- they have stats that make a good case, but I dunno, I feel like they were in the right place at the right time as much as anything else. Bruce was in the "right place" his first several years catching passes from Chris Miller, Steve Walsh, Tony Banks... He has the second highest single season receiving yardage total behind some guy named Rice (with Miller throwing to him). Two Super Bowls, won one with the GW catch. Don't get me started... Bruce should be a first ballot, but will probably be a second ballot. I didn't get a "harumph" outta him!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.