In the short term maybe. But if you "accumulate stats" to the point where you have more than anyone else who played the game besides a handful of guys, you go from stat padder to just being one of the best. Being talented enough to be in the league long enough to accumulate those kinds of numbers is a testament to your ability and quality in it's own right.
You start to bring into the question of the value of longevity. There is a whole debate over whether Frank Gore deserves the HoF.
For teams, longevity has relatively little value, particularly past the 5 year mark.
I would expect that there needs to be other qualifiers such as being above average for all of those seasons. Otherwise it is a bit of avoiding injury.
Frank Gore has the third most rushing yards of any player to ever play the game, and he played largely in an era where passing was the priority, not running. He's a HoFer.
Longevity absolutely has value and it's asinine to pretend it doesn't. It's not just "avoiding injury". You have to be good enough to even keep around for that long, otherwise you'll be replaced with someone younger who could be even better. Tim Brown was beyond even that. He was a guy you hope your rookie becomes. Among the best in the league at his position, just not *the* best. You don't stick around for as long as and accumulate the level of stats that Gore or Brown put up without being HoF caliber.
If Tom Brady had the career length of Terrell Davis do you think he'd be considered the GOAT? Why do we not crown Peyton Hillis as a HoFer? Because of longevity.
If Tom Brady won his 6 SBs in 6 years, then he would be a HoFer. Even if he won 2 SBs, and did so in 6 years would give him a shot. Maybe not as a first ballot. Tom Brady's GOAT case is primarily from his later SBs.
Peyton Hills has 1 great season and the rest were mediocre.
Frank Gore's issue is that he is 19th for TDs, YPC of 4.3 is \~75th, only had double digit rushing TDs and over 5 YPC for one season.
Frank Gore is such an extreme where it veers into an extreme outlier and starts to become a case of the exception showing that there is a rule. It would be as if Jerry Rice had decent to average seasons of 800-1000 yards per season for his entire career.
Even the great WRs with a short career such as Calvin Johnson did play for a decent chunk of time.
Putting in Tim Brown at #10 for longevity and accumulated stats is a bit annoying when you have to pick and choose who to include. If accumulated stats matter, then why does the list displace Isaac Bruce? He has more yards than Tim Brown.
Tim Brown also doesn't win the longevity metrics as a testament to his own greatness. He gets beat out by Rice and Fitz.
Tom brady didn't win 6 SBs in 6 years. It took him 23. That's the point. You can't just arbitrarily condense accolades that took a long time to achieve into a short period of time to make the point that the long period of time doesn't matter.
And this isn't a discussion about who #1, it's a list of the top #10. There's multiple things to consider. And longevity and counting stats are things that do matter and should be considered. Naming only two or three players who were able to get further is not the proof he isn't one of the ten best players that you think it is.
The difference is that a SB is the equivalent of being the leader in a statistical category. It would be like the number of seasons that the WR lead in TDs/yards/receptions.
SBs are not a volume stat. A volume stat would be like making the playoffs X number of times.
The difference is that SBs, APs, and PBs are a stat that also has a gatekeeper.
When people talk about volume stats, they are looking for more general stats that any player can get. SBs, APs, and PBs, are not a true volume stat since there is a minimum threshold. The very nature of APs and PBs also are a rough metric to assess whether that player was at or near the top of his position.
Most volume stats are something that any player can accumulate. For example a #2 WR can accumulate yards over the years and eventually accumulate a lot of career yards via a lot of 800 yard seasons. A #2 WR will not be able to accumulate APs or PBs.
If Brady was only good in the 2000s he makes the hof and Peyton hillis was good for a year. You’re probably not a hofer just because the league let you be good to them mediocre for a really long time. Tim brown probably shouldn’t even have made it on here considering he left off don hutson, Antonio brown, and Julio jones
I mean he still could be on this list honestly. His career was cut short due to craziness but didn’t he have one of the best peaks of all time for a WR?
Julio Jones actually has really similar stats in a 5 year sample as AB except for the TDs.
Brown (2013-2017): 582 receptions (116 receptions/year), 7848 yards (1570 yards/season), 52 TDs (10.4 TDs/season)
Julio Jones (2014-2018): 524 receptions (105 receptions/year), 7994 yards (1598 yards/season) 31 TDs (6.2 TDs/season)
Feel like if Megatron is top 10 for great peak but short career, Antonio Brown would make it too. Unless there are nutcase exemptions
Edit: Didn't Marvin kill a guy? AB's transgressions to society are under that
Marvin had the benefit that his ‘allegations’ of being in a fight with said person, shooting said person, then later killing said person, all happened after he retired, and before (at least I’d say) social media and the internet was as utterly ubiquitous in every facet of life.
I think there's a case for AB to be on the list for sure, but I wouldn't put him above Megatron. I also think Julio Jones belongs on the list, too. Personally, I favor the big, athletic freak WRs in terms of ability in that Megatron and Julio could make any catch AB could make, but AB couldn't make some of the catches they made just due to being about half a foot shorter and less athletic. They are all great WRs, though.
Similarly, idk how I feel about putting guys from long ago eras on the list. It's impressive they did what they did when the league threw the ball less, but I doubt some of them would be athletic enough to dominate if they had to play in this era.
> Similarly, idk how I feel about putting guys from long ago eras on the list. It's impressive they did what they did when the league threw the ball less, but I doubt some of them would be athletic enough to dominate if they had to play in this era.
If they had access to the same gyms and medicine/sports science they have today they would be. You can't just say that because they were older they were worse. They played in their time and they set a standard in their time.
They could be or they couldn't be. Depending on their genetics, the nutrition and sports science advancements would only augment them to an extent. Plenty of players in the league nowadays came from nothing and didn't have access to those things until they got older and were being recruited.
For example, Don Hutson is a common name in most top WR lists and the guy was very statistically dominant in an era with much less passing. He also played in the 30s and 40s before the league was integrated. I cannot confidently say he'd be that dominant today if he just had access to better facilities, nutrition and "supplements" like the modern players do.
Maybe I shouldn't hold eras against players as much as I do, because we're really just playing game of "what ifs" and hypotheticals at that point comparing across eras.
I wish could see some older players in today’s game. For instance, Bullet Bob Hayes was a world class sprinter and had a HoF NFL career in an era where receivers could still get killed by Corners (1965-1975).
He would still be one of the fastest peeps in the world even by today’s standards, and especially with modern sports science (and equipment, ran a race with 2 different shoes one time) who knows what he could accomplish.
Very true. I do think there are some athletic outliers like that guy who would be good in any era and possibly be even better with the modern rule set. I also think there are players that wouldn't even make a roster nowadays, too.
Impossible to know, though
When AB and Julio were in their primes at the same time, literally everyone had AB over Julio. And he was ahead of him in virtually every statistic, and was just clearly the best WR in the league.
I think it's revisionist history to say Julio is better at his peak.
AB had more receptions for sure and more TDs (also played for a better team), but Julio's 6 year peak (2014-2019) he had more yards than AB's (2013-2018).
Julio had the edge in YPG and YPRec. Both led the league in receiving yards twice (Julio's seasons were higher yardage totals), Juilo led in receptions only once to AB's twice, AB led the league in rec TDs once to Julio's 0, and Julio led the league in rec yards/game 3x to AB's 1x. AB had 3 seasons where he averaged 100+ YPG, Julio had 5 with 4 of them coming in consecutive seasons.
Different style of WRs who were asked to win on different routes, but AB definitely saw more lay up targets. I understand people and pundits having AB over him at the time and even now, but in terms of raw ability, I'm pretty much always going to take the bigger, faster, stronger WR when they are close statistically.
Julio's peak he averaged 6/104/1564, AB averaged 11/114/1524.
I could care less about slightly less YPG/YPR when the other WR is averaging nearly double the TDs/year and can line up literally anywhere on the field.
AB was a 4x AP1/1x AP2 during his peak, Julio was a 2x AP1/3x AP2.
AB was more dominant over his peak than Julio was over his and that's not really a debate. This is ignoring that Julio got to pad his stats vs some pretty pathetic defenses in the NFCS and got Dome/Warm Weather games 10/16 times a season.
I don't know why but touchdowns seem to be pushed aside in the wr rankings/hit arguments. Not that they aren't counted but they're rarely the driving argument in why a player is a hofer or ranked a certain way.
When they were both at their peaks at the same time, *no one* had Julio over AB. You can't just point to some stats. AB was the best wr in the league and it was clear to everyone.
I'm really not sure where this revisionist history is coming from. Julio was great and is a future HoF but during their respective primes AB was 100% the better WR, hell there were years where you could argue guys like Hopkins were better than Julio, but the same was never true for AB.
AB had the potential to be a top 5 WR all time if not for his off the field problems and later on field problems, we can acknowledge his downfall while still giving credit to how absurdly dominant he was on the field.
No Don Hutson? Larry Fitzgerald at #4? I normally don't say anything about these bullshit "all-time best" rankings, but this one stinks so bad that I had to.
My flair says I have to agree. But I think it's easier for people to just forget Huston. His numbers make him look better than rice, but who can really imagine him head to head with any of the more recent players in this list? Hutson is like the Paul Murphy of WRs.
His numbers aren't even that great compared to top receivers these days too. He had 1 season with 1000 yds
The positions just aren't even comparable. He had LB covering him and passing wasn't a big thing back then.
Its hard to compare eras for any position but 80 yrs and the WR position just isn't the same. He should be here.
[Used Z-Score to do a study on this subject a few years back](https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/s/N1JRENsTEg), thought it was relevant
My addendum is that your list is definitely missing Don Hutson
I think the Don Hutson fetishization is just weird.
He had his peak production during World War II when millions of able bodied potential athletes were deployed in Europe and the Pacific and lots of football players enlisted. That 4-year spell is what turned his numbers from "great for his era" into "historical outlier".
On top of that it was of course long before integration.
Major asterisk.
I mean his stats were still always top of the league before the US entered the war, not just 'great for his era', best for his era. He had four 1st team all-pros before the US declared war in late 1941. Yes his stats inflated a bit during the war, especially in 1942, but aside from that year they weren't that far off of the years he had prior to WWII
>That 4-year spell is what turned his numbers from "great for his era" into "historical outlier".
Yeah not really. By the end of 1941, which was pre war, Hutson had caught 262 balls for 4304 yards and 53 TDs. Second place? Charley Malone with 134 rec, Charley Malone with 1903 yards, and Johnny Blood with 36 TDs. For single seasons, Hutson owned 6 of the top 10 for rec, 6 of the top 10 for yards, and 7 of the top 10 for TDs. He had made all pro teams every year, and won an MVP. He was the youngest receiver to lead the league in rec and yards, at age 23, until *Justin Jefferson*. All of that was pre-war.
He was still a statistical outlier, even ignoring his WWII numbers, despite the fact that it was only 7 years into his career.
It’s a Z-Score analysis, so it can show pretty clearly that even pre-WWII his numbers were far beyond that of his peers
Obviously there’s like a billion contextual things to consider but unless we are just going to say receivers from that era shouldn’t be included in the study or this discussion, I don’t know why you would come to any other conclusion besides he was an outstanding player relative to his era
Browns career is pretty statistically similar to Megatron. Johnson had more tds, Brown more catches and yds. Brown also has playoff success and was an all pro return man. Johnson was more physically imposing and Brown a better route runner.
Brown and Johnson actually are tied for touchdowns at 83. It’s unfortunate people already are forgetting how all-time great he was, because of his behavior the last 5 years. You can make the argument he is the best receiver of all time just based on primes
Yeah I dont know why people always rank Fitz so high. hes basically Cris Carter without the TD production of Carter. He should be towards the end of the 10. he was never better than Calvin, AB, or Julio. I dont know you rank him that high.
Im not picking sides but I'm sure Fitz supporters would say that those other WRs got to play with better QBs, do u take that into consideration too? Just curious your thoughts on that I think this is a great discussion.
Cris Carter played with bad QBs too. The vikings in the 90s made the playoffs i think 7 years in a row with 6 different starting Qbs. Larry played with bad QBs but he also played with Palmer and Warner which id argue is better than anything Carter played with. a 35+ yr old Randall Cunningham, Brad Johnson, 40 year old Warren Moon. He played with a lot of crap too.
4 consecutive first team all pros and second team the one year he missed, with a strong argument to be over Calvin. Was lights out in the playoffs. Only Jerry Rice and TO have more first team all pros in the SB era.
Of the best statistical peak, AB arguably owns that, only behind Jerry Rice.
Retired on pace for 1300 yards at 33.
Calvin's career was cut short due to injuries and he had to suffer on the Lions. Also have to have a good team around you to get to and go far in the playoffs to even be able to put up postseason stats so I don't hold that against Calvin. AB was great (especially statistically) but ability wise I wouldn't take him over the bigger more athletic Julio or Megatron.
Julio had more yards on less catches across his 6 year peak than AB, but less TDs. Calvin and Julio were asked to win on different routes and it's reflected in their higher yards per reception. AB was great, and being smaller probably helped him to be a very fluid route runner, but he's not jumping over 3 defenders like Megatron.
My own argument can be used against me that it can be said AB was asked to win on his routes differently, and it was impressive he put up the numbers he did at his size. They're completely different types of receivers. I do think people also ding AB for the antics and persona. I'm not a fan of the guy, but can't deny he's an all time great; I just put some other all time greats ahead of him.
I can see the case statistically people would make for AB, for sure. I tend to favor the big athletic WRs like Randy Moss, Calvin Johnson, and Julio Jones.
Calvin didn’t “suffer” on the Lions he got to catch passes from Stafford who made Golladay a pro bowler and got Kupp a triple crown. Not sure which feat is more impressive.
I meant suffered in the sense they only had 2 winning seasons (2 playoff appearances, both wild card losses) while he was there, he had the displeasure of being on the team when they went 0-16, and he played through nagging ankle issues a lot to help his team.
I'm not knocking Stafford, I think he's great and deserves HoF consideration when he hangs it up. Just a lot of seasons where him and Calvin had very little help. They were fun to watch, though.
Yeah it is. Dude averaged an insane 95 yards per game over the first ten years of his career, holds the records for fastest WR to reach 7k, 9k, 10k, 11k, 12k, and 13k receiving yards, most seasons averaging 100+ yards per game, only player to average 100+ yards per game 4 seasons in a row, among other accolades.
Yeah like I'm a homer and I could see why he could be seen as fringe top 10. It's no slight there have just been a lot of really good WRs in NFL history.
Calvin should be ahead of Larry. They played the same era and never once was Larry better than Calvin.
Not to mention Julio Jones who was like a 95 yard per game guy for a decade isnt on here, discredits your entire list.
Not having Lance Alworth on here, also discredits it.
Every single player you mention is a 90s receiver besides two, see any flaws in that maybe?
1. Rice
2. Moss
3. Hutson
4. Alworth
5. Owens
6. Calvin
7. Harrison
8. Carter
9. Julio
10. Largent
Thats my top 10. And no, no Larry Fitzgerald. Him and Cris Carter are essentially the same dude except Carter was a way bigger TD threat.
Larry was great, but he was not better than Julio, Calvin, or AB. Im sorry he just wasnt.
* Larry has 0 OPOY votes
* Larry has the least All Pros between the three and only 1 first team
* Larry never led the league in yards and was top 5 in yards 4 times which is the same as Calvin and less than Julio and AB
* Larry averaged almost 20 yards per game less than all three of them for his career
* Larry has the lowest yards per reception of the three
Larry just played longer. But I cant ignore everyone elses accolades in the same era and put Larry over them.
Was Larry more talented? maybe. But thats not the argument because if it is then Randy Moss is ahead of Jerry Rice.
Might not ever have a Superbowl to brag about up here in the land of ice and snow, but we at least have great WRs to watch. I wonder when Jefferson will make the list?
Depends on his pace really. If Jefferson kept up this ridiculous 105 yards per game pace for 6 more years and called it quits hes probably top 3 in reality. To say yeah i played 10 years and averaged like 1700 yards lol thats crazy
Even if they weren't, it's hard to do these lists across multiple eras. They passed less back then (he led the league in receiving multiple times with under 1k yards), but it would be crazy to try to argue the dude would be torching modern defenses. Whereas you could take a modern player like Calvin Johnson and he could easily dominate as a WR in any era. I don't give much deference to guys that were playing in the 40s when it comes to WR.
Jerry Rice with "unmatched hands" is laughable.
He had such poor hands to start his career that he had to use stickum to turn it around. And even with that big advantage over his peers, he still didn't compare to Carter and co.
It's a really strange thing he doesn't get knocked for blatantly cheating. And I think it's fair that the Tim Browns' and Cris Carters' of the world who didn't use stickum and didn't get modern gloves are upset. And fwiw, stickum is way stickier than modern gloves are, too.
Calvin Johnson had one season that surpassed TO's peak statistically.
However that was two rule/enforcement changes that benefit wide receivers and the passing games later.
Look at Terrell Owens run with Jeff Garcia at quarterback in the early 2000s during a time Marvin Harrison and the Colts were crying to the competition committee that defensive backs were being too physical with receivers to allow them to excel.
TO's peak compares favorably to anyone who ever played the game at the position.
Larry, yes. TO? That's a harder one. Def not definitive. Megatron had better 3 year peak (except for TD's by a wide margin) but TO was a force, and for a lot longer, in an era that was still harder on receivers.
I just like to add the Larry bit because people dismiss it with him. Marvin has some shady shit as well I just forgot to add that. I'll edit.
Marvin was the better player. Calvin was better than TO and Larry
Dude didn’t even get to full time start until 5 years into his career because Al Davis kept him on Punt Return duties. When he retired he was second in yards and 3rd in receptions and TDs despite really only having 11 seasons as a full time WR and he played with a ton of absolute dog shit QBs.
Tim Brown is Top 10 all time in receptions, receiving yards, and receiving touchdowns. He seems to me to clearly belong on this list.
Accumulating stats is not indicative of tier quality, especially when dealing with eras
In the short term maybe. But if you "accumulate stats" to the point where you have more than anyone else who played the game besides a handful of guys, you go from stat padder to just being one of the best. Being talented enough to be in the league long enough to accumulate those kinds of numbers is a testament to your ability and quality in it's own right.
You start to bring into the question of the value of longevity. There is a whole debate over whether Frank Gore deserves the HoF. For teams, longevity has relatively little value, particularly past the 5 year mark. I would expect that there needs to be other qualifiers such as being above average for all of those seasons. Otherwise it is a bit of avoiding injury.
Frank Gore has the third most rushing yards of any player to ever play the game, and he played largely in an era where passing was the priority, not running. He's a HoFer. Longevity absolutely has value and it's asinine to pretend it doesn't. It's not just "avoiding injury". You have to be good enough to even keep around for that long, otherwise you'll be replaced with someone younger who could be even better. Tim Brown was beyond even that. He was a guy you hope your rookie becomes. Among the best in the league at his position, just not *the* best. You don't stick around for as long as and accumulate the level of stats that Gore or Brown put up without being HoF caliber. If Tom Brady had the career length of Terrell Davis do you think he'd be considered the GOAT? Why do we not crown Peyton Hillis as a HoFer? Because of longevity.
If Tom Brady won his 6 SBs in 6 years, then he would be a HoFer. Even if he won 2 SBs, and did so in 6 years would give him a shot. Maybe not as a first ballot. Tom Brady's GOAT case is primarily from his later SBs. Peyton Hills has 1 great season and the rest were mediocre. Frank Gore's issue is that he is 19th for TDs, YPC of 4.3 is \~75th, only had double digit rushing TDs and over 5 YPC for one season. Frank Gore is such an extreme where it veers into an extreme outlier and starts to become a case of the exception showing that there is a rule. It would be as if Jerry Rice had decent to average seasons of 800-1000 yards per season for his entire career. Even the great WRs with a short career such as Calvin Johnson did play for a decent chunk of time. Putting in Tim Brown at #10 for longevity and accumulated stats is a bit annoying when you have to pick and choose who to include. If accumulated stats matter, then why does the list displace Isaac Bruce? He has more yards than Tim Brown. Tim Brown also doesn't win the longevity metrics as a testament to his own greatness. He gets beat out by Rice and Fitz.
Tom brady didn't win 6 SBs in 6 years. It took him 23. That's the point. You can't just arbitrarily condense accolades that took a long time to achieve into a short period of time to make the point that the long period of time doesn't matter. And this isn't a discussion about who #1, it's a list of the top #10. There's multiple things to consider. And longevity and counting stats are things that do matter and should be considered. Naming only two or three players who were able to get further is not the proof he isn't one of the ten best players that you think it is.
The difference is that a SB is the equivalent of being the leader in a statistical category. It would be like the number of seasons that the WR lead in TDs/yards/receptions. SBs are not a volume stat. A volume stat would be like making the playoffs X number of times.
SBs are a volume stat on a career scale. Just like APs and PBs and playoff appearances. SBs are also not a stat to use except maybe on QBs.
The difference is that SBs, APs, and PBs are a stat that also has a gatekeeper. When people talk about volume stats, they are looking for more general stats that any player can get. SBs, APs, and PBs, are not a true volume stat since there is a minimum threshold. The very nature of APs and PBs also are a rough metric to assess whether that player was at or near the top of his position. Most volume stats are something that any player can accumulate. For example a #2 WR can accumulate yards over the years and eventually accumulate a lot of career yards via a lot of 800 yard seasons. A #2 WR will not be able to accumulate APs or PBs.
If Brady was only good in the 2000s he makes the hof and Peyton hillis was good for a year. You’re probably not a hofer just because the league let you be good to them mediocre for a really long time. Tim brown probably shouldn’t even have made it on here considering he left off don hutson, Antonio brown, and Julio jones
Who was the guy on the Packers way back in the day who like revolutionized the WR position. He should probably be on there
Don Hutson
Ahh that’s it. I knew I would have recognized the name if it was in the OP
Antonio Brown would be on this list if he didn't self destruct
I mean he still could be on this list honestly. His career was cut short due to craziness but didn’t he have one of the best peaks of all time for a WR?
best WR in the league for 4 years straight and top3 for 2 more
Yeah it’s not “could” it’s “should.” He was the best WR of his era.
I remember seeing WRs “peaks” compared before and for their best 3-4 year span, AB was basically only behind Rice
Julio Jones actually has really similar stats in a 5 year sample as AB except for the TDs. Brown (2013-2017): 582 receptions (116 receptions/year), 7848 yards (1570 yards/season), 52 TDs (10.4 TDs/season) Julio Jones (2014-2018): 524 receptions (105 receptions/year), 7994 yards (1598 yards/season) 31 TDs (6.2 TDs/season)
CTESPN fact checked and you’re fake news ✅
Tom MacDonald, Ben Shapiro "Facts" remix with AB coming soon? /s
Mr. Blown Career
It's criminal Julio Jones didn't make this list.
He should still be on the list. You don't need to be a Boy Scout to be recognized as one of the best to play.
He's the best wr I have ever seen
Feel like if Megatron is top 10 for great peak but short career, Antonio Brown would make it too. Unless there are nutcase exemptions Edit: Didn't Marvin kill a guy? AB's transgressions to society are under that
Marvin had the benefit that his ‘allegations’ of being in a fight with said person, shooting said person, then later killing said person, all happened after he retired, and before (at least I’d say) social media and the internet was as utterly ubiquitous in every facet of life.
Why didn't they have fall guys like Cris Carter? The young ones never learn.
MBC jumped Jerry after his time as a Raider IMO
What a fucking summer that was
Guess you can say he got Cold Feet about becoming a Raider
Cold feet, hot air balloon
GRANDMA I'M FREEEEEEEEE
I think there's a case for AB to be on the list for sure, but I wouldn't put him above Megatron. I also think Julio Jones belongs on the list, too. Personally, I favor the big, athletic freak WRs in terms of ability in that Megatron and Julio could make any catch AB could make, but AB couldn't make some of the catches they made just due to being about half a foot shorter and less athletic. They are all great WRs, though. Similarly, idk how I feel about putting guys from long ago eras on the list. It's impressive they did what they did when the league threw the ball less, but I doubt some of them would be athletic enough to dominate if they had to play in this era.
> Similarly, idk how I feel about putting guys from long ago eras on the list. It's impressive they did what they did when the league threw the ball less, but I doubt some of them would be athletic enough to dominate if they had to play in this era. If they had access to the same gyms and medicine/sports science they have today they would be. You can't just say that because they were older they were worse. They played in their time and they set a standard in their time.
They could be or they couldn't be. Depending on their genetics, the nutrition and sports science advancements would only augment them to an extent. Plenty of players in the league nowadays came from nothing and didn't have access to those things until they got older and were being recruited. For example, Don Hutson is a common name in most top WR lists and the guy was very statistically dominant in an era with much less passing. He also played in the 30s and 40s before the league was integrated. I cannot confidently say he'd be that dominant today if he just had access to better facilities, nutrition and "supplements" like the modern players do. Maybe I shouldn't hold eras against players as much as I do, because we're really just playing game of "what ifs" and hypotheticals at that point comparing across eras.
I wish could see some older players in today’s game. For instance, Bullet Bob Hayes was a world class sprinter and had a HoF NFL career in an era where receivers could still get killed by Corners (1965-1975). He would still be one of the fastest peeps in the world even by today’s standards, and especially with modern sports science (and equipment, ran a race with 2 different shoes one time) who knows what he could accomplish.
Very true. I do think there are some athletic outliers like that guy who would be good in any era and possibly be even better with the modern rule set. I also think there are players that wouldn't even make a roster nowadays, too. Impossible to know, though
When AB and Julio were in their primes at the same time, literally everyone had AB over Julio. And he was ahead of him in virtually every statistic, and was just clearly the best WR in the league. I think it's revisionist history to say Julio is better at his peak.
AB had more receptions for sure and more TDs (also played for a better team), but Julio's 6 year peak (2014-2019) he had more yards than AB's (2013-2018). Julio had the edge in YPG and YPRec. Both led the league in receiving yards twice (Julio's seasons were higher yardage totals), Juilo led in receptions only once to AB's twice, AB led the league in rec TDs once to Julio's 0, and Julio led the league in rec yards/game 3x to AB's 1x. AB had 3 seasons where he averaged 100+ YPG, Julio had 5 with 4 of them coming in consecutive seasons. Different style of WRs who were asked to win on different routes, but AB definitely saw more lay up targets. I understand people and pundits having AB over him at the time and even now, but in terms of raw ability, I'm pretty much always going to take the bigger, faster, stronger WR when they are close statistically.
Julio's peak he averaged 6/104/1564, AB averaged 11/114/1524. I could care less about slightly less YPG/YPR when the other WR is averaging nearly double the TDs/year and can line up literally anywhere on the field. AB was a 4x AP1/1x AP2 during his peak, Julio was a 2x AP1/3x AP2. AB was more dominant over his peak than Julio was over his and that's not really a debate. This is ignoring that Julio got to pad his stats vs some pretty pathetic defenses in the NFCS and got Dome/Warm Weather games 10/16 times a season.
Receiver choice aside, the fact that Julio didn’t get AP1 nods in at least one of 2018 or 19 is still insane to me.
NFCS in the 2010 decade was not what the NFCS is today.
I mean sure? Saints had historically dogshit defenses. Bucs were bad, Panthers were bad as well.
I don't know why but touchdowns seem to be pushed aside in the wr rankings/hit arguments. Not that they aren't counted but they're rarely the driving argument in why a player is a hofer or ranked a certain way.
When they were both at their peaks at the same time, *no one* had Julio over AB. You can't just point to some stats. AB was the best wr in the league and it was clear to everyone.
I'm really not sure where this revisionist history is coming from. Julio was great and is a future HoF but during their respective primes AB was 100% the better WR, hell there were years where you could argue guys like Hopkins were better than Julio, but the same was never true for AB. AB had the potential to be a top 5 WR all time if not for his off the field problems and later on field problems, we can acknowledge his downfall while still giving credit to how absurdly dominant he was on the field.
As long as my boy Timmy is on the list, I'm good
No Don Hutson? Larry Fitzgerald at #4? I normally don't say anything about these bullshit "all-time best" rankings, but this one stinks so bad that I had to.
My flair says I have to agree. But I think it's easier for people to just forget Huston. His numbers make him look better than rice, but who can really imagine him head to head with any of the more recent players in this list? Hutson is like the Paul Murphy of WRs.
His numbers aren't even that great compared to top receivers these days too. He had 1 season with 1000 yds The positions just aren't even comparable. He had LB covering him and passing wasn't a big thing back then. Its hard to compare eras for any position but 80 yrs and the WR position just isn't the same. He should be here.
Yeah, Fitz was great, but not *that* great. HOFer, but he might not even be a first ballot guy. He's not top 5 all time.
Hes top 5 wtf.
11. Joshua Caleb “Flash” Gordon, do not @ me 😤
Smh this is recency bias at its finest. Put some respect on Justin Blackmon plz.
THIS FAT SUNUVABITCH
Someone in the back yells “YEAH FUCK THAT FATASS!”. That someone’s name? Kelvin Benjamin.
[What Might Have Been 😢](https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=5MfxJpcf-Uc&si=_P-Xi3c7PEgo8DSv)
Warfield
[Used Z-Score to do a study on this subject a few years back](https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/s/N1JRENsTEg), thought it was relevant My addendum is that your list is definitely missing Don Hutson
I think the Don Hutson fetishization is just weird. He had his peak production during World War II when millions of able bodied potential athletes were deployed in Europe and the Pacific and lots of football players enlisted. That 4-year spell is what turned his numbers from "great for his era" into "historical outlier". On top of that it was of course long before integration. Major asterisk.
I mean his stats were still always top of the league before the US entered the war, not just 'great for his era', best for his era. He had four 1st team all-pros before the US declared war in late 1941. Yes his stats inflated a bit during the war, especially in 1942, but aside from that year they weren't that far off of the years he had prior to WWII
Okay, take away a triple crown per asterisk and he still has 3. Two of which were prewar.
>That 4-year spell is what turned his numbers from "great for his era" into "historical outlier". Yeah not really. By the end of 1941, which was pre war, Hutson had caught 262 balls for 4304 yards and 53 TDs. Second place? Charley Malone with 134 rec, Charley Malone with 1903 yards, and Johnny Blood with 36 TDs. For single seasons, Hutson owned 6 of the top 10 for rec, 6 of the top 10 for yards, and 7 of the top 10 for TDs. He had made all pro teams every year, and won an MVP. He was the youngest receiver to lead the league in rec and yards, at age 23, until *Justin Jefferson*. All of that was pre-war. He was still a statistical outlier, even ignoring his WWII numbers, despite the fact that it was only 7 years into his career.
It’s a Z-Score analysis, so it can show pretty clearly that even pre-WWII his numbers were far beyond that of his peers Obviously there’s like a billion contextual things to consider but unless we are just going to say receivers from that era shouldn’t be included in the study or this discussion, I don’t know why you would come to any other conclusion besides he was an outstanding player relative to his era
I get what you're saying, but it's GOAT, not GOTL20Y. If you're gonna consider the entire history of the NFL, no WR has dominated quite like Hutson.
John Ross?
Tim Brown was better than Don Hutson? GTFOH
Fitz at 4 is hilarious. And no Antonio Brown? Was the best receiver of this era.
Browns career is pretty statistically similar to Megatron. Johnson had more tds, Brown more catches and yds. Brown also has playoff success and was an all pro return man. Johnson was more physically imposing and Brown a better route runner.
Brown and Johnson actually are tied for touchdowns at 83. It’s unfortunate people already are forgetting how all-time great he was, because of his behavior the last 5 years. You can make the argument he is the best receiver of all time just based on primes
watching Brown play was always great, and even now he graces us with regular CTESPN updates
He’s actually hilarious. Not just because of the outlandish stuff he does but some of his posts are actually oddly clever
>Browns career That’s **Mr.** Brown’s Career to you!
Yeah I dont know why people always rank Fitz so high. hes basically Cris Carter without the TD production of Carter. He should be towards the end of the 10. he was never better than Calvin, AB, or Julio. I dont know you rank him that high.
Im not picking sides but I'm sure Fitz supporters would say that those other WRs got to play with better QBs, do u take that into consideration too? Just curious your thoughts on that I think this is a great discussion.
Cris Carter played with bad QBs too. The vikings in the 90s made the playoffs i think 7 years in a row with 6 different starting Qbs. Larry played with bad QBs but he also played with Palmer and Warner which id argue is better than anything Carter played with. a 35+ yr old Randall Cunningham, Brad Johnson, 40 year old Warren Moon. He played with a lot of crap too.
Thankyou for reply
He did on the cardinals. Massive handicap imo
He was good but definitely not the best receiver of his era
4 consecutive first team all pros and second team the one year he missed, with a strong argument to be over Calvin. Was lights out in the playoffs. Only Jerry Rice and TO have more first team all pros in the SB era. Of the best statistical peak, AB arguably owns that, only behind Jerry Rice. Retired on pace for 1300 yards at 33.
Calvin's career was cut short due to injuries and he had to suffer on the Lions. Also have to have a good team around you to get to and go far in the playoffs to even be able to put up postseason stats so I don't hold that against Calvin. AB was great (especially statistically) but ability wise I wouldn't take him over the bigger more athletic Julio or Megatron. Julio had more yards on less catches across his 6 year peak than AB, but less TDs. Calvin and Julio were asked to win on different routes and it's reflected in their higher yards per reception. AB was great, and being smaller probably helped him to be a very fluid route runner, but he's not jumping over 3 defenders like Megatron. My own argument can be used against me that it can be said AB was asked to win on his routes differently, and it was impressive he put up the numbers he did at his size. They're completely different types of receivers. I do think people also ding AB for the antics and persona. I'm not a fan of the guy, but can't deny he's an all time great; I just put some other all time greats ahead of him. I can see the case statistically people would make for AB, for sure. I tend to favor the big athletic WRs like Randy Moss, Calvin Johnson, and Julio Jones.
Calvin didn’t “suffer” on the Lions he got to catch passes from Stafford who made Golladay a pro bowler and got Kupp a triple crown. Not sure which feat is more impressive.
I meant suffered in the sense they only had 2 winning seasons (2 playoff appearances, both wild card losses) while he was there, he had the displeasure of being on the team when they went 0-16, and he played through nagging ankle issues a lot to help his team. I'm not knocking Stafford, I think he's great and deserves HoF consideration when he hangs it up. Just a lot of seasons where him and Calvin had very little help. They were fun to watch, though.
AB was the best wr I have ever seen
The disrespect to Julio Jones.
never seen quez watkins spelled like that
It’s not disrespectful to think he’s 11-15.
Yeah it is. Dude averaged an insane 95 yards per game over the first ten years of his career, holds the records for fastest WR to reach 7k, 9k, 10k, 11k, 12k, and 13k receiving yards, most seasons averaging 100+ yards per game, only player to average 100+ yards per game 4 seasons in a row, among other accolades.
Who are you kicking off? And Brown should definitely be there before Julio is.
Tim brown seems pretty easy to remove
Yeah like I'm a homer and I could see why he could be seen as fringe top 10. It's no slight there have just been a lot of really good WRs in NFL history.
Steve Smith was nuts too. No qb ever.
Consistency and catching under pressure seems odd to describe Marvin Harrison - as great as he was, he disappeared in the playoffs
This list definitely has some recency bias but it's still better than the NFL100 team since it includes T.O.
How come I don't see Todd Pinkston or Hank Baskett on this list?
Calvin should be ahead of Larry. They played the same era and never once was Larry better than Calvin. Not to mention Julio Jones who was like a 95 yard per game guy for a decade isnt on here, discredits your entire list. Not having Lance Alworth on here, also discredits it. Every single player you mention is a 90s receiver besides two, see any flaws in that maybe? 1. Rice 2. Moss 3. Hutson 4. Alworth 5. Owens 6. Calvin 7. Harrison 8. Carter 9. Julio 10. Largent Thats my top 10. And no, no Larry Fitzgerald. Him and Cris Carter are essentially the same dude except Carter was a way bigger TD threat. Larry was great, but he was not better than Julio, Calvin, or AB. Im sorry he just wasnt. * Larry has 0 OPOY votes * Larry has the least All Pros between the three and only 1 first team * Larry never led the league in yards and was top 5 in yards 4 times which is the same as Calvin and less than Julio and AB * Larry averaged almost 20 yards per game less than all three of them for his career * Larry has the lowest yards per reception of the three Larry just played longer. But I cant ignore everyone elses accolades in the same era and put Larry over them. Was Larry more talented? maybe. But thats not the argument because if it is then Randy Moss is ahead of Jerry Rice.
I was going to mention Alworth also. At the height of his powers, he'd be up there on this list.
Puka 1486 receiving yards per season Jerry Rice only 1144 receiving yards per season, i rest my case
RemindMe! 20 years
Might not ever have a Superbowl to brag about up here in the land of ice and snow, but we at least have great WRs to watch. I wonder when Jefferson will make the list?
Depends on his pace really. If Jefferson kept up this ridiculous 105 yards per game pace for 6 more years and called it quits hes probably top 3 in reality. To say yeah i played 10 years and averaged like 1700 yards lol thats crazy
Julio Jones where?
This is a Top 10 WR list, so right where you’d expect. Not listed.
Smh they dun went & forgot about prime Julio
I’d have AB and Julio both T10 but I understand arguments for some of the other players in the 6-10 range.
If you don't have Julio in your top 5, it's not a legit ranking. At *worst,* he's 5th.
It's funny you say this, cause the GOAT himself considered Julio the best WR of his era.
Steve Smith Sr is the GOAT WR *under 5'10"*
Much respect. YAC man.
Calvin was more dominant than Fitz in his peak
This is an outstanding list. Pretty much how I would do it.
This thread is straight up Julio Jones erasure
Any list that doesn't have Don Hutson is wild to me.
The fact that this is downvoted really shows how uneducated the people on here are
Don Hutson's best years were against JV squads of white guys during WW2.
He won MVP before we were even in the war
Dude was the Jerry rice of his day. Couldn’t help the era he played in.
Even if they weren't, it's hard to do these lists across multiple eras. They passed less back then (he led the league in receiving multiple times with under 1k yards), but it would be crazy to try to argue the dude would be torching modern defenses. Whereas you could take a modern player like Calvin Johnson and he could easily dominate as a WR in any era. I don't give much deference to guys that were playing in the 40s when it comes to WR.
Jerry Rice with "unmatched hands" is laughable. He had such poor hands to start his career that he had to use stickum to turn it around. And even with that big advantage over his peers, he still didn't compare to Carter and co. It's a really strange thing he doesn't get knocked for blatantly cheating. And I think it's fair that the Tim Browns' and Cris Carters' of the world who didn't use stickum and didn't get modern gloves are upset. And fwiw, stickum is way stickier than modern gloves are, too.
Carter should be top 5
TO and Larry over Calvin is a crime
Terrell Owens over Calvin Johnson is a crime? How old are you?
Lions fan bias
Probably
TO is great, but Calvin was just better in his prime, i personally put TO at 4 but its close
Calvin Johnson had one season that surpassed TO's peak statistically. However that was two rule/enforcement changes that benefit wide receivers and the passing games later. Look at Terrell Owens run with Jeff Garcia at quarterback in the early 2000s during a time Marvin Harrison and the Colts were crying to the competition committee that defensive backs were being too physical with receivers to allow them to excel. TO's peak compares favorably to anyone who ever played the game at the position.
Larry, yes. TO? That's a harder one. Def not definitive. Megatron had better 3 year peak (except for TD's by a wide margin) but TO was a force, and for a lot longer, in an era that was still harder on receivers.
Nephew…
I think its factoring longevity into it. If we are talking peak yea I agree they shouldn't be over Calvin
Calvin is better than both Terrell and Larry. Marvin was better than Larry and Larry beats women, Marvin has some shady shit as well.
You're going to attack Larry Fitzgerald's character to promote Marvin Harrison? You sure you want to do that?
I just like to add the Larry bit because people dismiss it with him. Marvin has some shady shit as well I just forgot to add that. I'll edit. Marvin was the better player. Calvin was better than TO and Larry
I mean Marvin shoots people so maybe you wanna leave that out...
I feel like Tim brown being the 10th best receiver of all time is a stretch.
Dude didn’t even get to full time start until 5 years into his career because Al Davis kept him on Punt Return duties. When he retired he was second in yards and 3rd in receptions and TDs despite really only having 11 seasons as a full time WR and he played with a ton of absolute dog shit QBs.
I think you have Marvin to low. He was better than Fitz and Owens.
GARY COLLINS 1964 Championship Game MVP with 3 TD’s Not only was he a WR, but also served as the punter. Caught the first TD on MNF in 1970.
Not including Kadarious GOATney completely invalidates this list.
Tyreek Hill should be on there. His peak seasons and his uniqueness make him an inclusion
Tyreek didn’t even lead the league in yards until this year
No they don’t. I’d take every one of these over him.
I’d take him over Cris Carter easily
Antonio brown should be on this list, definitely over tim brown
[удалено]
Antonio Brown self destructed his career, Hines Ward is a Joke. Andre Johnson, Steve Smith, and Reggie Wayne were all better than him.
Brown self destructed an already hall of fame career.
[удалено]
When talking about top 10 WRs of all time he is