View Full Version : Jerry Rice, the only WR elected in 2010?
football junkie
10-01-2009, 03:13 PM
Considering that Jerry Rice is by far and away the greatest wide out of the modern era and possibly only Don Hutson compares to him historically, when Rice becomes eligible for the Hall of Fame in 2010 should he be the only wide out to go in?
Or should Rice go in towering over his comptemporaries: Tim Brown, Cris Carter, Andre Reed?
KHenry14
10-01-2009, 10:35 PM
Rice is about as big a lock as you can be. However, both Brown and Carter are very much worthy. I'm less sold on Reed, as I think the committee will agree that he's not quite to the level of the other two.
Surf-Bat
10-02-2009, 04:42 AM
Harold Carmichael
Surf-Bat
10-02-2009, 04:48 AM
And I often wonder if Lynn Swann would have posted Rice-like numbers had he the advantage of playing in a pass-oriented offense (Steelers were run-oriented)
They don't release the voting results, but since it's a much smaller pool than baseball and a voting pool who do take it seriosuly enough, I would not be shocked if Rice is voted in unanimously.
Cris Carter falling short a couple of times already does not bode well for Tim Brown this election. I think all four receivers are deserving, but would not be shocked if it's just Rice this time. I know there was a little bit of surprise when Steve Young was voted in the same year as Dan Marino, but Young was the ratings leader several times, while Marino lit it up in terms of yardage. Carter, Brown and Reed have nothing like that on Rice.
football junkie
10-02-2009, 06:08 PM
Besides the ridiculous statisical disparity between Rice and Brown, Carter, Reed, Jerry Rice also has something the other don't.
Jerry Rice, three Superbowl rings, the other three, zero.
Another reason I think Rice should be the only wide out elected in 2010. :twocents:
Galloping Ghost
10-05-2009, 06:08 PM
And I often wonder if Lynn Swann would have posted Rice-like numbers had he the advantage of playing in a pass-oriented offense (Steelers were run-oriented)
Those great 49ers teams were not "pass oriented" teams IMO. They were well balanced offensive attacks. Some of those 49er teams had great rushing. They lead the NFL in rushing in 1987, the year Rice had 22 TD catches in 12 games. They were second in rushing in 1988 while only being 10th in passing yards. In 1992 the 49ers led the NFL in both rushing yards and passing yards. In 1993 they were second in passing yards and third in rushing yards. In several other seasons the 49ers were in the top three in passing yards and in the top 10 in rushing yards.
Galloping Ghost
10-05-2009, 06:11 PM
I don't see any case against Tim Brown. He is currently 4th all time in pass receptions and third all-time in reception yardage. Seems simple enough.
football junkie
10-06-2009, 06:01 AM
I don't think any rational case can be made against Brown's eventual induction. His numbers, however, are very close to Cris Carter's and he's been waiting two years now.
And neither Carter or Brown compare favorably to Rice.
The HOF needs to get Brown, Carmichael, Carter, Reed in before Isaac Bruce, Torry Holt, Marvin Harrison, Jimmy Smith, Keyshawn Johnson, Terrell Owens and five or six other guys with legit cases just overwhelm the system.
I don't think any rational case can be made against Brown's eventual induction. His numbers, however, are very close to Cris Carter's and he's been waiting two years now.
And neither Carter or Brown compare favorably to Rice.
The HOF needs to get Brown, Carmichael, Carter, Reed in before Isaac Bruce, Torry Holt, Marvin Harrison, Jimmy Smith, Keyshawn Johnson, Terrell Owens and five or six other guys with legit cases just overwhelm the system.
Why Carmichael and not, say, Harold Jackson or Drew Pearson?
Galloping Ghost
10-06-2009, 01:33 PM
I don't think any rational case can be made against Brown's eventual induction. His numbers, however, are very close to Cris Carter's and he's been waiting two years now.
And neither Carter or Brown compare favorably to Rice.
The HOF needs to get Brown, Carmichael, Carter, Reed in before Isaac Bruce, Torry Holt, Marvin Harrison, Jimmy Smith, Keyshawn Johnson, Terrell Owens and five or six other guys with legit cases just overwhelm the system.
No one cares favorable to Jerry Rice other than perhaps Don Hutson on a peak basis.
Surf-Bat
10-06-2009, 02:08 PM
Those great 49ers teams were not "pass oriented" teams IMO. They were well balanced offensive attacks.
True. I guess my point was that there was a wide disparity in offensive systems. Jerry Rice and John Taylor were going to get the ball thrown to them many more times per game than Lynn Swann and John Stallworth. The Steelers were definitely a run-oriented offense. Hence why there have been many less-talented receivers since then with more impressive numbers than those two. The Offensive schemes of now have allowed for that. I would like to see what Swann's stats would have been had he had the benefit of a more pass-oriented offense like the teams Rice played on.
Some guy tried to argue with me once that Lawrence Taylor was a greater OL than Jack Ham because he had "more sacks". LT may indeed have been, but there are so many other factors to consider, not the least of which is that OL is a FAR different position back then than it was in LT's time or now. Jack Ham had to worry about the crackback blocks(making OL the number one most injury prone position), which were illegal by the time LT arrived. Ham had to play within a disciplined system; LT was just turned loose and given total freedom to make spectacular, eye catching plays. Ham had to cover backs and receivers; you almost never saw LT in coverage. On the rare occasions he wasn't blitzing from all over the place he was dropped back into a zone. To me, it is more pertinent to compare LT to Deacon Jones or LC Greenwood than Jack Ham or Bobby Bell.
So many things to consider in these types of debates.
football junkie
10-06-2009, 02:59 PM
Why Carmichael and not, say, Harold Jackson or Drew Pearson?
Exactly! I guess I put Carmichael there cause he played in Philly. But there is such a huge logjam at the position and it just keeps getting worse.
I don't think there is another position in the Pro Football HOF that is as under-represented as wide out.
KHenry14
10-07-2009, 12:44 AM
The thing is, Swann would have done REALLY well under Walsh. Walsh would have had Swann running all those five yard slants and Joe or Steve would be hitting him right in stride and Lynn would have run wild just like Jerry or John Taylor did. In Pittsburgh, Swann ran a lot of deep patterns, but he'd only rarely catch one of those. But that's the offense they ran there, using Brandshaw's arm as a long distance weapon. That's why Swann's stats don't remotely compare to any of these people, but that doesn't mean he coudn't have been good elsewhere. IMO he'd have been even greater somewhere else.
Peter King rates Don Hutson over Rice. He's nuts. :dance:
Galloping Ghost
10-07-2009, 04:06 PM
The thing is, Swann would have done REALLY well under Walsh. Walsh would have had Swann running all those five yard slants and Joe or Steve would be hitting him right in stride and Lynn would have run wild just like Jerry or John Taylor did. In Pittsburgh, Swann ran a lot of deep patterns, but he'd only rarely catch one of those. But that's the offense they ran there, using Brandshaw's arm as a long distance weapon. That's why Swann's stats don't remotely compare to any of these people, but that doesn't mean he coudn't have been good elsewhere. IMO he'd have been even greater somewhere else.
Peter King rates Don Hutson over Rice. He's nuts. :dance:
Who is Peter King? :shrug: Rice retired at age 42. Hutson retired at 32. Rice played in 303 games. Hutson played in 116 games. Seems simple enough. I am impressed that Hutson scored his 99 TD's in one fewer game than Rice. But Rice blows Hutson away in longevity.
Seattle1
10-17-2009, 05:58 PM
Obviously, Rice wasn't quite as good as Steve Largent, but he should definitely go to the Hall of Fame on the first ballot.
Plus, he played one season with the Seahawks so that's a big plus.
Obviously, Rice wasn't quite as good as Steve Largent, but he should definitely go to the Hall of Fame on the first ballot.
Plus, he played one season with the Seahawks so that's a big plus.
Only the blindest of blind homers would think . . . oh, wait.
We'll let you know when you regain your credibility to rank football playerrs.