Today's Top 10: Best Wide Receivers

there's that east coast bias again

 

again, that's why doing these Top 10 lists is fun cuz everybody has his own opinions on who should be there.
and invariably, somebody good is gonna get left out.
i think we're all pretty much in agreement is that you start with rice and go from there. and as several have mentioned, the longevity plays into so much of this when some modern-day guys might could be included.

 

In a sport like football, where every play could be a guy's last, it is very hard to rate current players as all-timers We can assume Albert Pujols will keep on hitting as he does for at least five seasons. Larry Fitzgerald could be minus one functioning knee by the end of the first quarter of his next game.

 

This is nonsense ... Kordell Stewart deserves the nod over Troy Edwards.

 

1. Jerry Rice









2-10 (not in order) Hutson, Irvin, Lofton, Stallworth, Owens, Moss, Largent, Alworth, Maynard

11-15 (not in order) Carter, Monk, Reed, Biletnikoff, Berry

I'm sure I'm forgetting someone.

 

In addition, there are a multitude of offenses in football. If a team is more focused on running the ball, it'll limit the chances for the team's receivers. Even though baseball parks differ in size, power hitters are generally recognized as power hitters wherever they play and can at least put up comparable stats.

 

I'm sorry --- people are still way too caught up in statistics. Larry Fitzgerald -- if he played with the Ravens -- would still be a great receiver -- he'd just get less opportunities to show it.

 

That's my point -- and it's especially true for receivers. Keenan McCardell has nearly 900 career catches. That does not make him a great receiver nor does it make him better than Charlie Joiner.

 

So let me get this straight. The best skill players in Arizona's offense are the quarterback and receivers. So the Cardinals' coaching staff designs an offense to take advantage of their talents, which leads to them putting up great passing stats. And that somehow means they're not that good?
I'm missing something here.
I always hate this argument. By the same logic, Peyton Manning isn't that good because he throws it 30 to 40 times a game and the Colts don't run it 50 times a game.

 

I don't think McCardell was an all-time great (Jimmy Smith was much better), but he wasn't exactly in a pass-happy offense with the Jags. Those 900 catches weren't inflated.

 

Jeff Graham feels left out.

 

I'm not sure what you are objecting to -- I'm agreeing with you. I am simply saying a guy having 20 catches doesn't necessarily make a better receiver than the guy who has three catches -- if the latter is in an offense based on running the football.