FanNation

Terpsfan is Maxwell Smart said 03/30, 01:30 PM
First off, in any list that is made. there will be people left out who everyone thinks should be on there.

Don Hutson: He may be an older player, and compared to today, he isn't the guy we think of as a great reciever. But as it says, when Hutson retired he set 18 NFL records, that's impressive for any player.

Moss>Harrison: Moss is a much more dominant reciever (due to his sive), and has shown his ability on different teams. Marvin has had Wayne, but that frees up space so he can't be double covered, not to mention he plays w/ the illustrious Peyton Manning. While Moss has played for Daunte (in his prime), he also had to play on a horrible Oakland team for which he still clipped the thousand yard mark.

Let's compare Irvin w/ Tim Brown.

Brown played 5 more years than Irvin, and here are the differences:

344 more receptions
3030 more yards

Irvin (had his body been able to keep up) would've eclipsed (or come close to those numbers). Not to mention Irvin averaged 15.9 YPC, while Brown was 13.7.

However, Brown should be in over TO (one mistake). But not as bad as you are saying.

Terpsfan is Maxwell Smart said 03/30, 02:36 PM
"What's with ESPN and old players?"
- IrishR#1

I saw that as an attack on Hutson, my mistake.

Let me first criticize your list, with Lynn Swan. 5,000 career yards recieving. He shouldn't even be considered top 20. He had some great games in the SB, but we can't take that out of proportion. I would put a Warfield (8,000 yards) over him, heck I would even put TO over him.

Irvin would slow down (as does happen with age), but there's no reason to believe he couldn't have assembled some better years, in five years he would have needed 606 yards per year to keep on pace yardage wise. His last 3 years (excluding 1999 when he was injured), he kept up above 900 yards, and could've continued for a little longer.

Moss is a better reciever than Harrison, his inconsistency is blamed on him for being on a shipwreck of a team in Oakland. When he is paired with a good QB, he can really show his stuff. And it's not his fault he's never won a SB, a reciever can't be blamed for his team's weakness at OL, or defense. If I had to fix this, I would take off Taylor and TO for the addition of Brown and Reed, but Brown would be lower (around 6th) and Reed around 7th.

Terpsfan is Maxwell Smart said 03/31, 10:01 PM
To continue, the list is not a joke, they do include guys like Warfield whose numbers aren't too flashy, but guys like Warfield and Taylor played in a different age, and played in different environments. ESPN did their best to assemble everything they could considering all factors.

We as fans think it is easy to assemble lists like this however, ESPN has to look at stats, the era, who they played for, and other factors (how tough was the division). I think ESPN did a good job on taking in all factors.

This list isn't a joke. It would've if Rice had been #2 or 3. Or if they had just used guys past the 80's, instead ESPN took the old the new, the guys that were part of defining the game of their era.