Best WR of all time?

[Andy]

My list:

1 -- Jerry Rice

2 -- Don Hutson

3 -- Randy Moss

4 -- Marvin Harrison

5 -- Michael Irvin

6 -- Terrell Owens

7 -- Cris Carter

8 -- Steve Largent

9 -- Tim Brown

10 -- James Lofton

[IndyTrav]

I guess you didn't read my post before. His production per game was better.

.

Based on yds per game?

[IndyTrav]

I'll make the same argument I make when Pats fans talk about Brady's postseason stats compared to Manning's: It's completely unreasonable to grade a player based on a tiny percentage of his games against the best competition in the league. Marvin played 190 games, and you're grading him based on 8.4% of those games. As a matter of fact, this is even more unfair for a receiver than it is for a quarterback, because the receiver can't produce if the quarterback can't get him the ball. Marvin wasn't great in the playoffs, but I reject the notion that this somehow makes him a lesser player.

I do think anyone is basing Marvin soley on his playoff performances.

But his nice even 16 playoff games give a nice comparison to his regular season production based on 16 games. And his pace is astronomically off what he did in the regular season.

But then I think of Larry Fitzgeralds 08? Playoff run, which was the greatest receiving display I have ever seen. Going up getting the ball at it's highest point. Out running any defender in his way, fighting tooth and nail for every yard. It was simply amazing. That run alone puts him in my top 10 of all time list. It was simply unreal.

[Fx Stryker]

.

Based on yds per game?

Based on everything per game. The category he is behind is TDs. Except Marvin wasn't the only receiver on the Colts. Unlike Moss and TO. They were the only ones most of there career.

[IndyTrav]

Based on everything per game. The category he is behind is TDs. Except Marvin wasn't the only receiver on the Colts. Unlike Moss and TO. They were the only ones most of there career.

So they have better ypc rates, and TDs yet aren't as good?

They were in your words the only options on there team, yet put up better overall #s and still not as good?

I love me some Marvin, but compared to TO and Moss he had an absolute dream scenario his entire career. Amazing Off, possibly the greatest all time at QB, other weapons around him taking pressure off, played in essentially one system his entire career, and avoided contact at all costs.

[NewColtsFan]

For discussions sake... I'll throw out a name that I don't think has been mentioned yet. To be clear, I'm not saying he's one of the greatest ever. I am saying he **could** have, and **should** have been.

His name was John Jefferson. Played for San Diego for 3 years. I think it was 79, 80, 81.

Then, he asked for a lot more money and the owner, who didn't much care for football and preferred race horses, traded him to Green Bay where he was never the same.

But for three seasons, there was no one who was more unbelievable. No one who made more eye popping, jaw dropping, OMG making incredible catches that were mind boggling than John Jefferson.

On the day he was traded, a tearful Dan Fouts said..... "We just traded Willie Mays in his prime!"

One coach, who you all know, and know he was not given to hyperbole was Tom Landry. Landry once said of Jefferson, he was the only player he ever saw that could go directly from High School to the NFL. Think about that. And think about that it was said by Tom Landry. Not exactly a man who'd make that kind of comment lightly.

John Jefferson could be anything you wanted. Deep threat -- check. Precision routs -- check. Incredible hands -- check, check. Fast -- yes. Could leap -- yes. Anything. Just anything. He was so fun to watch.

If you're ever watching old NFL films stuff and you see anything on those Coryell Chargers and/or Jefferson himself, do yourself a favor and stop and watch. You'll be glad you did.

A shooting comet across the sky for three years, and then he mostly disappeared. A real shame.

John Jefferson. Simply amazing.

Here's his wiki page:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/J/JeffJo00.htm?redir

[Fx Stryker]

So they have better ypc rates, and TDs yet aren't as good?

They were in your words the only options on there team, yet put up better overall #s and still not as good?

I love me some Marvin, but compared to TO and Moss he had an absolute dream scenario his entire career. Amazing Off, possibly the greatest all time at QB, other weapons around him taking pressure off, played in essentially one system his entire career, and avoided contact at all costs.

When your the only option you'll put up the better overall numbers. If your the only one getting thrown to things start to accumulate.

When Harrison was the only receiver his numbers were outstanding. He has less catches per game, 6.9rec/g, but more yards, 93.4yds/g yrd/g, and more TDs, .78TDss/g.

If Harrison didn't have Wayne taking some of the receptions he could have been through the roof. For four years the Colts had two receivers over a 1000+, and one with three over a 1000+ and 10+ TDs (Which never happened ever in the NFL).

Moss had Carter for two seasons, and Welker for three.

TO never even eclipsed a 1000 yards, except once, until Jerry left. Even when Jerry went down for a season Ownes couldn't get a thousand.

Harrison has accomplished things no one ever has. TO and Moss don't have those type feats.

[HOFClipboardHolder]

My list:

1 -- Jerry Rice

2 -- Don Hutson

3 -- Randy Moss

4 -- Marvin Harrison

5 -- Michael Irvin

6 -- Terrell Owens

7 -- Cris Carter

8 -- Steve Largent

9 -- Tim Brown

10 -- James Lofton

It took 3 pages for someone to mention Largent, the 2nd best receiver in the history of the league. You want to talk about a guy who produced despite the talent around him, the conversation starts and ends with Largent

[JimJaime]

Steve Smith was the only receiver on the Panthers. Who else did they have? Jake Delhomme wasn't a sub-par QB, and certainly was a better passer than Harbaugh.

BTW, Steven Smith averages 934yds a season.

Harrison may have not had a 1000yds with Harbaugh, but he still led the team in everything.

All Opinions, but I always thought Delhomme was AWFUL! he had one good year and outside of that stunk the joint up. (Again my opinion but I like you am spoiled and have the bar set very high for QB's lol) And from 2001-2011 (10 yrs) he has over 10,000 yrds (per the stats I found ) and thats over 1,000 a season.

Picking top 5 of ANYTHING you rarely get a concensus and NEVER get 100% for anything on the list. They are all opinions, we can all point different stats to prove your point but for me if I was starting a franchise and can pick ANY WR through history I probably Pick:

1. Rice

2. Megatron

3. Welker (Best SLOT WR I have ever seen..)

4. Swann

5. Harrison

Now those the top 5 ALL TIME nope but they be KILLER together..

[JimJaime]

Lynn Swann wouldn't make the HOF with those stats in this era. Not trying to say he shouldn't be there, but the fact that he is doesn't make him better than the guys we're talking about.

Sups in this era he probably DOUBLE those stats. With the rules favoring passing so much. Mind you all speculation we will never know why it is hard come w a top 5 all time the eras so different.

[King Colt]

Remember receivers were allowed to used "stickem" on their hands back when. Fred Belitnikoff the great Raiders receiver could not tie his shoes or touch his mouth because of the amount of stcky stuff he used (true). His catches were among the most spectacular of all time. Jerry Rice is hands down the number one guy and Harrison is among the top several but not close to being number two.

[IndyTrav]

When your the only option you'll put up the better overall numbers. If your the only one getting thrown to things start to accumulate.

When Harrison was the only receiver his numbers were outstanding. He has less catches per game, 6.9rec/g, but more yards, 93.4yds/g yrd/g, and more TDs, .78TDss/g.

If Harrison didn't have Wayne taking some of the receptions he could have been through the roof. For four years the Colts had two receivers over a 1000+, and one with three over a 1000+ and 10+ TDs (Which never happened ever in the NFL).

Moss had Carter for two seasons, and Welker for three.

TO never even eclipsed a 1000 yards, except once, until Jerry left. Even when Jerry went down for a season Ownes couldn't get a thousand.

Harrison has accomplished things no one ever has. TO and Moss don't have those type feats.

I crunched some #s for everyone. Excluded 2010.

In Marvin's career he accounted for 23% of the teams Rec. 27% of yards, 35% of the TDs....Take out his worst year, he was 25%/29%/37%....Moss was 22%/30.5%/42%. Take out his worst year, 23%/31%/43%......Marvin accounted for more of his teams receptions, but Moss contributed significantly more of his teams Yards and TDs.....

Marvin has done things that no one has? He's been over 1400yds 4x so has Moss. Marvin had 15tds 2x. Moss 4x. Sure Marvin's had some serious seasons, but so has Moss.

They are close, but when they get that close you look at supporting cast, and playoffs. And Marvin is trumped in both instances. Marvin had Peyton Manning, Moss once played for a team who's end of the year total passing offense finished with 2420yds and 7Tds....Moss was on the 2 highest scoring offenses of all time, coincidence?....Thru there careers, a difference of 16games, Marvin's team attempted 676 more passes, with 535 more completions....Moss 186 of 192G, Marvin 190 of 208G......

Moss has played 12 playoff games with 47/865/10

Marvin played 16 with 65/883/2

[WSO]

I'll make the same argument I make when Pats fans talk about Brady's postseason stats compared to Manning's: It's completely unreasonable to grade a player based on a tiny percentage of his games against the best competition in the league. Marvin played 190 games, and you're grading him based on 8.4% of those games. As a matter of fact, this is even more unfair for a receiver than it is for a quarterback, because the receiver can't produce if the quarterback can't get him the ball. Marvin wasn't great in the playoffs, but I reject the notion that this somehow makes him a lesser player.

Isn't that the entire point though? We are talking about the best WR's of all time. The best do it consistently and against the best competition as well. If we are looking at the best WR's of all time, you have to take into account how they played in the post season when the competition was at it's highest .Talking quarterbacks, there is a reason why Montana is regarded as the greatest of all time. It's not because of his regular season play. Look at Montana's post season play. When the competition was at it's highest, Montana played his best. That is why he is regarded as the greatest.

If you want to be compared with the best, you have to take into account how well they play in both the regular and the post season. Just like we do with Manning, Brady, Rice etc.

I'm not saying he isn't great. No doubt Marvin is probably top 5 but when he is compared to guys like Rice, it's not even close. And why? Because the difference is in the post season. Marvin's regular season stats if I recall were on par to match Rice at some point if he played as long. When he stands up against someone like Rice, its another story.

Now it can be argued how much Montana and Rice benefited from each other but Montana was doing pretty darn well even before the Niners got Rice. In fact both played pretty poorly from '85 until '88.

The thing is Manning has actually played pretty darn well over the course of his post season career. Just the two blemishes in New England where the same can't be said for Marvin. He played pretty average.

[BOTT]

For discussions sake... I'll throw out a name that I don't think has been mentioned yet. To be clear, I'm not saying he's one of the greatest ever. I am saying he **could** have, and **should** have been.

His name was John Jefferson. Played for San Diego for 3 years. I think it was 79, 80, 81.

Then, he asked for a lot more money and the owner, who didn't much care for football and preferred race horses, traded him to Green Bay where he was never the same.

But for three seasons, there was no one who was more unbelievable. No one who made more eye popping, jaw dropping, OMG making incredible catches that were mind boggling than John Jefferson.

On the day he was traded, a tearful Dan Fouts said..... "We just traded Willie Mays in his prime!"

One coach, who you all know, and know he was not given to hyperbole was Tom Landry. Landry once said of Jefferson, he was the only player he ever saw that could go directly from High School to the NFL. Think about that. And think about that it was said by Tom Landry. Not exactly a man who'd make that kind of comment lightly.

John Jefferson could be anything you wanted. Deep threat -- check. Precision routs -- check. Incredible hands -- check, check. Fast -- yes. Could leap -- yes. Anything. Just anything. He was so fun to watch.

If you're ever watching old NFL films stuff and you see anything on those Coryell Chargers and/or Jefferson himself, do yourself a favor and stop and watch. You'll be glad you did.

A shooting comet across the sky for three years, and then he mostly disappeared. A real shame.

John Jefferson. Simply amazing.

Here's his wiki page:

http://www.pro-footb...fJo00.htm?redir

i almost put john jefferson on my list, but i didn't feel like having to defend it lol. wasn't there rumors about drug use after he left SD? either way, you are correct he was unbelievable for a few years. he replacement in SD, wes chandler, was a good one too.

[BOTT]

It took 3 pages for someone to mention Largent, the 2nd best receiver in the history of the league. You want to talk about a guy who produced despite the talent around him, the conversation starts and ends with Largent

steve largent the 2nd best ever? not even steve largent would agree with that.

[Fx Stryker]

All Opinions, but I always thought Delhomme was AWFUL! he had one good year and outside of that stunk the joint up. (Again my opinion but I like you am spoiled and have the bar set very high for QB's lol) And from 2001-2011 (10 yrs) he has over 10,000 yrds (per the stats I found ) and thats over 1,000 a season.

Picking top 5 of ANYTHING you rarely get a concensus and NEVER get 100% for anything on the list. They are all opinions, we can all point different stats to prove your point but for me if I was starting a franchise and can pick ANY WR through history I probably Pick:

1. Rice

2. Megatron

3. Welker (Best SLOT WR I have ever seen..)

4. Swann

5. Harrison

Now those the top 5 ALL TIME nope but they be KILLER together..

2001-2011 isn't ten seasons, it's eleven.

1. 2001

2. 2002

3. 2003

4. 2004

5. 2005

6. 2006

7. 2007

8. 2008

9. 2009

10. 2010

11. 2011

[NewColtsFan]

i almost put john jefferson on my list, but i didn't feel like having to defend it lol. wasn't there rumors about drug use after he left SD? either way, you are correct he was unbelievable for a few years. he replacement in SD, wes chandler, was a good one too.

Yes.... there were those rumors... and I wouldn't be surprised if they're true... I think he was so despondent at being traded, and also to where he was traded (Green Bay, who was not very good at the time)

And yes, his replacement, Wes Chandler was very, very good. If you had to lose Jefferson, Chandler was a great replacement fit. When he was the Rams' coach, John Robinson told me he thought that Chargers offense of '82, with Chandler/Winslow/Joiner (another great talent) and the freakish Chuck Muncie along with Dan Fouts, was the best NFL offense he had ever seen. Ever.

They were a sight to see....

Nice to know there's someone else out there who remembers John Jefferson.... thanks!

[Superman]

Sups in this era he probably DOUBLE those stats. With the rules favoring passing so much. Mind you all speculation we will never know why it is hard come w a top 5 all time the eras so different.

Rule of thumb is that you don't compare players across eras, and this is why. You have one person saying their stats aren't good enough, and you have another person suggesting that their stats would be better if they played in this era. And then comes the "players are bigger, stronger, faster now than they were 30 years ago, so it's doubtful that this player would have produced the way today's players do" angle.

As it stands, all we have is what actually happened. And Lynn Swann's numbers don't compare to the receivers we're talking about now. Whether he would have better numbers in today's era is undetermined.

[Fx Stryker]

I crunched some #s for everyone. Excluded 2010.

In Marvin's career he accounted for 23% of the teams Rec. 27% of yards, 35% of the TDs....Take out his worst year, he was 25%/29%/37%....Moss was 22%/30.5%/42%. Take out his worst year, 23%/31%/43%......Marvin accounted for more of his teams receptions, but Moss contributed significantly more of his teams Yards and TDs.....

Marvin has done things that no one has? He's been over 1400yds 4x so has Moss. Marvin had 15tds 2x. Moss 4x. Sure Marvin's had some serious seasons, but so has Moss.

They are close, but when they get that close you look at supporting cast, and playoffs. And Marvin is trumped in both instances. Marvin had Peyton Manning, Moss once played for a team who's end of the year total passing offense finished with 2420yds and 7Tds....Moss was on the 2 highest scoring offenses of all time, coincidence?....Thru there careers, a difference of 16games, Marvin's team attempted 676 more passes, with 535 more completions....Moss 186 of 192G, Marvin 190 of 208G......

Moss has played 12 playoff games with 47/865/10

Marvin played 16 with 65/883/2

Why did you exclude 2010?

[Superman]

Isn't that the entire point though? We are talking about the best WR's of all time. The best do it consistently and against the best competition as well. If we are looking at the best WR's of all time, you have to take into account how they played in the post season when the competition was at it's highest .Talking quarterbacks, there is a reason why Montana is regarded as the greatest of all time. It's not because of his regular season play. Look at Montana's post season play. When the competition was at it's highest, Montana played his best. That is why he is regarded as the greatest.

If you want to be compared with the best, you have to take into account how well they play in both the regular and the post season. Just like we do with Manning, Brady, Rice etc.

I'm not saying he isn't great. No doubt Marvin is probably top 5 but when he is compared to guys like Rice, it's not even close. And why? Because the difference is in the post season. Marvin's regular season stats if I recall were on par to match Rice at some point if he played as long. When he stands up against someone like Rice, its another story.

Now it can be argued how much Montana and Rice benefited from each other but Montana was doing pretty darn well even before the Niners got Rice. In fact both played pretty poorly from '85 until '88.

The thing is Manning has actually played pretty darn well over the course of his post season career. Just the two blemishes in New England where the same can't be said for Marvin. He played pretty average.

Lots of good points here. I'm not going to address everything, but I will say this:

I don't think you can take a player with clearly superior regular season stats, over a significant period of time, and try to knock him down a peg because in a small sample against the best competition, he didn't blow the doors off the joint. I think a player who raises his level of play in the postseason deserves credit for that. Like IndyTrav said, Larry Fitzgerald's 2008-09 postseason was phenomenal. But overall, his numbers aren't close to Marvin's, and at his current pace, it would take him about five or six seasons to get there. He very likely will, at which point we revisit the topic, but right now, given the body of work we have for both players, Marvin > Fitz. Even though Fitz has the better postseason numbers.

Just an example.

As I said before, Marvin's postseason play is equal to 8.4% of his regular season play. The 190 games he played in the regular season far outweigh the 16 playoff games.

[IndyTrav]

Why did you exclude 2010?

I was at work, to hard to go through 3 seperate teams, and calcuate all the #s.

[ReMeDy]

I agree with IndyTrav, as much as I love Marvin he was pretty much a no-show in the playoffs. Compare that to someone like Rice who was an absolute monster in the playoffs.

And what made Rice so special was he got better as the games went on! He had a ridiculous amount of stamina. He'd train consistently by running miles up and down a long mountain trail. He emphasized running in his fitness regimen more than any WR I know. When defenders in the 4th Q were gasping for breathe, Jerry was just getting started!

[Fx Stryker]

I was at work, to hard to go through 3 seperate teams, and calcuate all the #s.

Ahh, curious to see how it would affect his numbers. That year was atrocious.

[BOTT]

Lots of good points here. I'm not going to address everything, but I will say this:

I don't think you can take a player with clearly superior regular season stats, over a significant period of time, and try to knock him down a peg because in a small sample against the best competition, he didn't blow the doors off the joint. I think a player who raises his level of play in the postseason deserves credit for that. Like IndyTrav said, Larry Fitzgerald's 2008-09 postseason was phenomenal. But overall, his numbers aren't close to Marvin's, and at his current pace, it would take him about five or six seasons to get there. He very likely will, at which point we revisit the topic, but right now, given the body of work we have for both players, Marvin > Fitz. Even though Fitz has the better postseason numbers.

Just an example.

As I said before, Marvin's postseason play is equal to 8.4% of his regular season play. The 190 games he played in the regular season far outweigh the 16 playoff games.

meh...football isn't baseball, stats don't tell the whole story. fitzgerald is better than marvin and it isn't even close. i would guess that the people who think otherwise are colts fans.

[Gavin]

Peyton Manning post season stats

63.1 completion percentage

Yards 5389

touchdowns 29

interceptions 19

in 19 total postseason games

Tom Brady

16-6 in 22 post season games

62.9 completion percentage

5285 yards

38 touchdows

20 interceptions

Pretty even but if I was forced to choose I would choose the slightly less yards for putting the ball in the end zone more, just my opinion

[Superman]

meh...football isn't baseball, stats don't tell the whole story. fitzgerald is better than marvin and it isn't even close. i would guess that the people who think otherwise are colts fans.

Marvin's career was better than Fitz's is right now. If you line them up in their primes and make me choose, I'm choosing Fitz, but Marvin's numbers blow Fitz's out of the water. Right now.

[BOTT]

Marvin's career was better than Fitz's is right now. If you line them up in their primes and make me choose, I'm choosing Fitz, but Marvin's numbers blow Fitz's out of the water. Right now.

that's why football isn't just about numbers. there are several wr with better numbers than micheal irvin, but they weren't better.

[Superman]

that's why football isn't just about numbers. there are several wr with better numbers than micheal irvin, but they weren't better.

It's not just about numbers, but numbers matter. If Fitzgerald were to retire tomorrow, he wouldn't get into the HOF because of his numbers, even though he probably has HOF ability. The numbers aren't the only aspect, but they do matter.

And my point was that, when we're talking numbers, you can't just pick equal to 8.4% of a player's career and say whether he was a great player or not.

[BOTT]

It's not just about numbers, but numbers matter. If Fitzgerald were to retire tomorrow, he wouldn't get into the HOF because of his numbers, even though he probably has HOF ability. The numbers aren't the only aspect, but they do matter.

And my point was that, when we're talking numbers, you can't just pick equal to 8.4% of a player's career and say whether he was a great player or not.

i'm not arguing about the hof...i am arguing who is the better player...and that is not really a debate.

[Superman]

i'm not arguing about the hof...i am arguing who is the better player...and that is not really a debate.

That's the thing about these debates. To me, Randy Moss is the best receiver of all time, but he hasn't had the best career of all time. Before I answer these kind of questions, I try to discern what the person asking the question really wants to know.

Even still, when it comes to Marvin and Fitz, I don't think it's as easy as you think it is. Marvin was special, and he did his damage without all the physical gifts Fitzgerald has. He was significantly smaller, and played in an era where defenses could get away with a lot more than they can now. And he has arguably the second best numbers of any receiver in history. He had elite speed and hands, ran perfect routes, and really carried the offense for stretches at a time (2002 was ridiculous, and I think it's as untouchable as any other single season receiving record). Not without his faults, but he was all-time great, and he put together an all-time great career.

I think Fitzgerald has all-time great talent, but he hasn't had an all-time great career, at least not yet. I don't doubt that he will, but even at that point, he's still a physically domineering player, and he plays in a more favorable climate. Aside from a few years, never had a solid quarterback, so he gets extra credit there as well. Marvin did his damage with less physical tools.

Not trying to take anything away from Fitz, but I don't think we should take anything away from Marvin either. I don't think it's homeristic to call him one of the best of all time.

[ImaColt]

I believe this is one NFL question not up for debate. Jerry Rice is the greatest WR of all time and arguably the greatest player of all-time in some corners.

[jvan1973]

i'm not arguing about the hof...i am arguing who is the better player...and that is not really a debate.

Actually you are debating it right now, thus there is a debate.. Some stats are very important, Say for example, yards per catch, and yards per game... Their numbers are very close in those two categories

[MTC]

1. Jerry Rice

2. Randy Moss

3. Marvin Harrison

4. Don Hutson

5. Michael Irvin

[RGIII]

It's SO hard to devise an ordered list of great receivers because of the sheer number of guys putting up stats and the fact that stat accumulation is only accelerating over time. A lot of great receivers from the past get completely lost in the discussion when they were as good or better relative to their era than the likes of guys like Cris Carter. The numbers just don't say as much as we'd like them to and, as such, there's not going to be anything even approaching an acceptable consensus.

Jerry Rice being number one is not up for debate, though. No one is even on pace to come close to the numbers he produced and he was way further ahead of the curve in terms of amassing receptions, yardage, and TDs than every single other player who got their start around the same time. Bill Walsh may have been a big reason for the latter but only Rice can be credited for being so consistent for so long. Really, what he did over the course of his career is akin to Cal Ripken's consecutive games streak in baseball or Gretzky's career points record. Playing very well is demonstrably less difficult than playing very well for two decades straight (just ask Sterling Sharpe or Mario Lemieux).

[ViriLudant]

Jerry Rice was the most productive WR of all time, in my opinion. Did it help that he played with two HOFers? Yes, but the same could be said of Marvin Harrison.

The most talented of all time would be Randy Moss; if he could have stayed focus throughout his career, he would have been the best.

[ViriLudant]

Moss and TO are not better than Harrison.

Moss blew Harrison out of the water. Harrison had a HOFer throwing to him for his entire career (well, minus his first year or two, right?); Moss had garbage throwing to him until Brady, and he STILL put up phenomenal numbers.

[ViriLudant]

It got him in the Hof, which almost every receiver we've put in the top 10 discussion can't say yet.

Swann is in the HOF for the same reason that Joe Namath is.

[Gavin]

I find it hard to believe Daunte Culpepper was garbage he threw 39 touchdowns and only 11 interceptions in '04 his problem was he took to many sacks and only had 1 season with 20 or more interceptions which was 2002, he was a scrambler and those guys fumble more alot of times, he got injured thats what his issue was I think it was to one of his knees if I remember right

[jvan1973]

Moss blew Harrison out of the water. Harrison had a HOFer throwing to him for his entire career (well, minus his first year or two, right?); Moss had garbage throwing to him until Brady, and he STILL put up phenomenal numbers.

Randall Cunningham and Dante Culpepper were not garbage..

[GoColts8818]

Who do you guys believe is the best of all time at WR? My buddy and I have been debating for a while on this. I say Marvin Harrison but he is a total 49er homer and says Jerry Rice. Harrison is imo the most dominant to play. A lot of amazing WRs have played tho

I am a total Colts homer and I say Jerry Rice. Honestly IMO he's the only player you can't argue about who is the greatest of all time at his poistion in fact I would argue Jerry Rice is the greatest player in the history of the NFL. If he's not he's top five.

Honestly his records are so impressive that most of the guys second on the list behind him aren't even close to him. It's just impressive.