Who is better, Sterling, or Jerry Rice??
allan b goodrich
To say who is better than who, Which is the better Wide Reciver Sterling
Sharpe, or Jerry Rice?
I choose Sharpe because of his stregth and speed. Choose other Recievers
if necissary.
ABG
hu...@vms.csd.mu.edu
I always thought that Harmon Kardon made pretty good receivers, and I once
saw a 30 inch Sony Trinatron that had beautiful reception.
-A
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
! Aaron Huth ! "The better part of valour is discretion" !
! Rogue Art Historian ! "I like to watch" !
! hu...@vms.csd.mu.edu ! "Huh?" !
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
garry monahan
: To say who is better than who, Which is the better Wide Reciver Sterling
: Sharpe, or Jerry Rice?
: ABG
I put Sharpe, Rison, and *possibly* even Irvin ahead of Rice. It is
important, firstly, to note Rice's age compared to that of the others
mentioned. Also, he always had *great* QB's throwing to him; certainly
this is not the case for Rison and Sharpe. Sharpe goes on top because
he plays in a division where all the teams have traditionally had great
secondaries. Who's covering Rice? Toi Cook? Joe Fishback?
It is also interesting to note that all the top receivers mentioned in
these debates play in the NFC.
Cordially,
GJM
Bruce Lattimore
1 Sharpe
2 Rice
3 Irvin
4 Rison
5 Tim Brown
--
Bruce Lattimore
University of Minnesota
br...@mermaid.micro.umn.edu
GREEN BAY PACKERS #1
Nick
Rice is the greatest of all time, and will break EVERY record..
even most TDs.. (I think Brown has it now.. and he's gonna break it
FASTER than Brown did!)... but as for the best of the rest, I'd say Irvin.
sjemm...@enh.nist.gov
->
->To say who is better than who, Which is the better Wide Reciver Sterling
->Sharpe, or Jerry Rice?
->
->I choose Sharpe because of his stregth and speed. Choose other Recievers
->if necissary.
->
->
->ABG
Has anyone seen the Dennis Hopper commercial w/ Sterling Sharpe?
Like a freight train with stickum!
---------------
captain steve
Ciari
->
->To say who is better than who, Which is the better Wide Reciver
Sterling
->Sharpe, or Jerry Rice?
->
->I choose Sharpe because of his stregth and speed. Choose other
Recievers
->if necissary.
->
->
->ABG
There is no contest. Jerry Rice has set the standard. Not only for
most TDs by a Receiver. The guy has proven himself year after year.
Sharpe is fantastic--even awesome. But none of the other listed
receivers has done what J.R. has done for as long as he's done it.
As for "strength and speed", J.R. is about as strong as they get.
He's one of the hardest off-season trainers in the league. Check out
the young receivers coming out of college (the Rocket comes to mind;
there have been others). They train with J.R.
As for speed, that's just silly. Ask any football analyst in the
league and they'll tell you. J.R. may not run the fastest timed
forty, but he has game speed and can break away from almost anyone.
All that stuff about J.R. having better QBs is a crock. He has had
great QBs, but when they went down, he continued to play at his
world-class level. 'Niner fans will remember all of the times that
Joe was hurt and guys like Jeff Kemp and Mike Moroski were at QB.
Sharpe is right up there in my book; as I said, awesome player.
Rison is such a jerk, that it's hard for me to put him in that class.
He misses too many easy plays, and can be rattled pretty easily. He
can be pretty exciting, though. Irvin is right up there, too.
Can't wait for season to start; hope J.R. breaks the record at home.
Michael Fester
>In a previous article, a...@world.std.com (allan b goodrich) wrote:
>->
>->To say who is better than who, Which is the better Wide Reciver
>Sterling
>->Sharpe, or Jerry Rice?
>->
>->I choose Sharpe because of his stregth and speed. Choose other
>Recievers
>->if necissary.
>->
>->
>->ABG
>
>There is no contest. Jerry Rice has set the standard. Not only for
>most TDs by a Receiver. The guy has proven himself year after year.
>Sharpe is fantastic--even awesome. But none of the other listed
>receivers has done what J.R. has done for as long as he's done it.
Right. None of the others have had Montana, then Young throwing to him. And
only Irving has been in a good offense for any significant period of his
career.
>As for "strength and speed", J.R. is about as strong as they get.
>He's one of the hardest off-season trainers in the league. Check out
>the young receivers coming out of college (the Rocket comes to mind;
>there have been others). They train with J.R.
>
>As for speed, that's just silly. Ask any football analyst in the
>league and they'll tell you. J.R. may not run the fastest timed
>forty, but he has game speed and can break away from almost anyone.
>
>All that stuff about J.R. having better QBs is a crock. He has had
>great QBs, but when they went down, he continued to play at his
>world-class level. 'Niner fans will remember all of the times that
>Joe was hurt and guys like Jeff Kemp and Mike Moroski were at QB.
Sure do. And I also remember that Clark led the league in catches well before
Rice ever entered the NFL, didn't he? Didn't Roger Craig do the same? Right,
no QB influence there. And who has Sterling had throwing to him? Hall of
famers like, oh, Majkowski, et al.
>Sharpe is right up there in my book; as I said, awesome player.
>Rison is such a jerk, that it's hard for me to put him in that class.
> He misses too many easy plays, and can be rattled pretty easily. He
>can be pretty exciting, though. Irvin is right up there, too.
Uh, you must have missed Rice early last season. And as for "jerk", remember
his gracious acts after the 49ers beat Cincinnati in the SB? Or his actions
coming out of the locker-room in the NFC championship game? Looked like Rice
left his game in the locker-room.
>Can't wait for season to start; hope J.R. breaks the record at home.
Nice to have so many good QBs throwing to him.
Mike
--
DISCLAIMER - These opoi^H^H "damn", ^H, [esc :q :qq !q "shit!" :Q! "Whaddya
mean, Not an editor command?" :wq ^C^C^C !STOP ^bye ^quit :quit! !halt ...
^ESC :wq :w! :wq! :qq!! ^STOP [HALT! HALT!!! "Why's it doing this?" :stopit!
:wwqq!! ^Z ^L ^ESC STOP :bye bye bye! "Hey, what's this red button d..."
Peter Simko
It's got to be Sterling Sharpe.
He's the one the Weird Sweatty Guy likes, so it's got to be him.
--
Pete S. You call that blocking? 'Cause I don't. I call it a
bunch of old ladies waiting for a bus. Now let's see
Go N.Y. Giants! some blocking or I'll staple you to an electric fence!
-John Madden
richard jurgens
toughest to line up against in front of 50,000 people? I don't believe
that numbers are a reliable measure, since they reflect the over-all
performance of the offense, as well as the individual's contribution.
Has anyone out there run across any opinions from defensive backs who have
covered Rice, Sharpe and the other leading contenders? Especially retired
ones, who have no reason to fear producing motivational locker-room quotes?
Satish Nair
>
>It's got to be Sterling Sharpe.
>
>
>He's the one the Weird Sweatty Guy likes, so it's got to be him.
>
The weird sweatty guy is so fickle... last year he loved Michael
Irvin but now it's Sterling this and Sterling that! You'd expect
more decisiveness from a psychopath. Yeesh!
satish nair
giants
Kenneth Kendrick
>>To say who is better than who, Which is the better Wide Reciver Sterling
>>Sharpe, or Jerry Rice?
I have to give it to Rice. He has got speed, hands and composure. The
strange thing about watching Rice is that it looks as if he is just
cruising along, no big deal, and then you realize he has gone 70 yards
for a touchdown. He makes it look so easy! Irvin should be in this
thread too, but Rice is the best, hands down.
Ken Kendrick
Go Cowboys!!!
Rager
> I put Sharpe, Rison, and *possibly* even Irvin ahead of Rice. It is
> important, firstly, to note Rice's age compared to that of the others
> mentioned. Also, he always had *great* QB's throwing to him; certainly
Dunno 'bout that. Seems like most of the posters here don't consider
Young all that *great*. Guess that means (according to most posters)
that he (JR) has only had one great QB, unless you're referring to Bono. ;)
[BTW, I'm 100% behind Steve].
> this is not the case for Rison and Sharpe. Sharpe goes on top because
> he plays in a division where all the teams have traditionally had great
> secondaries. Who's covering Rice? Toi Cook? Joe Fishback?
Prahm-Tahm (I love that one game a year).
--
Richard Duran, President and GM of the Pachucos GO Niners!!!!!!
rdu...@cs.utexas.EDU (U-TEP) GO Miners!!!!!!
"Go against the grain until the end!" ~ James Hetfield
David A Bergman
: Has anyone out there run across any opinions from defensive backs who have
: covered Rice, Sharpe and the other leading contenders? Especially retired
: ones, who have no reason to fear producing motivational locker-room quotes?
I think Deion (sp?) Sanders after playing the Niners said something along
the lines of "You're one tough SOB" and said that he was the toughest
cover he's had. I'm not positive about this, however. This was last season
after the Falcons beat the Niners of Dexter Carter's 2 fumbles, if I
remember correctly.
Also something that I don't think anyone else has mentioned is that, I
think JR runs the best routes in the games and can make sharp turns and
stuff.
Aaron
Thomas Renzy
a John Taylor or a Brent Jones to take away Double teams. I believe
Rice is the best Big Play Receiver in the league, but after seeing what
Sharpe has done with no running game, no quarterback(until now Farve
is great!) and no other half way decent receivers to take the pressure
off him. To have over 100 catches 2 years in a row is amazing, but it's
even more amazing when the OTHER TEAM KNOWS YOU'RE GOING TO THROW TO HIM!!!!
Thomas
re...@cs.ucf.edu
GO RANGERS,GIANTS,KNICKS.YANKEES(Hey it's a pretty good year to be a
NY fan!!!!!!)
exe00371
: In a previous article, a...@world.std.com (allan b goodrich) wrote:
: ->To say who is better than who, Which is the better Wide Reciver
: ->Sterling Sharpe, or Jerry Rice?
:
: There is no contest. Jerry Rice has set the standard. Not only for
: most TDs by a Receiver. The guy has proven himself year after year.
: Sharpe is fantastic--even awesome. But none of the other listed
: receivers has done what J.R. has done for as long as he's done it.
they are being accumulated under the "no-chuck" rules instituted 15 (?)
years ago. That said, I think Jerry Rice and Sterling Sharpe are probably
*the* two receivers in the league who who would have excelled against the
bump & run of old. (Both are strong, physical receivers able to break
tackles and who are willing to block).
Marlon Shows
Guess you haven't seen the Junior Seau commercial?
|>
|> satish nair
|> giants
|>
|>
|>
--
Marlon Shows
FalconNeil
Rajpal Singh Thiara
I think Rice is still the best. I think the 49ers are
just an average team without Rice, but SB contenders with him.
In every game in which Young made an effort to get the ball to
Rice last year, the 49ers put up big numbers. I'll put Sharpe
second, Rison third, Irvin fourth, and Tim Brown(AFC) fifth.
F. Max Chuang
Does anyone know the exact positions they were drafted?
Max
--
=============================================================================
F. Max Chuang (rai...@uclink.berkeley.edu) (m...@ocf.berkeley.edu)
"Early to rise and early to bed,
Makes a man healthy, but socially dead." -- Yakko Warner
Rajpal Singh Thiara
Irvin would have thrived under the old rules. I have
seen him grab a DB with one arm and just throw him away.
garry monahan
: As for "strength and speed", J.R. is about as strong as they get.
: He's one of the hardest off-season trainers in the league. Check out
Tony Mandarich trained pretty hard too. Being a "workout warrior"
doesn't automatically lead to success; any correlation between exercise
intensity and on-field success is, to a great extent, spurious.
: the young receivers coming out of college (the Rocket comes to mind;
: there have been others). They train with J.R.
: As for speed, that's just silly. Ask any football analyst in the
: league and they'll tell you. J.R. may not run the fastest timed
: forty, but he has game speed and can break away from almost anyone.
They'll tell you the same thing about Sharpe, Rison, Irvin, Brown, et
al.
: All that stuff about J.R. having better QBs is a crock. He has had
: great QBs, but when they went down, he continued to play at his
: world-class level. 'Niner fans will remember all of the times that
: Joe was hurt and guys like Jeff Kemp and Mike Moroski were at QB.
A crock? Please reconsider. Niners starters in the Rice era have been
Montana (arguably the best QB ever) and Young (no slouch himself; I'm
sure I don't have to tell you.) Sure, they went down once in awhile,
and no-names filled in. But who has been throwing to Sharpe? Favre
looks to be good, but he has only been the starter for 2 seasons.
You deserve credit for naming names in making your point. But for your
Mike Moroski, I have Don Majkowski. For your Jeff Kemp, I have Perry
Kemp allegedly taking heat off Sharpe as the #2 receiver. And it
doesn't end there; I can drag out Anthony Dilweg and (gasp) Randy Wright
if you want things to get ugly.
[snip]
: Can't wait for season to start; hope J.R. breaks the record at home.
OK then, let me continue by making a point about records. In the 2
years that he has had a good QB throwing to him, Sharpe has broken the
record for catches in a season, and then broken it again. Favre is no
Montana, but even in his prime (which, you must admit, he is past,) Rice
couldn't grab 108 balls (or 112, for that matter.) EVEN WITH a better
spporting cast throughout his career than Sharpe has ever had. EVEN
WITH weaker secondaries covering him. Add up all the evidence I have
presented here, and it's plain:
Sharpe is better than Rice.
Resting my Case,
GJM
garry monahan
: >In <CrILs...@world.std.com> a...@world.std.com (allan b goodrich) writes:
: >>To say who is better than who, Which is the better Wide Reciver Sterling
: >>Sharpe, or Jerry Rice?
: I have to give it to Rice. He has got speed, hands and composure. The
Do you mean to say that Sharpe, Rison, etc. lack these attributes?
: strange thing about watching Rice is that it looks as if he is just
: cruising along, no big deal, and then you realize he has gone 70 yards
: for a touchdown. He makes it look so easy! Irvin should be in this
I could give you a nickel for every time Rice has "cruised 70 yards for
a TD," and you wouldn't even have bus fare.
: thread too, but Rice is the best, hands down.
: Ken Kendrick
: Go Cowboys!!!
T. M. Cuffel
>great QBs, but when they went down, he continued to play at his
>world-class level. 'Niner fans will remember all of the times that
>Joe was hurt and guys like Jeff Kemp and Mike Moroski were at QB.
The 49er teams Rice played for consisted of a little more than him
and a QB. There was Taylor on the other side. There was Roger
Craig giving run support. The was one of the great pass blocking
lines of all time, raising holding to an art form. You could
have plugged Marc Wilson into it and still had a great offense.
I think it is impossible to say who is better. It like comparing
Emmitt Smith with Eric Dickerson or O.J. Simpson (gasp! Someone
actually talking about Simpson as a football player!). Some get
exposure, and a chance to lead there team to the Super Bowl, some
break records because they are the only offense on a bad team.
The roles are so different the do not lend themselves to direct
comparison.
Kenneth Kendrick
>: As for "strength and speed", J.R. is about as strong as they get.
>: He's one of the hardest off-season trainers in the league. Check out
>Tony Mandarich trained pretty hard too. Being a "workout warrior"
>doesn't automatically lead to success; any correlation between exercise
>intensity and on-field success is, to a great extent, spurious.
While it may not automatically lead to success, it certainly has with Rice.
>Montana, but even in his prime (which, you must admit, he is past,) Rice
>couldn't grab 108 balls (or 112, for that matter.) EVEN WITH a better
>spporting cast throughout his career than Sharpe has ever had. EVEN
> GJM
I think the fact that Sharpe doesn't have as strong a supporting cast is
the reason he was able to catch that many balls. Let's face it, who the
hell else was GB going to give the ball too? There was so much talent in
San Fran that they had to spread the ball around a little more. I would
like to see a comparison of the number of balls thrown at each reciever,
and then judge.
Ken Kendrick
Go Cowboys!!!
Kenneth Kendrick
>: >>To say who is better than who, Which is the better Wide Reciver Sterling
>: >>Sharpe, or Jerry Rice?
>: I have to give it to Rice. He has got speed, hands and composure. The
>Do you mean to say that Sharpe, Rison, etc. lack these attributes?
While they don't neccessarily lack them, they do have them in lesser
amounts. (And Rison has never impressed me with his composure. Or his
routes. Great speed, however.)
>: strange thing about watching Rice is that it looks as if he is just
>: cruising along, no big deal, and then you realize he has gone 70 yards
>: for a touchdown. He makes it look so easy! Irvin should be in this
>I could give you a nickel for every time Rice has "cruised 70 yards for
>a TD," and you wouldn't even have bus fare.
To where?
hu...@vms.csd.mu.edu
>Rison is better than both of them.
>
Bullshit
Ashu Rege
garry monahan <gmon...@lynx.dac.neu.edu> wrote:
>Ciari (ci...@aol.com) wrote:
>
>: As for "strength and speed", J.R. is about as strong as they get.
>: He's one of the hardest off-season trainers in the league. Check out
>
>Tony Mandarich trained pretty hard too. Being a "workout warrior"
>doesn't automatically lead to success; any correlation between exercise
>intensity and on-field success is, to a great extent, spurious.
Mandarich was on steroids. Big difference. As for your utterly
laughable assertion that working out doesn't help, why do you
think there are so many Bubba Paris's and Jerry Balls in the NFL ?
Working out won't help you become more talented but it will
help you stay in your prime longer (can't believe I'm even arguing
this).
>: All that stuff about J.R. having better QBs is a crock. He has had
>: great QBs, but when they went down, he continued to play at his
>: world-class level. 'Niner fans will remember all of the times that
>: Joe was hurt and guys like Jeff Kemp and Mike Moroski were at QB.
>
> A crock? Please reconsider. Niners starters in the Rice era have been
>Montana (arguably the best QB ever) and Young (no slouch himself; I'm
>sure I don't have to tell you.) Sure, they went down once in awhile,
In the 91 season, even with Young out, Rice caught 80 passes
for over 1200 yards and 14 TD's.
>and no-names filled in. But who has been throwing to Sharpe? Favre
>looks to be good, but he has only been the starter for 2 seasons.
>You deserve credit for naming names in making your point. But for your
>Mike Moroski, I have Don Majkowski. For your Jeff Kemp, I have Perry
>Kemp allegedly taking heat off Sharpe as the #2 receiver. And it
>doesn't end there; I can drag out Anthony Dilweg and (gasp) Randy Wright
>if you want things to get ugly.
Majkowski had a very good year in 89. To say that he doesn't count
as a good QB for that season because his performance dropped off the
next season (for various reasons) is plain silly.
>[snip]
>
>: Can't wait for season to start; hope J.R. breaks the record at home.
>
> OK then, let me continue by making a point about records. In the 2
>years that he has had a good QB throwing to him, Sharpe has broken the
>record for catches in a season, and then broken it again. Favre is no
>Montana, but even in his prime (which, you must admit, he is past,) Rice
>couldn't grab 108 balls (or 112, for that matter.) EVEN WITH a better
>spporting cast throughout his career than Sharpe has ever had. EVEN
>WITH weaker secondaries covering him. Add up all the evidence I have
>presented here, and it's plain:
>
>Sharpe is better than Rice.
> Resting my Case,
> GJM
First : Rice caught 100 passes in '90. He is certainly capable of
catching over a 100, but the Niners haven't needed him to since
they have been usually ahead in the 4th quarter and start running
the ball and pulling their starters.
Second : Sharpe _is_ one of the top 3-4 receivers in the league
no doubt. But DON'T use his numbers to prove that he's the
best. Here's why :
From 89-92, Sharpe caught 334 passes but his team attempted 2181.
Rice in the same period caught 346 but the 49ers passed only 2062
times. (I don't have the numbers for the 93 season but I wager
they won't be very different).
Even if you factor in the quarterbacks completion %, Montana/Young
have career percentages of around 64, while Majkowski etc. had
percentages around 58. With those factored in, Sharpe comes
out very slightly ahead.
The argument about supporting casts can be equally well turned
on it's head : with nobody else to vie for the ball, the vast
majority of plays are designed with Sharpe in mind. With no
running game, the Packers have passed more, and with even mediocre
quarterbacks completing over 55% of their passes he's bound
to see the ball in his hands often.
As for weak secondaries, we are talking about 8 games against
NFC Central teams for Sharpe. Not exactly a powerhouse conference
the last 4-5 years.
Ashu Rege
Ashu Rege
garry monahan <gmon...@lynx.dac.neu.edu> wrote:
>: strange thing about watching Rice is that it looks as if he is just
>: cruising along, no big deal, and then you realize he has gone 70 yards
>: for a touchdown. He makes it look so easy! Irvin should be in this
>
>I could give you a nickel for every time Rice has "cruised 70 yards for
>a TD," and you wouldn't even have bus fare.
>
So Montana is the best quarterback ever with the strongest arm ever
known in the NFL ? I always suspected that.
Ashu Rege
P.S. We should have a registry of people who think Montana made
Rice great and another of those who think vice versa. But wait
a minute, it's all Bill Walsh's genius ... I forgot ... or was it
the supporting cast ... damn, I'm all confused now.
Steve Heser
> on it's head : with nobody else to vie for the ball, the vast
> majority of plays are designed with Sharpe in mind. With no
> running game, the Packers have passed more, and with even mediocre
> quarterbacks completing over 55% of their passes he's bound
> to see the ball in his hands often.
I agree that many plays are designed with Sharpe in mind, but the fact
that he gets the ball a lot may have more to do with Favre's preference than
Holmgren's designed plays. Let me just stress the point that the
Packers' mediocre cast (the last few years) has allowed the opposition to key
on Sharpe, double-teaming him on almost every down, because they know he's
the Packers' go-to guy. And he *still* makes those plays happen.
> As for weak secondaries, we are talking about 8 games against
> NFC Central teams for Sharpe. Not exactly a powerhouse conference
> the last 4-5 years.
> -- Ashu Rege
The NFC Central teams know what Sharpe can do--they've seen him twice a
year for a good period of time. They know who Favre's going to throw to and
yet they still cannot stop him, with the possible exception of the Vikings.
The NFC Central had a couple of the top defenses last year and I'll agree they
haven't been very good but these teams *should* know how to shut down Sterling
and yet he completely dominated the first Buccaneer game, for example. I'm not
knocking Rice (fantastic receiver), but I think to appreciate Sharpe you have
to watch him for a good while and see how he can make a mess of the
opposition's defensive schemes.
-- Steve
Packer Fanadict
Standing here like a loaded gun...waiting to go off
I got nothing to do but...shoot my mouth off" -- Black Flag
John Heim
> Emmitt Smith with Eric Dickerson or O.J. Simpson (gasp! Someone
> actually talking about Simpson as a football player!). Some get
> exposure, and a chance to lead there team to the Super Bowl, some
> break records because they are the only offense on a bad team.
Arrrrgh!!!! Do even say crap like this. If you're the only good
offensive player on a bad team the entire defense of the opponents is
going to be set up to stop you. So putting up great stats in spite of
this may be *more* impressive than if you're on a great team. (And
you were doing so well up to that point too.)
As a Packer fan I'd like to go on record as saying Sterling Sharpe
hasn't earned the right to be called better than Jerry Rice. Rice has
the career records, Sharpe does not.
Based on last years stats there's no way you can even say that right
now Sharpe is better than Rice because of Rice's age. I'm not saying
Rice's stats were clearly better than Sharpe's -- it depends on what you
consider important. It's just that Sharpe's stats weren't clearly
better than Rice's either.
John Heim
> First : Rice caught 100 passes in '90. He is certainly capable of
> catching over a 100, but the Niners haven't needed him to since
> they have been usually ahead in the 4th quarter and start running
> the ball and pulling their starters.
>
> Second : Sharpe _is_ one of the top 3-4 receivers in the league
> no doubt. But DON'T use his numbers to prove that he's the
> best. Here's why :
>
> From 89-92, Sharpe caught 334 passes but his team attempted 2181.
> Rice in the same period caught 346 but the 49ers passed only 2062
> times. (I don't have the numbers for the 93 season but I wager
> they won't be very different).
Where did these numbers come from?
> Even if you factor in the quarterbacks completion %, Montana/Young
> have career percentages of around 64, while Majkowski etc. had
> percentages around 58. With those factored in, Sharpe comes
> out very slightly ahead.
>
> The argument about supporting casts can be equally well turned
> on it's head : with nobody else to vie for the ball, the vast
> majority of plays are designed with Sharpe in mind. With no
> running game, the Packers have passed more, and with even mediocre
Until very recently the 49ers haven't had much of a running game
either. I defy you to prove that the reason that Sharpe catches so
many passes is because the majority of plays go his way rather than
just because he's so good. Of course the Packers give Sharpe the ball
a lot. The Cowboys give ES the ball a lot. They'd be foolish not to.
> quarterbacks completing over 55% of their passes he's bound
> to see the ball in his hands often.
Huh? You just got done showing that Sharpe *doesn't* get more balls
than Rice.
> As for weak secondaries, we are talking about 8 games against
> NFC Central teams for Sharpe. Not exactly a powerhouse conference
> the last 4-5 years.
Ashu, why are you trying to prove something that can't be proven?
As far as I'm concerned all you need to know is that Rice has the
career records. Rice has earned the right to be considered one of the
best ever. Sharpe is getting there.
I also don't believe Sharpe is better than Rice in his prime. Was
Rice in his prime better than Sharpe is now? I dunno. If Sharpe
continues playing like he has, he will eventually earn the right to be
considered one of the best ever. If and when that happens, I'll be
arguing that Rice and Sharpe are 2 of the best ever -- that's all.
Michael Fester
Kenneth Kendrick <ken...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>gmon...@lynx.dac.neu.edu (garry monahan) writes:
>
>>: As for "strength and speed", J.R. is about as strong as they get.
>>: He's one of the hardest off-season trainers in the league. Check out
>
>>couldn't grab 108 balls (or 112, for that matter.) EVEN WITH a better
>>spporting cast throughout his career than Sharpe has ever had. EVEN
>
>the reason he was able to catch that many balls. Let's face it, who the
>hell else was GB going to give the ball too?
I think I've seen this thread 8 or 9 times now, and sooner or later
someone always brings this up. The reasoning seems to be that, good players
don't get as many catches, carries, whatever, if there are other good players
on their offense. I haven't seen ANY evidence to support this, and quite a
bit that tends to refute it. If you look at the non-QB skill positions, and
take the top 10-15 players in each conference, in the areas of #catches, yards
gained rushing, and yds gained passing, you'll see that almost NO ONE appears
in, say, # catches, without having a teammate (or 2 or 3) appearing in the
other categories. One of the VERY few exceptions is Sharpe. The year Rice
led the league in catches, I believe Taylor was also among the top in catches,
and Craig was among the top in YGR. The Oiler ROUTINELY put 2 or 3 recievers
in the top 10 (or 5!) in the AFC. The Cowboys have some guy running the ball
for them that seems not to have hurt Irvin too much.
> There was so much talent in
>San Fran that they had to spread the ball around a little more.
Actually, what seems to happen is that a team with several good players at the
skill positions control the ball for more plays. The 9ers have run as many as
a couple hundred more offensive plays than Green Bay for a couple years.
> I would like to see a comparison of the number of balls thrown at
> each reciever, and then judge.
All that might tell you is who is the most open on a particular offense. If
that.
Bruce Lattimore
>>> great QBs, but when they went down, he continued to play at his
>>> world-class level. 'Niner fans will remember all of the times that
>>> Joe was hurt and guys like Jeff Kemp and Mike Moroski were at QB.
>> A crock? Please reconsider. Niners starters in the Rice era have been
>> Montana (arguably the best QB ever) and Young (no slouch himself; I'm
>> sure I don't have to tell you.) Sure, they went down once in awhile,
> In the 91 season, even with Young out, Rice caught 80 passes
> for over 1200 yards and 14 TD's.
You won't win on the argument that the 49ers haven't had better QBs.
Young, Bono, Montana vs. Favre, Majkowski, Tomczak, Dilweg, Kiel
>>> Can't wait for season to start; hope J.R. breaks the record at home.
> Second : Sharpe _is_ one of the top 3-4 receivers in the league
> no doubt. But DON'T use his numbers to prove that he's the
> best. Here's why :
Well, if you consider Rice the best (which is understandable), then at
least you would have to consider Sharpe the second-best. The main reason
Sharpe is underappreciated is because he plays for Green Bay, and up
until last year, Green Bay was never on national TV. Thus, people haven't
been exposed to Sterling as much as they have been to Rice, Irvin, or even
Andre Rison.
> The argument about supporting casts can be equally well turned
> on it's head : with nobody else to vie for the ball, the vast
> majority of plays are designed with Sharpe in mind. With no
> running game, the Packers have passed more, and with even mediocre
> quarterbacks completing over 55% of their passes he's bound
> to see the ball in his hands often.
Not really. The Packers over the last two years have looked for other
receiver (most notably Jackie Harris), and have tried to run the ball.
They design some plays for Sterling, but normally Brett Favre just looks
for Sterling when he's in trouble. Many of these times, Sterling is
double or triple teamed and interceptions occur - but more often than not,
Sterling will make the big play.
> As for weak secondaries, we are talking about 8 games against
> NFC Central teams for Sharpe. Not exactly a powerhouse conference
> the last 4-5 years.
Let's look at the secondaries of the NFC West teams and NFC Central teams
of the last 2-3 years:
NFC Central
-----------
Minnesota - Carl Lee, Audray McMillan, Todd Scott, Vencie Glenn. SOLID.
Chicago - Donnell Woolford, Mark Carrier, Shaun Gayle, Tony Blaylock. SOLID.
Detroit - Bennie Blades, William White, Ray Crockett, Tim McKyer. SOLID.
Tampa Bay - Rickey Reynolds, Marty Carter, Martin Mayhew. WEAK, but Reynolds
(who usually plays Sharpe) is a great CB.
NFC West
--------
New Orleans - Toi Cook, Vince Buck, Brett Maxie, Gene Atkins. AVERAGE.
LA Rams - Todd Lyght, Steve Israel, Pat Terrell, Anthony Newman. GOOD, but young.
Atlanta - Scott Case, Jeff Donaldson, Vince Clark, Roger Harper, Alton Montgomery,
and sometimes Deion. POOR (w/o Deion) and AVERAGE (w/Deion).
The NFC Central teams have (by far) better secondaries. It's not even close.
BTW, here are the stats for Rice, Irvin, and Sharpe since 1989. These stats are
not to sway the argument either way, because stats can be misleading. Here they
are anyways:
Yr Rec Yds Avg TD QB Rec
Rice
1989 82 1483 18.1 17 Montana
1990 100 1502 15.0 13 Montana
1991 80 1206 15.1 14 Young/Bono
1992 84 1201 14.3 10 Young
1993 98 1503 15.3 15 Young
Sharpe
1989 90 1423 15.8 12 Majkowski
1990 67 1105 16.5 6 Dilweg/Majkowski
1991 69 961 13.9 4 Tomczak/Majkowski
1992 108 1461 13.5 13 Favre
1993 112 1274 11.4 11 Favre
Irvin
1989 26 378 14.5 2 Aikman
1990 20 413 20.7 5 Aikman
1991 93 1523 16.4 8 Aikman
1992 78 1396 17.9 7 Aikman
1993 88 1330 15.1 7 Aikman
> Ashu Rege
--
Bruce Lattimore
University of Minnesota
br...@mermaid.micro.umn.edu
GREEN BAY PACKERS #1
Ashu Rege
John Heim <HE...@MACC.WISC.EDU> wrote:
>In <2u3o90$o...@agate.berkeley.edu> re...@bongo.CS.Berkeley.EDU writes:
>
>> First : Rice caught 100 passes in '90. He is certainly capable of
>> catching over a 100, but the Niners haven't needed him to since
>> they have been usually ahead in the 4th quarter and start running
>> the ball and pulling their starters.
>>
>> Second : Sharpe _is_ one of the top 3-4 receivers in the league
>> no doubt. But DON'T use his numbers to prove that he's the
>> best. Here's why :
>>
>> From 89-92, Sharpe caught 334 passes but his team attempted 2181.
>> Rice in the same period caught 346 but the 49ers passed only 2062
>> times. (I don't have the numbers for the 93 season but I wager
>> they won't be very different).
>
>Where did these numbers come from?
From the Football Sports Encyclopedia by Neft and Cohen up to 90
and then from PFW for 91-92.
>> Even if you factor in the quarterbacks completion %, Montana/Young
>> have career percentages of around 64, while Majkowski etc. had
>> percentages around 58. With those factored in, Sharpe comes
>> out very slightly ahead.
>>
>> The argument about supporting casts can be equally well turned
>> on it's head : with nobody else to vie for the ball, the vast
>> majority of plays are designed with Sharpe in mind. With no
>> running game, the Packers have passed more, and with even mediocre
>
>Until very recently the 49ers haven't had much of a running game
>either. I defy you to prove that the reason that Sharpe catches so
>many passes is because the majority of plays go his way rather than
>just because he's so good. Of course the Packers give Sharpe the ball
>a lot. The Cowboys give ES the ball a lot. They'd be foolish not to.
The Niners running game has not been overwhelmingly good but it's
been far better than anything the Packers have had. The only year
the 49ers didn't have a decent running game was 91. In 90 the
running game was also not stellar, and guess what, Rice caught
100 passes. Interesting correlation what ? In 92 and 93 they
had Rickey Watters.
>> quarterbacks completing over 55% of their passes he's bound
>> to see the ball in his hands often.
>
>Huh? You just got done showing that Sharpe *doesn't* get more balls
>than Rice.
Nope. All I showed was that even assuming the most mediocre QB's
throwing to Sharpe, the worst figure you can assume is 55%.
Whereas the best QB's have career % completion rates around 64. In
_this_ best case scenario for Sharpe, the Packers completed a number
of passes which is not much less than those by the Niners. How many
of these pass plays are designed with Sharpe as primary receiver ?
I don't know. But I'd wager that Sharpe was the main guy in over
70 % of the plays. Rice has to settle for far less.
>> As for weak secondaries, we are talking about 8 games against
>> NFC Central teams for Sharpe. Not exactly a powerhouse conference
>> the last 4-5 years.
>
>Ashu, why are you trying to prove something that can't be proven?
I'm NOT trying to prove that Rice is better than Sharpe. If you
go back to my article, you will see that I am objecting to someone
using stats to prove that Sharpe is better. And I am giving a
plausible explanation for why Sharpe has been catching so many passes.
>As far as I'm concerned all you need to know is that Rice has the
>career records. Rice has earned the right to be considered one of the
>best ever. Sharpe is getting there.
>
>I also don't believe Sharpe is better than Rice in his prime. Was
>Rice in his prime better than Sharpe is now? I dunno. If Sharpe
>continues playing like he has, he will eventually earn the right to be
>considered one of the best ever. If and when that happens, I'll be
>arguing that Rice and Sharpe are 2 of the best ever -- that's all.
>
>
>JGH he...@macc.wisc.edu
I agree. But I certainly am not going to prove it with stats (though
they are all stacked for Rice). All you have to do is count the
number of times Montana has delivered a 10 yard slant to Rice in
perfect stride and Rice has broken tackles to go all the way.
Ashu
P.S. Rice has also been much more durable than Sharpe.
Ashu Rege
>In article <2u2rhd$e...@news.u.washington.edu>,
>Kenneth Kendrick <ken...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>
>>I think the fact that Sharpe doesn't have as strong a supporting cast is
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>the reason he was able to catch that many balls. Let's face it, who the
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>hell else was GB going to give the ball too?
>
>>San Fran that they had to spread the ball around a little more.
>
>skill positions control the ball for more plays. The 9ers have run as many as
>a couple hundred more offensive plays than Green Bay for a couple years.
When you have a good team, you are ahead that much more often and you
(a) run the ball more and (b) pull your starters in meaningless 4th
quarters. The Niners have been a very good team the last so many years
and have passed much less than the Packers have. Which translates to
fewer opportunities for Rice.
To re-iterate what I said earlier, Sharpe's stats have a more than
plausible explanation. So you need something better than the usual
stats to prove he's better than Rice. I personally don't think so,
but my opinion is relatively subjective.
Ashu Rege
T. M. Cuffel
John Heim <HE...@MACC.WISC.EDU> wrote:
>> I think it is impossible to say who is better. It like comparing
>> Emmitt Smith with Eric Dickerson or O.J. Simpson (gasp! Someone
>> actually talking about Simpson as a football player!). Some get
>> exposure, and a chance to lead there team to the Super Bowl, some
>> break records because they are the only offense on a bad team.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Arrrrgh!!!! Do even say crap like this. If you're the only good
>offensive player on a bad team the entire defense of the opponents is
>going to be set up to stop you. So putting up great stats in spite of
>this may be *more* impressive than if you're on a great team. (And
>you were doing so well up to that point too.)
A good player on a good team gets fewer oppurtunities, but less
opposition. A good player on a bad team gets more oppurtunities,
and more opposition. This makes it impossible to use stats to
say who is better than who, in this situation.
Michael Fester
Ashu Rege <re...@bongo.CS.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>In article <CrpA2...@tfs.com>, Michael Fester <fes...@tfs.com> wrote:
> >In article <2u2rhd$e...@news.u.washington.edu>,
> >Kenneth Kendrick <ken...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >>I think the fact that Sharpe doesn't have as strong a supporting cast is
> >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>the reason he was able to catch that many balls. Let's face it, who the
> >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>hell else was GB going to give the ball too?
> [deleted]
> >> There was so much talent in
> >>San Fran that they had to spread the ball around a little more.
> >Actually,what seems to happen is that a team with several good players at the
> >skill positions control the ball for more plays. The 9ers have run as many as
> >a couple hundred more offensive plays than Green Bay for a couple years.
>
> When you have a good team, you are ahead that much more often and you
Hmm, good team, but NOT good QB (after all, Rice has had Montana, Young
as his main starters, whereas Sharpe has had Majik/Favre, yet we KNOW, via
frequent assertion, that THAT has no bearing on how good Rice has looked.)
> (a) run the ball more and (b) pull your starters in meaningless 4th
> quarters. The Niners have been a very good team the last so many years
> and have passed much less than the Packers have. Which translates to
> fewer opportunities for Rice.
You're really reaching. That only works if the 49ers extra "hundred or more
plays" are all in the 4th quarter. But didn't you argue in a different post
that the 49er rushing game is not really that strong? (You did, and I can
pull it out for you.) If so, then they aren't going to "run the ball more",
cuz that won't control the clock. Or, if they do, then it's 3 runs and punt,
and THAT is not going to account for the extra 100+ plays, is it?
So, which is it?
> To re-iterate what I said earlier, Sharpe's stats have a more than
> plausible explanation. So you need something better than the usual
> stats to prove he's better than Rice. I personally don't think so,
> but my opinion is relatively subjective.
You have also completely ignored that, with the exception of Sharpe, EVERY other
leader in # passes caught, yards rushed, or total passing yards has had one
or more teammate in the top 10-15 in one or more category. Care to explain
why Sharpe is the exception? Why is it that Sharpe "gets more opportunities"
while the other leaders, er, well, uh, what DO they do? What is the "much
more plausible explanation" that puts Sharpe at the top, without any other
weapons, yet when Rice (or other leader) is at the top, those others weapons
don't seem to have had the effect of "denying Rice the ball".
Not only that, you don't watch that many 49er games. When's that last time
Rice missed a whole 4th quarter? He even played in the Lions blowout. Perhaps
a game a year, but that's it. Not exactly accounting for the difference in
number of plays, is it?
BONVICINI,GIOV./EP
>
>> In the 91 season, even with Young out, Rice caught 80 passes
>> for over 1200 yards and 14 TD's.
>
>You won't win on the argument that the 49ers haven't had better QBs.
>
>Young, Bono, Montana vs. Favre, Majkowski, Tomczak, Dilweg, Kiel
>
While you have a point, let me remind you that in 1986, when Rice
became a superstar, catching bombs one-handed and, I believe, leading
the NBA in catch-yardage, the QB was the immortal Kemp.
G.B.
Joel Fern
Sharpe caught 112. That is 21.6%. Hardly
all of the ofense.
--
Joel Fern
Ric Wilson
Yeah, he also led the league in triple doubles, was third in 3 point shooting, averaged 5.3 assists per game, 13 rebounds and 26.5 points per game. Did real well in the All Star Slam Dunk contest too. I remember it well. Or maybe I don't...
|>
|> G.B.
Gregory R. Thiele
: and have passed much less than the Packers have. Which translates to
: fewer opportunities for Rice.
The fact is that the 49ers have more yards passing than the
Packers each of the last two seasons, and even though Sharpe caught more
passes both of those seasons, Rice caught for more yards.
Michael T Jones
to him, he is and always be the best.
Ashu Rege
Nice try. Let's see 518 completion at even a 70 % rate, is 740 attempts.
At around 8 yards an attempt, Favre passed for almost 6000 yards !
Man, that Favre sure is a heck of a QB. Too bad his arm fell out
attempting nearly 50 passes a game.
Ashu Rege
Gregory R. Thiele
RICE FACTS
*Jerry Rice was NFL MVP in 1988.*
Jerry Rice has been to 8 Pro Bowls.
Jerry Rice has been All NFL 7 Seasons.
Jerry Rice holds the records for most TD receptions in a game (5), in a
season (22), and in a career (115).
Jerry Rice is on pace to break the records for career touchdowns (Jim Brown),
career receiving yards (James Lofton), and career catches (Art Monk).
Jerry Rice has 2 Super Bowl Rings.
Jerry Rice was MVP of Super Bowl XXIII.
Jerry Rice has caught over 100 passes in a season once, over 90 twice.
IN 1993
Jerry Rice led the NFL in Touchdowns caught, and total Touchdowns.
Jerry Rice led the NFL in receiving yards.
Jerry Rice was All NFL.
Jerry Rice was in the Pro Bowl.
Jerry Rice caught 98 passes.
SHARPE FACTS
Sterling Sharpe has been to 4 Pro Bowls.
Sterling Sharpe has been All NFL 2 seasons.
Sterling Sharpe holds the record for most catches in a season (112).
Sterling Sharpe may break the record for career catches (Art Monk/Jerry Rice).
Sterling Sharpe has caught over 100 passes in a season twice, over 90 once.
Sterling Sharpe has a great Nike commercial - "Choo choo baby, choo choo"
IN 1993
Sterling Sharpe led the NFL in Passes caught.
Sterling Sharpe was All NFL.
Sterling Sharpe was in the Pro Bowl.
Sterling Sharpe caught 112 passes.
COMPARISON
Sterling Sharpe consistently catches more passes than Jerry Rice.
Jerry Rice consistently catches for more yards than Sterling Sharpe.
Jerry Rice consistently catches for more TDs than Sterling Sharpe.
Jerry Rice has many more career achievements.
CONCLUSION
Jerry Rice is a more versatile receiver. He can catch a lot of passes
like Sterling Sharpe, he can catch them for more yards, and he can score more.
I would rather have Jerry Rice on my team in the past, now, and in the
future - He is only three years older.
OVERALL
Jerry Rice has had, and will have a better career than Sterling Sharpe.
Jerry Rice had a better 1993 season than Sterling Sharpe.
Jerry Rice is a better receiver than Sterling Sharpe.
No other receiver compares with Jerry Rice and Sterling Sharpe.
They are a step above all others.
GREG
Ashu Rege
>In article <2u4sd2$3...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
>Ashu Rege <re...@bongo.CS.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>>In article <CrpA2...@tfs.com>, Michael Fester <fes...@tfs.com> wrote:
>> >In article <2u2rhd$e...@news.u.washington.edu>,
>> >Kenneth Kendrick <ken...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>> >>
>
>> (a) run the ball more and (b) pull your starters in meaningless 4th
>> quarters. The Niners have been a very good team the last so many years
>> and have passed much less than the Packers have. Which translates to
>> fewer opportunities for Rice.
>
>You're really reaching. That only works if the 49ers extra "hundred or more
>plays" are all in the 4th quarter. But didn't you argue in a different post
>that the 49er rushing game is not really that strong? (You did, and I can
>pull it out for you.) If so, then they aren't going to "run the ball more",
>cuz that won't control the clock. Or, if they do, then it's 3 runs and punt,
>and THAT is not going to account for the extra 100+ plays, is it?
>
>So, which is it?
Maybe you should read what I said. I said the Niners running game
was not overwhelmingly good but much better than the Packers. Why don't
you stick to the stats ? The Packers averaged about 50-75 passes more
per season from 89 to 92 and ran the ball about 75-80 times less.
Just about every team with a winning record runs the ball more than
teams with losing records.
>> To re-iterate what I said earlier, Sharpe's stats have a more than
>> plausible explanation. So you need something better than the usual
>> stats to prove he's better than Rice. I personally don't think so,
>> but my opinion is relatively subjective.
>
>You have also completely ignored that, with the exception of Sharpe,
EVERY other
>leader in # passes caught, yards rushed, or total passing yards has had one
>or more teammate in the top 10-15 in one or more category. Care to explain
>why Sharpe is the exception? Why is it that Sharpe "gets more opportunities"
>while the other leaders, er, well, uh, what DO they do? What is the "much
>more plausible explanation" that puts Sharpe at the top, without any other
>weapons, yet when Rice (or other leader) is at the top, those others weapons
>don't seem to have had the effect of "denying Rice the ball".
First, Sharpe is NOT the exception. There are (and have been) many offenses
which are carried by one player - Detroit with Barry Sanders, Bills with
OJ, Largent with the Seahawks etc.
Second, Sharpe got his two 100+ catch seasons with Jackie Harris being
among the leaders.
Sharpe gets more opportunities because his teams pass more. And no
matter how mediocre the QB, the % of passes he completes is around 55.
How much more simplified do you want me to make it ?
As for your comment about Rice not beign denied the ball, so what are
you saying : Rice has the stats to compare with Sharpe's or he doesn't ?
My original post was objecting to someone crowning Sharpe the best because
of the large number of passes he catches. Rice catches about 15 passes
less per season than Sharpe. The Packers pass about 50-60 times more
per season compared to the Niners. A very large number of these have
Sharpe as the primary receiver, the Niners don't need to do that - they
can pass to Rice or Taylor or Jones or Watters/Craig or Rathman. Plus
Rice has missed more plays per season than Sharpe because the Niners
have had the game in hand more often.
To summarize since I don't seem to be getting the point across :
Sharpe is up there with Rice, Rison, Brown and Irvin. To say he is
better because he catches more passes inspite of being the only star
on his team is to not account for other factors like - 1) lack of
a running game, 2) being on a team which passes more because it's
down in the 4th quarter more often.
You can make the argument that Sharpe is double-teamed often and still
makes the catches . I never said he was not one of the best receivers.
Rice is also double-teamed often and still makes the catches.
>Not only that, you don't watch that many 49er games. When's that last time
>Rice missed a whole 4th quarter? He even played in the Lions blowout. Perhaps
>a game a year, but that's it. Not exactly accounting for the difference in
>number of plays, is it?
>Mike
I'm not talking about missing whole quarters. That depends on how much
of a blowout the game is. Any coach would be an idiot if he leaves his
superstars in when the game is well in hand. The Niners through most
of Rice's tenure have had this situation more often than not and Rice
has probably missed about 50-60 plays a season for most of his career.
If that is too subtle for you, I give up.
Incidentally, Rice _did not_ play all of the 4th quarter in the Lions game.
Bono and the second-stringers came in with around 3-4 minutes gone in the
4th. I have the game on tape.
Ashu Rege
Marlon Shows
|> Ciari (ci...@aol.com) wrote:
|>
|> : As for "strength and speed", J.R. is about as strong as they get.
|> : He's one of the hardest off-season trainers in the league. Check out
|>
|> Tony Mandarich trained pretty hard too. Being a "workout warrior"
|> doesn't automatically lead to success; any correlation between exercise
|> intensity and on-field success is, to a great extent, spurious.
|>
|> : the young receivers coming out of college (the Rocket comes to mind;
|> : there have been others). They train with J.R.
|>
|> : As for speed, that's just silly. Ask any football analyst in the
|> : league and they'll tell you. J.R. may not run the fastest timed
|> : forty, but he has game speed and can break away from almost anyone.
|>
|> They'll tell you the same thing about Sharpe, Rison, Irvin, Brown, et
|> al.
Well, put it this way.
The Detroit lions played both the Pack and the Niners.
Rice had a 50+ yard TD because he pushed the CB off of him
and out raced him.
He's got skillz
|>
|> : All that stuff about J.R. having better QBs is a crock. He has had
|> : great QBs, but when they went down, he continued to play at his
|> : world-class level. 'Niner fans will remember all of the times that
|> : Joe was hurt and guys like Jeff Kemp and Mike Moroski were at QB.
|>
|> A crock? Please reconsider. Niners starters in the Rice era have been
|> Montana (arguably the best QB ever) and Young (no slouch himself; I'm
|> sure I don't have to tell you.) Sure, they went down once in awhile,
|> and no-names filled in. But who has been throwing to Sharpe? Favre
|> looks to be good, but he has only been the starter for 2 seasons.
|> You deserve credit for naming names in making your point. But for your
|> Mike Moroski, I have Don Majkowski. For your Jeff Kemp, I have Perry
|> Kemp allegedly taking heat off Sharpe as the #2 receiver. And it
|> doesn't end there; I can drag out Anthony Dilweg and (gasp) Randy Wright
|> if you want things to get ugly.
And Bono.
|>
|> [snip]
|>
|> : Can't wait for season to start; hope J.R. breaks the record at home.
|>
|> OK then, let me continue by making a point about records. In the 2
|> years that he has had a good QB throwing to him, Sharpe has broken the
|> record for catches in a season, and then broken it again. Favre is no
|> Montana, but even in his prime (which, you must admit, he is past,) Rice
|> couldn't grab 108 balls (or 112, for that matter.) EVEN WITH a better
|> spporting cast throughout his career than Sharpe has ever had. EVEN
|> WITH weaker secondaries covering him. Add up all the evidence I have
|> presented here, and it's plain:
Are you insane?
The Forty niners, unlike the Pack, have a balanced attack.
Rice has never had to catch 108 balls a season.
And out of those receptions, how many were for TD's
Having Favre through to you every other down doesn't make you
a great player.
The total package is better.
Rice is the man.
|> Sharpe is better than Rice.
|> Resting my Case,
(prematurely)
|> GJM
|>
--
Marlon Shows
Marlon Shows
|> Kenneth Kendrick (ken...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
|>
|> : >In <CrILs...@world.std.com> a...@world.std.com (allan b goodrich) writes:
|>
|>
|> : >>To say who is better than who, Which is the better Wide Reciver Sterling
|> : >>Sharpe, or Jerry Rice?
|>
|> : I have to give it to Rice. He has got speed, hands and composure. The
|>
|> Do you mean to say that Sharpe, Rison, etc. lack these attributes?
Not to the same extent as Rice.
|> : strange thing about watching Rice is that it looks as if he is just
|> : cruising along, no big deal, and then you realize he has gone 70 yards
|> : for a touchdown. He makes it look so easy! Irvin should be in this
|>
|> I could give you a nickel for every time Rice has "cruised 70 yards for
|> a TD," and you wouldn't even have bus fare.
I've seen Rice do it more times than Sharpe or Rison.
|>
|> : thread too, but Rice is the best, hands down.
|>
|> : Ken Kendrick
|> : Go Cowboys!!!
|>
--
Marlon Shows
Ronnie Townsend
>I think it's tough to say! I'll go with Sterling because he never had
>a John Taylor or a Brent Jones to take away Double teams. I believe
>Rice is the best Big Play Receiver in the league, but after seeing what
>Sharpe has done with no running game, no quarterback(until now Farve
>is great!) and no other half way decent receivers to take the pressure
>off him. To have over 100 catches 2 years in a row is amazing, but it's
>even more amazing when the OTHER TEAM KNOWS YOU'RE GOING TO THROW TO HIM!!!!
This is an overrated stat to me... Sharpe has a lot of catches but his
average per catch is only slightly more than a good running back can attain.
Any good receiver can catch a bunch of dinks against zone defense... provided
he has the smarts to read that defense and a QB to deliver the ball. That
Rice averages many more TDs and nearly 5 more yards per catch is a very
teling stat indeed... As for the "he has no company" theory that would seem
idiotic coming from the same people who proclaimed Jackie Harris the best
tight end in the league.. The No QB argument is also problematic seeing as
how Rice and Co. have made 300 yards/game passers out of such dignitaries as
Matt Cavanaugh, Jeff Kemp and Steve Bono.... It seems that no matter who is
throwing, Rice and co have made them look like all-pros. I believe Majkowski
had a pro-bowl season before he got greedy and Favre looks like a good QB
except for his penchant for throwing interceptions.. which is probably a
side-effect of looking at Sharpe too much... Sharpe is a true great receiver
but I see no need to diminish what Jerry Rice has done in this league... I
have gone on record that I think Tim Brown is the most talented receiver in
the league right now anyway..
--
Ronnie T.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Systems Engineer Specialist
Amdahl Open Systems Technical Support
Michael Fester
Gregory R. Thiele <gth...@nmsu.edu> wrote:
>How about a fact comparison.
>
>
>RICE FACTS
>*Jerry Rice was NFL MVP in 1988.*
>Jerry Rice has been to 8 Pro Bowls.
>Jerry Rice has been All NFL 7 Seasons.
>Jerry Rice holds the records for most TD receptions in a game (5), in a
> season (22), and in a career (115).
>Jerry Rice is on pace to break the records for career touchdowns (Jim Brown),
> career receiving yards (James Lofton), and career catches (Art Monk).
>Jerry Rice has 2 Super Bowl Rings.
>Jerry Rice was MVP of Super Bowl XXIII.
>Jerry Rice has caught over 100 passes in a season once, over 90 twice.
>IN 1993
>Jerry Rice led the NFL in Touchdowns caught, and total Touchdowns.
>Jerry Rice led the NFL in receiving yards.
>Jerry Rice was All NFL.
>Jerry Rice was in the Pro Bowl.
>Jerry Rice caught 98 passes.
Rice has had HOF QBs throwing to him. One of these QBs managed to win 2
Super Bowls before Rice turned pro. He also had other 49ers lead the league
in catches before Rice turned pro.
>SHARPE FACTS
>Sterling Sharpe has been to 4 Pro Bowls.
>Sterling Sharpe has been All NFL 2 seasons.
>Sterling Sharpe holds the record for most catches in a season (112).
>Sterling Sharpe may break the record for career catches (Art Monk/Jerry Rice).
>Sterling Sharpe has caught over 100 passes in a season twice, over 90 once.
>Sterling Sharpe has a great Nike commercial - "Choo choo baby, choo choo"
>IN 1993
>Sterling Sharpe led the NFL in Passes caught.
>Sterling Sharpe was All NFL.
>Sterling Sharpe was in the Pro Bowl.
>Sterling Sharpe caught 112 passes.
Unless Favre becomes a good QB, Sharpe will have had no reasonable QB getting
him the ball. Too, the 49er offense as a whole has been better than GB's, both
before and after Rice.
>COMPARISON
>Sterling Sharpe consistently catches more passes than Jerry Rice.
>Jerry Rice consistently catches for more yards than Sterling Sharpe.
>Jerry Rice consistently catches for more TDs than Sterling Sharpe.
>Jerry Rice has many more career achievements.
Jerry Rice has much better players around him.
>CONCLUSION
>Jerry Rice is a more versatile receiver. He can catch a lot of passes
>like Sterling Sharpe, he can catch them for more yards, and he can score more.
>I would rather have Jerry Rice on my team in the past, now, and in the
>future - He is only three years older.
Let's put it this way; put Jerry Rice on a bad team (say, a 5-11 team.) Are
you going to claim that he'd have all those records? Would it be your claim
that he'd be on a pace to break all those career yards, TD, etc records, or
would he merely be a very good receiver, underrated at times? If you want to
claim that he'd catch 21 TD passes playing for, eg, Tampa Bay, then I'll
believe you're sincere in the way you're judging the players. I'll simply
doubt your sanity.
Michael Fester
Ronnie Townsend <ron...@uts.amdahl.com> wrote:
>In article <2ttdl7$4...@longwood.cs.ucf.edu> re...@longwood.cs.ucf.edu (Thomas Renzy) writes:
>>I think it's tough to say! I'll go with Sterling because he never had
>>a John Taylor or a Brent Jones to take away Double teams. I believe
>>Rice is the best Big Play Receiver in the league, but after seeing what
>>Sharpe has done with no running game, no quarterback(until now Farve
>>is great!) and no other half way decent receivers to take the pressure
>>off him. To have over 100 catches 2 years in a row is amazing, but it's
>>even more amazing when the OTHER TEAM KNOWS YOU'RE GOING TO THROW TO HIM!!!!
>
>This is an overrated stat to me... Sharpe has a lot of catches but his
>average per catch is only slightly more than a good running back can attain.
>Any good receiver can catch a bunch of dinks against zone defense... provided
Not many good receivers, if Sharpe's the only one that can catch 100 more than
one year.
>he has the smarts to read that defense and a QB to deliver the ball. That
>Rice averages many more TDs and nearly 5 more yards per catch is a very
>teling stat indeed...
Yep. Tells you that Montana and Young are not bad at all.
>As for the "he has no company" theory that would seem
>idiotic coming from the same people who proclaimed Jackie Harris the best
>tight end in the league.. The No QB argument is also problematic seeing as
Hmm, I thought it was Rice's fans who claimed that, because Sterling was the
only threat on the Pack, he caught all those passes. Does it STILL sound
idiotic?
>how Rice and Co. have made 300 yards/game passers out of such dignitaries as
>Matt Cavanaugh, Jeff Kemp and Steve Bono.... It seems that no matter who is
For how many games? And I believe SF had some QB before Rice got there
that was reasonable at throwing passes. What was his name, Idaho?
>throwing, Rice and co have made them look like all-pros. I believe Majkowski
>had a pro-bowl season before he got greedy and Favre looks like a good QB
Yep, one, and even then Sharpe didn't catch 100.
>except for his penchant for throwing interceptions.. which is probably a
>side-effect of looking at Sharpe too much... Sharpe is a true great receiver
>but I see no need to diminish what Jerry Rice has done in this league... I
>have gone on record that I think Tim Brown is the most talented receiver in
>the league right now anyway..
Mike
Todd Powell
>Speaking of Sharpe, Irvin, and Brown, that was a heck of a WR draft, eh?
>Does anyone know the exact positions they were drafted?
Let me check my '88 Heinrich....
Ok. Here it is:
(All first round picks, of course)
#6) Tim Brown
#7) Sterling Sharpe
#11) Michael Irvin
...And how about these?
#2) DE, Neal Smith
#4) OT, Paul Gruber
#12) LB, Ken Harvey
#13) TE, Keith Jackson
#15) WR, Anthony Miller
#19) OG, Randall McDaniel
#23) RB, Lorenzo White
#24) FB, Brad Muster
#26) DE, Scott Davis
All in all, one HECK of a first round. I haven't checked, but can anyone
think of a better one in recent years? Didn't Aikman, B. Sanders,
T.Thomas, D.Thomas, and Humphries come out within about two years of each
other?
Todd
Jack Scott Kaye
: Second, Sharpe got his two 100+ catch seasons with Jackie Harris being
: among the leaders.
Actually that doesn't really count. Harris didn't start all the games in
either of the last two years and none before then. More importantly,
his number of catches was 55 and 42. Hardly amongst the leaders.
Comparing him to other TEs would be unfair too. We are just talking about how
many receptions teammates get. If you do this, it becomes clear that
Green Bay's #2 receiver is Harris, so the only meaningful comparison shows that
he is _not_ amongst the leaders in receptions.
Personally, I'm not saying who is better. I'd be happy with either. They are
both miles ahead of anyone else.
- Jack
Ronnie Townsend
>In article <2u2lq8$7...@chaos.dac.neu.edu>, gmon...@lynx.dac.neu.edu (garry monahan) writes:
>|> Kenneth Kendrick (ken...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
>|>
>|> : >In <CrILs...@world.std.com> a...@world.std.com (allan b goodrich) writes:
>|>
>|>
>|> : >>To say who is better than who, Which is the better Wide Reciver Sterling
>|> : >>Sharpe, or Jerry Rice?
>|>
>|> : I have to give it to Rice. He has got speed, hands and composure. The
>|>
>|> Do you mean to say that Sharpe, Rison, etc. lack these attributes?
>
>Not to the same extent as Rice.
>
>|> : strange thing about watching Rice is that it looks as if he is just
>|> : cruising along, no big deal, and then you realize he has gone 70 yards
>|> : for a touchdown. He makes it look so easy! Irvin should be in this
>|>
>|> I could give you a nickel for every time Rice has "cruised 70 yards for
>|> a TD," and you wouldn't even have bus fare.
>
>I've seen Rice do it more times than Sharpe or Rison.
>
One thing that disturbs me about these threads is how people twist the
arguments to suit their purposes... Sharpe is best because of numbers right?
He produces more on a lesser team so he must be best... and yet Barry Sanders
produces less than a certain kid in Dallas and yet he is best? Make up your
minds guys... Personally I think this year Tim Brown will vault to the head
of the class of all receivers... He has the best combination of speed, hands
moves and size of all the elite receivers... Rice was clearly the best for
a while but clearly he has lost half-a-step and can no longer run by the
best DBs in the league and with 10 years worth of film available on him there
is considerable more stuff to study on him... Sharpe gets too many dinks and
does nothing with them to turn me on so one must give Rice props for turning
so many of those short dumps into big plays... Irvin lacks the speed of
either play and gets it done with guile and strength... I don't rate him
on a par with Rice, Sharpe, Brown and Rison in terms of talent... but one
cannot argue with his success...
Bruce Lattimore
You must be stoned. Sure, the Holmgren offense calls for a lot of "dink"
passes (Sharpe's yard per reception were much better under Lindy Infante),
but Sterling Sharpe is the BEST receiver in the NFL after the catch because
of his strength and running skills. There is no question about this. Like
I have said before, you could make an argument for Rice, Sharpe, or Irvin
as being the best. Tim Brown has to do it more consistently to be on their
level, and Rison is great - but I think you have to see a WR outside of a
run-n-shoot before he can be evaluated. Jeffires, Givins, Pritchard, etc. are
hard to evaluate because of their offensive system (plus Rison). Once again,
I state my position on this argument. Jerry Rice is the best WR ever, but
at this time I believe Sterling Sharpe is the best (then comes Rice, Irvin,
Rison, Brown, and Anthony Miller).
>Ronnie T.
BTW, here are the stats for Sharpe, Rice, Irvin, Rison, Brown, Miller, Andre
Reed, and Cris Carter (just for Viking fans):
**************************************************************************
Sterling Sharpe
1988-GB 55 791 14.4 1 4 -2 -0.5 0 3 1
1989-GB 90 1423 15.8 12 2 25 12.5 0 1 1,TD
1990-GB 67 1105 16.5 6 2 14 7.0 0 0 0
1991-GB 69 961 13.9 4 4 4 1.0 0 1 2
1992-GB 108 1461 13.5 13 4 8 2.0 0 2 1
1993-GB 112 1274 11.4 11 4 8 2.0 0
+playoffs 123 1503 12.2 15 4 8 2.0 0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
501 7015 14.0 47 20 57 2.9 0
+playoffs 512 7244 14.1 51 20 57 2.9 0
NOTE: I don't know the other's playoff stats but I have Sterling's, so I
thought I would post them.
**************************************************************************
Jerry Rice
1985-SF 49 927 18.9 3 6 26 4.3 1 1 0
1986-SF 86 1570 18.3 15 10 72 7.2 1 2 3
1987-SF 65 1078 16.6 22 8 51 6.4 1 2 1
1988-SF 64 1306 20.4 9 13 107 8.2 1 2 1
1989-SF 82 1483 18.1 17 5 33 6.6 0 0 0
1990-SF 100 1502 15.0 13 2 0 0.0 0 1 0
1991-SF 80 1206 15.1 14 1 2 2.0 0 1 0
1992-SF 84 1201 14.3 10 9 58 6.4 1 2 0
1993-SF 98 1503 15.3 15 3 69 23.0 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
708 11776 16.6 118 57 418 7.3 6
**************************************************************************
Michael Irvin
1988-DAL 32 654 20.4 5 1 2 2.0 0 0 0
1989-DAL 26 378 14.5 2 1 6 6.0 0 0 1
1990-DAL 20 413 20.7 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
1991-DAL 93 1523 16.4 8 0 0 0 0 3 1
1992-DAL 78 1396 17.9 7 1 -9 -9.0 0 1 1
1993-DAL 88 1330 15.1 7 2 6 3.0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
337 5694 16.9 34 5 5 1.0 0
**************************************************************************
Andre Rison
1989-IND 52 820 15.8 4 3 18 6.0 0 1 0
1990-ATL 82 1208 14.7 10 0 0 0 0 2 0
1991-ATL 81 976 12.0 12 1 -9 -9.0 0 1 0
1992-ATL 93 1119 12.0 11 0 0 0 0 2 0
1993-ATL 86 1242 14.4 15 0 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
394 5365 13.6 52 4 9 2.3 0
**************************************************************************
Tim Brown
1988-LAI 43 725 16.9 5 14 50 3.6 1 5 1
1989-LAI 1 8 8.0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
1990-LAI 18 265 14.7 3 0 0 0 0 3 0
1991-LAI 36 554 15.4 5 5 16 3.2 0 1 0
1992-LAI 49 693 14.1 7 3 -4 -1.3 0 6 1
1993-LAI 80 1180 14.7 7 2 7 3.5 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
227 3425 15.1 27 24 69 2.9 1
**************************************************************************
Anthony Miller
1988-SD 36 526 14.6 3 7 45 6.4 0 1 0
1989-SD 75 1252 16.7 10 4 21 5.3 0 1 0
1990-SD 63 933 14.8 7 3 13 4.3 0 2 1
1991-SD 44 649 14.8 3 0 0 0 0 1 1
1992-SD 72 1060 14.7 7 1 -1 -1.0 0 0 1,TD
1993-SD 84 1162 13.8 7 0 0 0 0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
374 5582 14.9 37 15 78 5.2 0
**************************************************************************
Andre Reed
1985-BUF 48 637 13.3 4 3 -1 -0.3 1 1 2
1986-BUF 53 739 13.9 7 3 -8 -2.7 0 2 2
1987-BUF 57 752 13.2 5 1 1 -1.0 0 0 0
1988-BUF 71 968 13.6 6 6 64 10.7 0 1 0
1989-BUF 88 1312 14.9 9 2 31 15.5 0 4 0
1990-BUF 71 945 13.3 8 2 23 7.7 0 1 1
1991-BUF 81 1113 13.7 10 12 136 11.3 0 1 0
1992-BUF 65 913 14.0 3 8 65 8.1 0 4 0
1993-BUF 52 854 16.4 6 8 26 3.2 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
586 8233 14.0 58 46 337 7.3 1
**************************************************************************
Cris Carter
1987-PHI 5 84 16.8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
1988-PHI 39 761 19.5 6 1 1 1.0 0 0 1,TD
1989-PHI 45 605 13.4 11 2 16 8.0 0 1 1
1990-MIN 27 413 15.3 3 2 6 3.0 0 0 0
1991-MIN 72 962 13.4 5 0 0 0 0 1 0
1992-MIN 53 681 12.8 6 2 15 3.0 0 1 0
1993-MIN 86 1071 12.5 9 0 0 0 0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
327 4577 14.0 42 7 38 5.4 0
**************************************************************************
Season Average's & High's:
--------------------------
player rec yds avg td high's rec yds avg td
------ --- --- --- -- ---------- --- --- --
Sterling Sharpe 84 1169 14.0 8 112 1461 16.5 13
Jerry Rice 79 1308 16.6 13 100 1570 20.4 22
Michael Irvin 56 949 16.9 6 93 1523 20.7 8
Andre Rison 79 1073 13.6 10 93 1242 15.8 15
Tim Brown 38 571 15.1 5 80 1180 16.9 7
Anthony Miller 62 930 14.9 6 84 1252 16.7 10
Andre Reed 65 915 14.0 6 88 1312 16.4 10
Cris Carter 47 654 14.0 6 86 1071 19.5 11
Michael R. Lutz
completions, not 518. I think that would be a better number for
attempts. Sharpe also had 112 receptions, just over a third of the
receptions.
Mike
Michael Fester
We'll be gracious and assume a) you meant the NFL and b) forgot to mention
that 'some guy named Joe" threw over 300 passes in 8 games for SF that
season.
John Heim
> One thing that disturbs me about these threads is how people twist the
> arguments to suit their purposes... Sharpe is best because of numbers right?
> He produces more on a lesser team so he must be best... and yet Barry Sanders
> produces less than a certain kid in Dallas and yet he is best? Make up your
> minds guys...
Oh, that's a good idea..........................
Okay, I know what we should do, we'll create The Association of All
Usenet Posters Exept Ronnie T.................. We'll all get together
tonight and hammer out an agreement so Ronnie doesn't have to deal with
more than one point of view...................... My house tonight at
7:00................ I'll supply the cookies and milk................
......................................................................
......................................................................
Joel Fern
of days now and this argument is making me sick.
Rice and St. Sharpe are two of the greatest receivers
to play the game and it is clear that at this point in
time no one else playing the game right now comes close.
So why spend all this time and energy cuttin on Rice,
Sharpe, and other good NFL players.
I also don't understand why you all think St. Sharpe
is Farve's only target. I thought Edgar Bennett had
a great year coming out of the backfield for something
like 60 receptions. Also isn't Jackie Harris considered
one of the best tight ends playing the game today. I
think he had over 40 receptions last season. Add a
resepectable number of receptions by Clayton, Brooks,
West, Thompson, Prior, and Chmura and anyone can see
that St. Sharpe was not Farve's only target. In fact
Farve made 318 completions last year. Assuming all
of St. Sharpes receptions came from Farve, Sterling
only saw a third of the passes. On top of all that,
the Packers started to use the running game last season.
Thompson even had a couple of realy good games. Though
St. Sharpe is certainly the Go-To Guy, he was far from
being all of the Packer's offense.
Michael Fester
Ronnie Townsend <ron...@uts.amdahl.com> wrote:
>
>One thing that disturbs me about these threads is how people twist the
>arguments to suit their purposes... Sharpe is best because of numbers right?
>He produces more on a lesser team so he must be best... and yet Barry Sanders
>produces less than a certain kid in Dallas and yet he is best? Make up your
>minds guys... Personally I think this year Tim Brown will vault to the head
>of the class of all receivers... He has the best combination of speed, hands
>moves and size of all the elite receivers... Rice was clearly the best for
Yet he's been in the league as long as Sharpe, and hasn't done as much.
>a while but clearly he has lost half-a-step and can no longer run by the
>best DBs in the league and with 10 years worth of film available on him there
>is considerable more stuff to study on him... Sharpe gets too many dinks and
>does nothing with them to turn me on so one must give Rice props for turning
Ah, he doesn't "turn you on", so he's not as good as Rice.
>so many of those short dumps into big plays... Irvin lacks the speed of
>either play and gets it done with guile and strength... I don't rate him
>on a par with Rice, Sharpe, Brown and Rison in terms of talent... but one
>cannot argue with his success...
How strange. Irvin has a better yards-per-catch than any of the above.
Michael Fester
Ashu Rege <re...@bongo.CS.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>In article <Crppp...@tfs.com>, Michael Fester <fes...@tfs.com> wrote:
>
> Maybe you should read what I said. I said the Niners running game
> was not overwhelmingly good but much better than the Packers. Why don't
> you stick to the stats ? The Packers averaged about 50-75 passes more
> per season from 89 to 92 and ran the ball about 75-80 times less.
>
> Just about every team with a winning record runs the ball more than
> teams with losing records.
>
> >> To re-iterate what I said earlier, Sharpe's stats have a more than
> >> plausible explanation. So you need something better than the usual
> >> stats to prove he's better than Rice. I personally don't think so,
> >> but my opinion is relatively subjective.
> >
> >You have also completely ignored that, with the exception of Sharpe,
> EVERY other
> >leader in # passes caught, yards rushed, or total passing yards has had one
> >or more teammate in the top 10-15 in one or more category. Care to explain
> >why Sharpe is the exception? Why is it that Sharpe "gets more opportunities"
> >while the other leaders, er, well, uh, what DO they do? What is the "much
> >more plausible explanation" that puts Sharpe at the top, without any other
> >weapons, yet when Rice (or other leader) is at the top, those others weapons
> >don't seem to have had the effect of "denying Rice the ball".
>
> First, Sharpe is NOT the exception. There are (and have been) many offenses
> which are carried by one player - Detroit with Barry Sanders, Bills with
> OJ, Largent with the Seahawks etc.
Hmm, I just glanced for the last 2 years, and found (surprise!) that the
Lions had receivers in the top 20 each of the last 2 years; sometimes more than
one.
I'm sure the rest of your assertions are MUCH more reliable, though. After
all, Seattle never had any decent running backs from, say Penn State.
> Second, Sharpe got his two 100+ catch seasons with Jackie Harris being
> among the leaders.
REALLY? Leaders for tight ends, perhaps, but that's about 40 catches a year
off leaders, period.
> Sharpe gets more opportunities because his teams pass more. And no
> matter how mediocre the QB, the % of passes he completes is around 55.
> How much more simplified do you want me to make it ?
You could TRY getting it right. And, if team a) completes 55% of its passes
and team b) completes 62%, where's the cutoff for completions?
> As for your comment about Rice not beign denied the ball, so what are
> you saying : Rice has the stats to compare with Sharpe's or he doesn't ?
He's not being denied the ball; he doesn't catch as many as Sharpe. He's
on a better offense. Put him on, say, Tampa, and see how he does.
> My original post was objecting to someone crowning Sharpe the best because
> of the large number of passes he catches. Rice catches about 15 passes
> less per season than Sharpe. The Packers pass about 50-60 times more
This, of course, is nonsense, as you no doubt know. What? You DIDN'T know
that?
> per season compared to the Niners. A very large number of these have
> Sharpe as the primary receiver, the Niners don't need to do that - they
> can pass to Rice or Taylor or Jones or Watters/Craig or Rathman. Plus
> Rice has missed more plays per season than Sharpe because the Niners
> have had the game in hand more often.
> To summarize since I don't seem to be getting the point across :
You don't even seem to be lookin things up.
> Sharpe is up there with Rice, Rison, Brown and Irvin. To say he is
> better because he catches more passes inspite of being the only star
> on his team is to not account for other factors like - 1) lack of
> a running game, 2) being on a team which passes more because it's
> down in the 4th quarter more often.
It seems you STILL won't address a) that all the other leaders seem to have
OTHER leaders on the same team b) the 49ers DO pass more often than Green Bay.
What? You looked at the stats and saw they were close, but Green Bay came
out about 20 passes ahead? Oh, I SEE. YOU forgot about about Young's
SCRAMBLING. See, that happens on a PASS PLAY where EVERYONE'S COVERED (yes,
including Rice). So, the 49ers DO pass more, but once Young crosses the line
of scrimmage, it goes in the book as a RUNNING play.
> You can make the argument that Sharpe is double-teamed often and still
> makes the catches . I never said he was not one of the best receivers.
> Rice is also double-teamed often and still makes the catches.
Or Young just takes off.
Ronnie Townsend
>>Sharpe gets too many dinks and does nothing with them to turn me on
>
>You must be stoned. Sure, the Holmgren offense calls for a lot of "dink"
>passes (Sharpe's yard per reception were much better under Lindy Infante),
>but Sterling Sharpe is the BEST receiver in the NFL after the catch because
>of his strength and running skills. There is no question about this. Like
You must be blind... You post all these stats which indicate that Rice gets
more yardage and more touchdowns on fewer catches (while running the same
offense that Sharpe is in) and you claim Sharpe is better. To be more productive
with fewer opportunities says better receiver to me..
>I have said before, you could make an argument for Rice, Sharpe, or Irvin
>as being the best. Tim Brown has to do it more consistently to be on their
>level, and Rison is great - but I think you have to see a WR outside of a
>run-n-shoot before he can be evaluated. Jeffires, Givins, Pritchard, etc. are
>hard to evaluate because of their offensive system (plus Rison). Once again,
>I state my position on this argument. Jerry Rice is the best WR ever, but
>at this time I believe Sterling Sharpe is the best (then comes Rice, Irvin,
>Rison, Brown, and Anthony Miller).
This "system" argument is bunk. If a guy is open and catches passes and scores
a lot of TDs then he's a good receiver. Period. Irvin doesn't get into the
end zone enough to be ranked at the top but it is interesting that his
yards-per-catch average is light-years ahead... even without being a burner.
> Season Average's & High's:
> --------------------------
>player rec yds avg td high's rec yds avg td
>------ --- --- --- -- ---------- --- --- --
>Sterling Sharpe 84 1169 14.0 8 112 1461 16.5 13
>Jerry Rice 79 1308 16.6 13 100 1570 20.4 22
>Michael Irvin 56 949 16.9 6 93 1523 20.7 8
>Andre Rison 79 1073 13.6 10 93 1242 15.8 15
>Tim Brown 38 571 15.1 5 80 1180 16.9 7
>Anthony Miller 62 930 14.9 6 84 1252 16.7 10
>Andre Reed 65 915 14.0 6 88 1312 16.4 10
>Cris Carter 47 654 14.0 6 86 1071 19.5 11
Michael Irvin and Jerry Rice average nearly 3 more yards per catch than Sharpe.
That is huge! Rice averages 5 more TDs per season... again on fewer catches...
So the only thing Sharpe does is have more passes thrown in his direction and
catch more passes... and then not by much.. over Rice and Rison. If I'm a
coach, I'll give back those five extra receptions per season anyday in exchange
for those five extra touchdowns and three more yards per catch!!!!
No rational person could look at these numbers and claim any kind of statistical
advantage for Sharpe.
Clifford T. Tanaka
better, Sterling.. Joel Fe...@ceco.ceco.com (121)
> I believe Farve had 518 completions. Where
> Sharpe caught 112. That is 21.6%. Hardly
> all of the ofense.
Gee, 518 completions. That's over 30 a game! Man, Favre puts Marino,
Montana, Elway,etc. to shame! He must be completing close to 100% of
his passes!
Cliff.
John Heim
> >Actually,what seems to happen is that a team with several good players at the
> >skill positions control the ball for more plays. The 9ers have run as many as
> >a couple hundred more offensive plays than Green Bay for a couple years.
>
> When you have a good team, you are ahead that much more often and you
> (a) run the ball more and (b) pull your starters in meaningless 4th
> quarters. The Niners have been a very good team the last so many years
> and have passed much less than the Packers have. Which translates to
> fewer opportunities for Rice.
Now, you don't really think that the few plays Rice missed over the
years because the 49ers were in the process of a blowout outnumber all
the opportunities Sharpe missed because Majik fumbled the ball or
Favre threw an INT do you? That's ludicrous.
You want to claim that the 49ers pull their starters so early I'd like
to see you account for all the scoring Rice did vs the Falcons in
1992.
> To re-iterate what I said earlier, Sharpe's stats have a more than
> plausible explanation.
Uh-ah. Not *more* plausible by any means. There's another possible
explanation but simplest and most likely explanation is that Sharpe
*earned* his stats.
> So you need something better than the usual
> stats to prove he's better than Rice.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you're saying Sharpe's stats
aren't clearly better than Rice's then I would agree. If you're saying
that even if Sharpe's stats are better he doesn't deserve to get the
nod then I think you are full of it.
> I personally don't think so,
> but my opinion is relatively subjective.
You know people are going to be able to turn this around on you. Next
time you get into a "How great was Montana" debate they're going to be
able to say "Well, Montana got to throw to Rice. And he had that
great running game. etc..." Let's adjust Montana's career stats to
reflect these facts, okay? I guess that would make Marino the best QB
of the 80s.
John Heim
> >Arrrrgh!!!! Do even say crap like this. If you're the only good
> >offensive player on a bad team the entire defense of the opponents is
> >going to be set up to stop you. So putting up great stats in spite of
> >this may be *more* impressive than if you're on a great team. (And
> >you were doing so well up to that point too.)
>
> A good player on a good team gets fewer oppurtunities, but less
> opposition. A good player on a bad team gets more oppurtunities,
> and more opposition. This makes it impossible to use stats to
> say who is better than who, in this situation.
Agreed.
I would add that it's not even clear that a good player on a bad team
gets more opportunities. Bad teams tend to run fewer plays than good
teams.
John Heim
> Iput my vote for Jerry Rice, The other receivers are not even close
> to him, he is and always [will] be the best.
Thank you Jean Dixon.
John Heim
[...]
> CONCLUSION
> Jerry Rice is a more versatile receiver. He can catch a lot of passes
> like Sterling Sharpe, he can catch them for more yards, and he can score more.
None of this follows from what you've said above. You conclude that
Jerry Rice can catch a lot of passes like Sharpe apparently because
he's come close to Sharpe's best a few times. Yet, you *don't* conclude
that Sterling Sharpe can catch passes for lots of yardage in spite of
the fact that he's come close Rice's best a few times.
> I would rather have Jerry Rice on my team in the past, now, and in the
> future - He is only three years older.
>
> OVERALL
> Jerry Rice has had, and will have a better career than Sterling Sharpe.
May I borrow your crystal ball? I'd like to know what the market is
going to do in the next few years.
> Jerry Rice had a better 1993 season than Sterling Sharpe.
>
> Jerry Rice is a better receiver than Sterling Sharpe.
You are entitled to your opinion. Just don't try to imply that you've
proven anything.
> No other receiver compares with Jerry Rice and Sterling Sharpe.
> They are a step above all others.
>
> GREG
Ronnie Townsend
>In <1994Jun21....@uts.amdahl.com> ron...@uts.amdahl.com writes:
>
>> One thing that disturbs me about these threads is how people twist the
>> arguments to suit their purposes... Sharpe is best because of numbers right?
>> He produces more on a lesser team so he must be best... and yet Barry Sanders
>> produces less than a certain kid in Dallas and yet he is best? Make up your
>> minds guys...
>
>Oh, that's a good idea..........................
>
>Okay, I know what we should do, we'll create The Association of All
>Usenet Posters Exept Ronnie T.................. We'll all get together
>tonight and hammer out an agreement so Ronnie doesn't have to deal with
>more than one point of view...................... My house tonight at
we have our biennal Marino vs Montana argument... some will argue that marino
is better because of numbers... others will argue that Montana is the man
because of winning and championshiops and minor shit like that. Others will
cite Elway and his ability to carry a bad team... Then we argue whither
Smith, Sanders or Thomas... Again numbers versus winning and ability to
carry a team... Then there is the Rice/Sharpe/Irvin/Rison argument.. numbers
versus winning versus ability to carry a team...
So... at QB.. Marino has the numbers, Montana has the rings and the winning
percentage Elway has... well... the teeth?
I like to point out that Marino's numbers dropped off gradually as his
receivers got older. Montana's numbers have been great throughout his career.
Elway's teeth have always been prominent. Marino carried his team to the
Super Bowl once... and lost... bad... Elway carried his team to the Super Bowl
three times and lost... bad... Montana.. well let's skip that argument. The
first Super Bowl team Joe played on had no running game and a questionable
defense and still won it all... I'd say that qualifies as carryiing a team.
Now at RB.... Emmitt has the numbers, Emmitt has the rings and Emmitt has
carried his team to the pinnacle of the sport... twice. Especially this
past season and did so while hurting. Barry has been to the NFC championship
game once and Thurman has... well... nice teeth? So the argument at running
back is really no argument at all. By whatever yardstick one uses, Emmitt comes
out on top. Yards/carry, yards/game, touchdowns, receptions.. choose your
weapon.
..
So that brings us to wide reciever. Sharpe leads in once category... catches..
Rice is the hands-down leader in TDs and leads Sharpe by a large margin in
yards/patch. Irvin leads both in yards/catch but doesn't get into the endzone
much. Rison scores more than Sharpe or Irvin but has a lower yards/catch
averag and some want to discount his stats because he plays in the R&S even
though he, like Sharpe has clowns playing Qb and no star quality wideout on
the other side. In this year's playoffs and the Super Bowl, many of Dallas'
big plays came from Harper, not Irvin... Irvin does suffer somewhat from
playing on perhaps the NFL's most balanced offense and will get fewer chances
in goal-line situations as a result... That could explain his low-TD totals.
Dallas has a monstrous o-line, Emmitt Smith in the backfield and a 6'6" tight
end... why would they throw to wide receiver on the goal line? Rice and Sharpe
get many such opportunies because that's the Bill Walsh offense. Overall I
would say that Rice is still half-a-notch above the rest of the receivers in
the league.. He's losing a little each year but it's not like someone has
stepped forward to exceed him... Tim Brown might if he had a real quarterback
but forget that now that he re-signed with LA.
John Heim
> you going to claim that he'd have all those records? Would it be your claim
> that he'd be on a pace to break all those career yards, TD, etc records, or
> would he merely be a very good receiver, underrated at times? If you want to
> claim that he'd catch 21 TD passes playing for, eg, Tampa Bay, then I'll
> believe you're sincere in the way you're judging the players. I'll simply
> doubt your sanity.
See, I don't think we should be questioning Rice's accomplishments.
He's earned the right to be considered one of the best of all time.
I believe a Packer fan started this thread. I believe that was a
mistake. All it accomplishes is it forces Rice fans to diss Sharpe.
That annoys me to a great degree. As a Packer fan myself, I humbly
request that Packer fans let this thread drop pronto.
Ashu Rege
>Lions had receivers in the top 20 each of the last 2 years;
sometimes more than one.
So, from top 10-15 you want receivers in the top 20. Makes your
argument weaker, don't you think ? In 91 for example, GB had Workman
as the second leading receiver (in receptions) with 46. Detroit
had Perriman with 52. If you are trying to sell me that Sanders is
not _the_ guy in Detroit's offense I'm not buying.
>I'm sure the rest of your assertions are MUCH more reliable, though. After
>all, Seattle never had any decent running backs from, say Penn State.
Okay, I forgot about Warner. But there were seasons he was not as
productive and Largent was the guy.
>> Second, Sharpe got his two 100+ catch seasons with Jackie Harris being
>> among the leaders.
>
>REALLY? Leaders for tight ends, perhaps, but that's about 40 catches a year
>off leaders, period.
In 92 Rice had 84 catches and the 2nd leading receiver was Brent Jones
with 45. What's your point ?
>> Sharpe gets more opportunities because his teams pass more. And no
>> matter how mediocre the QB, the % of passes he completes is around 55.
>> How much more simplified do you want me to make it ?
>
>You could TRY getting it right. And, if team a) completes 55% of its passes
>and team b) completes 62%, where's the cutoff for completions?
I did the analysis in my first post on this thread. Between 89 and 92,
Sharpe caught fewer passes than Rice and SF completed a few more passes
than GB. If you took the ratio of passes caught to completions, Sharpe
comes out about .005 ahead (I don't recall the exact figure). Which
is hardly a dominating figure. And DOES NOT take into account the
fact that Sharpe is the primary receiver on many more plays than
Rice is.
>> My original post was objecting to someone crowning Sharpe the best because
>> of the large number of passes he catches. Rice catches about 15 passes
>> less per season than Sharpe. The Packers pass about 50-60 times more
>
>This, of course, is nonsense, as you no doubt know. What? You DIDN'T know
>that?
Are you denying statistics ? Or are you claiming I cooked them up ?
>> per season compared to the Niners. A very large number of these have
>> Sharpe as the primary receiver, the Niners don't need to do that - they
>> can pass to Rice or Taylor or Jones or Watters/Craig or Rathman. Plus
>> Rice has missed more plays per season than Sharpe because the Niners
>> have had the game in hand more often.
>
>> To summarize since I don't seem to be getting the point across :
>
>You don't even seem to be lookin things up.
I got my numbers from The Sports Enyclopedia by Neft and Cohen and
PFW. Where are you getting yours ?
>> Sharpe is up there with Rice, Rison, Brown and Irvin. To say he is
>> better because he catches more passes inspite of being the only star
>> on his team is to not account for other factors like - 1) lack of
>> a running game, 2) being on a team which passes more because it's
>> down in the 4th quarter more often.
>
>It seems you STILL won't address a) that all the other leaders seem to have
>OTHER leaders on the same team b) the 49ers DO pass more often than Green Bay.
>What? You looked at the stats and saw they were close, but Green Bay came
>out about 20 passes ahead? Oh, I SEE. YOU forgot about about Young's
>SCRAMBLING. See, that happens on a PASS PLAY where EVERYONE'S COVERED (yes,
>including Rice). So, the 49ers DO pass more, but once Young crosses the line
>of scrimmage, it goes in the book as a RUNNING play.
Young has been a regular starter only since 92. The stats I'm giving
are from 89 to 92. You can leave out 92 if you like, and you will find
the results even stronger. GB has passed more. Even in 92, Favre
attempted 471 passes and scrambled 47 times. Young passed 402 times
and scrambled 76 times. Let's see,that means 40 more pass attempts
for GB. And 34 more completions. Maybe you should look up the
stats first.
>> You can make the argument that Sharpe is double-teamed often and still
>> makes the catches . I never said he was not one of the best receivers.
>> Rice is also double-teamed often and still makes the catches.
>
>Or Young just takes off.
See above.
Ashu Rege
John Heim <HE...@MACC.WISC.EDU> wrote:
>In <2u4sd2$3...@agate.berkeley.edu> re...@bongo.CS.Berkeley.EDU writes:
>
>> When you have a good team, you are ahead that much more often and you
>> (a) run the ball more and (b) pull your starters in meaningless 4th
>> quarters. The Niners have been a very good team the last so many years
>> and have passed much less than the Packers have. Which translates to
>> fewer opportunities for Rice.
>
>Now, you don't really think that the few plays Rice missed over the
>years because the 49ers were in the process of a blowout outnumber all
>the opportunities Sharpe missed because Majik fumbled the ball or
>Favre threw an INT do you? That's ludicrous.
Why do you selectively pick comments from my posts ? I gave an
analysis of the number of passes Green Bay has attempted AND completed.
And the same for SF. The ratio of passes caught to passes completed
for Sharpe and Rice is almost the same. WITHOUT factoring in the
plays Rice has missed. Note that the plays Majik or Favre screwed
up on are EXCLUDED . That is I am only counting completions,
not attempts. And as has already been mentioned, Rice has more
yardage per catch, more TD's.
>You want to claim that the 49ers pull their starters so early I'd like
>to see you account for all the scoring Rice did vs the Falcons in
>1992.
I assume you're talking about the "California Trophy" match. The
starters were pulled early in the 4th quarter. Rice had a gazillion
yards and TD's by then. The Niners were up 56-10 before the end
of the THIRD quarter. Thanks for bringing back those memories :-)
>> To re-iterate what I said earlier, Sharpe's stats have a more than
>> plausible explanation.
>
>Uh-ah. Not *more* plausible by any means. There's another possible
>explanation but simplest and most likely explanation is that Sharpe
>*earned* his stats.
>
>> So you need something better than the usual
>> stats to prove he's better than Rice.
>
>I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you're saying Sharpe's stats
>aren't clearly better than Rice's then I would agree. If you're saying
>that even if Sharpe's stats are better he doesn't deserve to get the
>nod then I think you are full of it.
All I am saying is the number of catches per season is not a good
enough measure to say one is better than the other.
>> I personally don't think so,
>> but my opinion is relatively subjective.
>
>You know people are going to be able to turn this around on you. Next
>time you get into a "How great was Montana" debate they're going to be
>able to say "Well, Montana got to throw to Rice. And he had that
>great running game. etc..." Let's adjust Montana's career stats to
>reflect these facts, okay? I guess that would make Marino the best QB
>of the 80s.
I'm not going to touch this. It's been hashed to death and I'm
getting tired of the Rice/Sharpe debate.
Ashu Rege
Michael Fester
Ronnie Townsend <ron...@uts.amdahl.com> wrote:
>In article <Crq90...@news.cis.umn.edu> br...@grouper.micro.umn.edu (Bruce Lattimore) writes:
>>>Sharpe gets too many dinks and does nothing with them to turn me on
>>
>>You must be stoned. Sure, the Holmgren offense calls for a lot of "dink"
>>passes (Sharpe's yard per reception were much better under Lindy Infante),
>>but Sterling Sharpe is the BEST receiver in the NFL after the catch because
>>of his strength and running skills. There is no question about this. Like
>You must be blind... You post all these stats which indicate that Rice gets
>more yardage and more touchdowns on fewer catches (while running the same
>offense that Sharpe is in) and you claim Sharpe is better. To be more productive
>with fewer opportunities says better receiver to me..
Unless, of course, you are double-and-triple covered all the time.
>>I have said before, you could make an argument for Rice, Sharpe, or Irvin
>>as being the best. Tim Brown has to do it more consistently to be on their
>>level, and Rison is great - but I think you have to see a WR outside of a
>>run-n-shoot before he can be evaluated. Jeffires, Givins, Pritchard, etc. are
>>hard to evaluate because of their offensive system (plus Rison). Once again,
>>I state my position on this argument. Jerry Rice is the best WR ever, but
>>at this time I believe Sterling Sharpe is the best (then comes Rice, Irvin,
>>Rison, Brown, and Anthony Miller).
>This "system" argument is bunk. If a guy is open and catches passes and scores
>a lot of TDs then he's a good receiver. Period. Irvin doesn't get into the
Then how is Tim Brown the best receiver of the group? He's among the lowest
of the group.
>end zone enough to be ranked at the top but it is interesting that his
>yards-per-catch average is light-years ahead... even without being a burner.
>> Season Average's & High's:
>> --------------------------
>>player rec yds avg td high's rec yds avg td
>>------ --- --- --- -- ---------- --- --- --
>>Sterling Sharpe 84 1169 14.0 8 112 1461 16.5 13
>>Jerry Rice 79 1308 16.6 13 100 1570 20.4 22
>>Michael Irvin 56 949 16.9 6 93 1523 20.7 8
>>Andre Rison 79 1073 13.6 10 93 1242 15.8 15
>>Tim Brown 38 571 15.1 5 80 1180 16.9 7
>>Anthony Miller 62 930 14.9 6 84 1252 16.7 10
>>Andre Reed 65 915 14.0 6 88 1312 16.4 10
>>Cris Carter 47 654 14.0 6 86 1071 19.5 11
>
>Michael Irvin and Jerry Rice average nearly 3 more yards per catch than Sharpe.
>That is huge! Rice averages 5 more TDs per season... again on fewer catches...
>So the only thing Sharpe does is have more passes thrown in his direction and
>catch more passes... and then not by much.. over Rice and Rison. If I'm a
>coach, I'll give back those five extra receptions per season anyday in exchange
>for those five extra touchdowns and three more yards per catch!!!!
>
>No rational person could look at these numbers and claim any kind of statistical
>advantage for Sharpe.
All this from a guy who says Tim Brown is the best in the game. Then refutes
it with his unique brand of, er, "reasoning". Of all the recivers above,
Brown has the lowest season high in cathes and TDs. Lowest AVERAGE in catches
and TDs. 3rd lowest in avg yds/season. 2nd lowest in most yards per season.
But, to quote YOU
"This "system" argument is bunk. If a guy is open and catches passes and scores
a lot of TDs then he's a good receiver. Period."
Now, those of us who think Tim Brown belongs in a discussion of best
receiver might point out that he's a really BAD offensive system, and he
suffers the same handicaps as Sharpe; namely, no one to take the pressure
off. But, we, again, we know from your posts that Tim Brown is the best.
Or are you misquoting yourself?
Gregory R. Thiele
still makes all those catches? Last I saw, Rice was double teamed all the
time also. No defense is foolish enough to cover Sharpe or Rice with a
single man.
Michael Fester
Ashu Rege <re...@bongo.CS.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>In article <2u2lq8$7...@chaos.dac.neu.edu>,
>garry monahan <gmon...@lynx.dac.neu.edu> wrote:
> >: strange thing about watching Rice is that it looks as if he is just
> >: cruising along, no big deal, and then you realize he has gone 70 yards
> >: for a touchdown. He makes it look so easy! Irvin should be in this
> >
> >I could give you a nickel for every time Rice has "cruised 70 yards for
> >a TD," and you wouldn't even have bus fare.
> >
>
> known in the NFL ? I always suspected that.
? Strongest arm?
> P.S. We should have a registry of people who think Montana made
> Rice great and another of those who think vice versa. But wait
Maybe those Super Bowl rings Joe wears without Rice's contributions might
give you a clue.
> a minute, it's all Bill Walsh's genius ... I forgot ... or was it
> the supporting cast ... damn, I'm all confused now.
We suspected as much.
Michael Fester
Ashu Rege <re...@bongo.CS.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>In article <2u4buk$3...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
>John Heim <HE...@MACC.WISC.EDU> wrote:
> >In <2u3o90$o...@agate.berkeley.edu> re...@bongo.CS.Berkeley.EDU writes:
> >
> The Niners running game has not been overwhelmingly good but it's
> been far better than anything the Packers have had. The only year
Riiight, and, as stated, the better receivers seem to have better
supporting casts.
> the 49ers didn't have a decent running game was 91. In 90 the
> running game was also not stellar, and guess what, Rice caught
> 100 passes. Interesting correlation what ? In 92 and 93 they
> had Rickey Watters.
Step 1 to prove argument;
1) pick single data point
2) claim "correlation" = 100%
3) quit.
> I agree. But I certainly am not going to prove it with stats (though
Agreed. In fact, looking at the below, you don't even seem to be AWARE of
them.
> they are all stacked for Rice). All you have to do is count the
I think that's the QB stacked for Rice. Unless you want to argue that you'd
rather have had the GREEN BAY QBs on the 49ers than the ones SF had. If you
do, then I'll admit your sincerity in your arguments, but I'll question
your sanity.
> number of times Montana has delivered a 10 yard slant to Rice in
> perfect stride and Rice has broken tackles to go all the way.
How many is that? Now, TAYLOR did it twice in a game, but I don't think
that's what you mean.
> P.S. Rice has also been much more durable than Sharpe.
Step 2 to prove argument
1) make mistaken assertion
2) hope no one remembers statements to the contrary ("Rice sits out the
the 4th quarter")
3) quit.
Uh, how many games has Sharpe missed in his career?
Oh, wait, NOW you're arguing that Sharpe's catches are MORE remarkable
BECAUSE HE'S MISSING GAMES! (he's not, but that's another matter.)
Which is it?
Gregory R. Thiele
The NFL's best receivers:
1) Jerry Rice
2) Sterling Sharpe
3) Andre Rison
4) Anthony Miller
5) Michael Irvin
6) Andre Reed
7) Tim Brown
8) Webster Slaughter
9) Rob Moore
10) Haywood Jeffires
This is my opinion.
Post your opinion.
Don't flame this one.
Gregory R. Thiele
Michael Fester
Ashu Rege <re...@bongo.CS.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>In article <Crr4x...@tfs.com>, Michael Fester <fes...@tfs.com> wrote:
> >In article <2u53mp$5...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
> >Ashu Rege <re...@bongo.CS.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
> >>In article <Crppp...@tfs.com>, Michael Fester <fes...@tfs.com> wrote:
> >>
>>> First, Sharpe is NOT the exception. There are (and have been) many offenses
> >> which are carried by one player - Detroit with Barry Sanders, Bills with
> >> OJ, Largent with the Seahawks etc.
> >
> >Hmm,I just glanced for the last 2 years, and found (surprise!) that the
> >Lions had receivers in the top 20 each of the last 2 years;
> sometimes more than one.
>
> So, from top 10-15 you want receivers in the top 20.
Hunh?
> Makes your
> argument weaker, don't you think ? In 91 for example, GB had Workman
> as the second leading receiver (in receptions) with 46. Detroit
> had Perriman with 52. If you are trying to sell me that Sanders is
> not _the_ guy in Detroit's offense I'm not buying.
Looks like the last 2 years, Detroit has had receivers in the top 15, though.
(Not to point out the difference between being able to rank high in
rushing without more offensive support, and being able to rank high in
pass-catching; frankly, I was surprised that so many top runners had
receivers that rated high.)
> >I'm sure the rest of your assertions are MUCH more reliable, though. After
> >all, Seattle never had any decent running backs from, say Penn State.
>
> Okay, I forgot about Warner. But there were seasons he was not as
> productive and Largent was the guy.
Hmm, Blades seems to have had decent year or two.
> >REALLY? Leaders for tight ends, perhaps, but that's about 40 catches a year
> >off leaders, period.
>
> In 92 Rice had 84 catches and the 2nd leading receiver was Brent Jones
> with 45.
And how did Watters do in 92? (Hey, I like that!)
> What's your point ?
Seems obvious, doesn't it? Looks like Rice had a pretty decent RB on the
team.
> >> My original post was objecting to someone crowning Sharpe the best because
> >> of the large number of passes he catches. Rice catches about 15 passes
> >> less per season than Sharpe. The Packers pass about 50-60 times more
> >
> >This, of course, is nonsense, as you no doubt know. What? You DIDN'T know
> >that?
>
> Are you denying statistics ? Or are you claiming I cooked them up ?
Quick glance at the 92 and 93 stats. I don't deny that Rice catches about
15 fewer balls a season.
> >> To summarize since I don't seem to be getting the point across :
> >
> >You don't even seem to be lookin things up.
>
> I got my numbers from The Sports Enyclopedia by Neft and Cohen and
> PFW. Where are you getting yours ?
Sporting News Football Register ('93). Pro Preview 93. Finals stats for the
93 season as presented in the SF Chronicle.
> >It seems you STILL won't address a) that all the other leaders seem to have
>>OTHER leaders on the same team b) the 49ers DO pass more often than Green Bay.
> >What? You looked at the stats and saw they were close, but Green Bay came
> >out about 20 passes ahead? Oh, I SEE. YOU forgot about about Young's
> >SCRAMBLING. See, that happens on a PASS PLAY where EVERYONE'S COVERED (yes,
> >including Rice). So, the 49ers DO pass more, but once Young crosses the line
> >of scrimmage, it goes in the book as a RUNNING play.
> Young has been a regular starter only since 92. The stats I'm giving
> are from 89 to 92. You can leave out 92 if you like, and you will find
> the results even stronger. GB has passed more. Even in 92, Favre
> attempted 471 passes and scrambled 47 times. Young passed 402 times
> and scrambled 76 times. Let's see,that means 40 more pass attempts
> for GB. And 34 more completions. Maybe you should look up the
> stats first.
I did. You are either unaware of, or deliberately ignoring the stats.
1992 GB 527 pass attempts, SF 480. Looks like a difference of 47. But wait,
there's those 29 more scrambles for Young. Difference of 18. But wait! 15
scrambles for Bono, 8 for Majik! Down to 11 now.
Where's the 50-60 more pass plays?
> >> You can make the argument that Sharpe is double-teamed often and still
> >> makes the catches . I never said he was not one of the best receivers.
> >> Rice is also double-teamed often and still makes the catches.
> >Or Young just takes off.
> See above.
I did.
Bruce Lattimore
>Rice is the hands-down leader in TDs and leads Sharpe by a large margin in
>yards/patch. Irvin leads both in yards/catch but doesn't get into the endzone
>much. Rison scores more than Sharpe or Irvin but has a lower yards/catch
>averag and some want to discount his stats because he plays in the R&S even
>though he, like Sharpe has clowns playing Qb and no star quality wideout on
>the other side. In this year's playoffs and the Super Bowl, many of Dallas'
>big plays came from Harper, not Irvin... Irvin does suffer somewhat from
>playing on perhaps the NFL's most balanced offense and will get fewer chances
>in goal-line situations as a result... That could explain his low-TD totals.
>Dallas has a monstrous o-line, Emmitt Smith in the backfield and a 6'6" tight
>end... why would they throw to wide receiver on the goal line? Rice and Sharpe
>get many such opportunies because that's the Bill Walsh offense. Overall I
>would say that Rice is still half-a-notch above the rest of the receivers in
>the league.. He's losing a little each year but it's not like someone has
>stepped forward to exceed him... Tim Brown might if he had a real quarterback
>but forget that now that he re-signed with LA.
Like I have said and nothing more, Jerry is the best ever. That's why his
average catches are 2nd to Sharpe, yards receiving is 1st, and TD receptions
are 1st. But I said now, Sterling is better. I don't really like to bring
up stats (because they can be misleading or not tell the whole story) BUT
over the last two years Sterling has more catches and more yards receiving,
while having just one less TD than Jerry. However, with John Taylor, Brent
Jones, and Rickey Watters to take some of the attention from Jerry, he
doesn't see nearly the double and triple-teaming that Sterling does. Sterling
has had Jackie Harris and that is pretty much it. It's very close, but once
again: Rice = best ever AND Sharpe = best now. One more note: Sterling played
most of the 1993 season with a serious turf toe injury, which required off-
season surgery, and about 6 months of rehab. In 1992 Sterling missed like
6 consecutive weeks of practice (like last season), yet performed on Sunday's.
Hopefully, he will be healthy this season.
>Ronnie T.
Bruce Lattimore
their medicore QBs, and SF completing 64% because of their great
QBs - of course, this assumption wouldn't help Jerry get more
catchable balls and perfect passes than Sharpe with his mediocre
QBs ]
So, on one hand, you are assuming that Green Bay QBs have only completed
55% of their passes because they have mediocre QBs, and the 49ers have
completed 64% of their passes because they have great QBs. After making
this assumption, you state that - based on these assumptions - Rice catches
a larger percentage of balls than Sharpe. On the other hand, you say that
Green Bay goes to Sharpe more. Well, your assumption is incorrect. True,
SF has completed a larger % of passes, but not by as much as you assume.
SF completion % over the last 2 seasons: 66.9%
GB completion % over the last 2 seasons: 62.8%
This debunks your assumption, and your assumption was a `best case scenario'.
> P.S. Rice has also been much more durable than Sharpe.
This is ridiculous. Sharpe has been hurt, but he NEVER misses a game. I know
that he hasn't missed a game since his rookie season in 1988, and I believe he
never missed one that year due to injury. Thus, to the best of my knowledge,
Sterling has never missed a game due to injury. Can the same be said of Jerry?
I know Jerry is durable also, but to say Sterling isn't as durable is totally
ridiculous.
Marlon Shows
|> How about a fact comparison.
|>
|>
|> RICE FACTS
|> *Jerry Rice was NFL MVP in 1988.*
|> Jerry Rice has been to 8 Pro Bowls.
|> Jerry Rice has been All NFL 7 Seasons.
|> Jerry Rice holds the records for most TD receptions in a game (5), in a
|> season (22), and in a career (115).
|> Jerry Rice is on pace to break the records for career touchdowns (Jim Brown),
|> career receiving yards (James Lofton), and career catches (Art Monk).
|> Jerry Rice has 2 Super Bowl Rings.
|> Jerry Rice was MVP of Super Bowl XXIII.
|> Jerry Rice has caught over 100 passes in a season once, over 90 twice.
|> IN 1993
|> Jerry Rice led the NFL in Touchdowns caught, and total Touchdowns.
|> Jerry Rice led the NFL in receiving yards.
|> Jerry Rice was All NFL.
|> Jerry Rice was in the Pro Bowl.
|> Jerry Rice caught 98 passes.
|>
|>
|> SHARPE FACTS
|> Sterling Sharpe has been to 4 Pro Bowls.
|> Sterling Sharpe has been All NFL 2 seasons.
|> Sterling Sharpe holds the record for most catches in a season (112).
|> Sterling Sharpe may break the record for career catches (Art Monk/Jerry Rice).
|> Sterling Sharpe has caught over 100 passes in a season twice, over 90 once.
|> Sterling Sharpe has a great Nike commercial - "Choo choo baby, choo choo"
|> IN 1993
|> Sterling Sharpe led the NFL in Passes caught.
|> Sterling Sharpe was All NFL.
|> Sterling Sharpe was in the Pro Bowl.
|> Sterling Sharpe caught 112 passes.
|>
|> COMPARISON
|> Sterling Sharpe consistently catches more passes than Jerry Rice.
|> Jerry Rice consistently catches for more yards than Sterling Sharpe.
|> Jerry Rice consistently catches for more TDs than Sterling Sharpe.
|> Jerry Rice has many more career achievements.
|>
|> CONCLUSION
|> Jerry Rice is a more versatile receiver. He can catch a lot of passes
|> like Sterling Sharpe, he can catch them for more yards, and he can score more.
|> future - He is only three years older.
|>
|> OVERALL
|> Jerry Rice has had, and will have a better career than Sterling Sharpe.
|>
|> Jerry Rice is a better receiver than Sterling Sharpe.
|>
|>
|> They are a step above all others.
|>
|> GREG
Greg, this is a masterpiece in thought.
Congradulations!
|>
--
Marlon Shows
Marlon Shows
|> In article <2u534n$n...@dns1.nmsu.edu>,
|> Gregory R. Thiele <gth...@nmsu.edu> wrote:
|> >How about a fact comparison.
|> >
|> >
|> >RICE FACTS
|> >*Jerry Rice was NFL MVP in 1988.*
|> >Jerry Rice has been to 8 Pro Bowls.
|> >Jerry Rice has been All NFL 7 Seasons.
|> >Jerry Rice holds the records for most TD receptions in a game (5), in a
|> > season (22), and in a career (115).
|> >Jerry Rice is on pace to break the records for career touchdowns (Jim Brown),
|> > career receiving yards (James Lofton), and career catches (Art Monk).
|> >Jerry Rice has 2 Super Bowl Rings.
|> >Jerry Rice was MVP of Super Bowl XXIII.
|> >Jerry Rice has caught over 100 passes in a season once, over 90 twice.
|> >IN 1993
|> >Jerry Rice led the NFL in Touchdowns caught, and total Touchdowns.
|> >Jerry Rice led the NFL in receiving yards.
|> >Jerry Rice was All NFL.
|> >Jerry Rice was in the Pro Bowl.
|> >Jerry Rice caught 98 passes.
|>
|> Super Bowls before Rice turned pro. He also had other 49ers lead the league
|> in catches before Rice turned pro.
|>
|> >SHARPE FACTS
|> >Sterling Sharpe has been to 4 Pro Bowls.
|> >Sterling Sharpe has been All NFL 2 seasons.
|> >Sterling Sharpe holds the record for most catches in a season (112).
|> >Sterling Sharpe may break the record for career catches (Art Monk/Jerry Rice).
|> >Sterling Sharpe has caught over 100 passes in a season twice, over 90 once.
|> >Sterling Sharpe has a great Nike commercial - "Choo choo baby, choo choo"
|> >IN 1993
|> >Sterling Sharpe led the NFL in Passes caught.
|> >Sterling Sharpe was All NFL.
|> >Sterling Sharpe was in the Pro Bowl.
|> >Sterling Sharpe caught 112 passes.
|>
|> him the ball. Too, the 49er offense as a whole has been better than GB's, both
|> before and after Rice.
|>
|> >COMPARISON
|> >Sterling Sharpe consistently catches more passes than Jerry Rice.
|> >Jerry Rice consistently catches for more yards than Sterling Sharpe.
|> >Jerry Rice consistently catches for more TDs than Sterling Sharpe.
|> >Jerry Rice has many more career achievements.
|>
|>
|> >CONCLUSION
|> >Jerry Rice is a more versatile receiver. He can catch a lot of passes
|> >like Sterling Sharpe, he can catch them for more yards, and he can score more.
|> >I would rather have Jerry Rice on my team in the past, now, and in the
|> >future - He is only three years older.
|>
|> you going to claim that he'd have all those records? Would it be your claim
|> that he'd be on a pace to break all those career yards, TD, etc records, or
|> would he merely be a very good receiver, underrated at times? If you want to
|> claim that he'd catch 21 TD passes playing for, eg, Tampa Bay, then I'll
|> believe you're sincere in the way you're judging the players. I'll simply
|> doubt your sanity.
He's not arguing that.
he's just saying that he would have more TD's than Sharpe.
Marlon Shows
Bruce Lattimore
>: and have passed much less than the Packers have. Which translates to
>: fewer opportunities for Rice.
> The fact is that the 49ers have more yards passing than the
>Packers each of the last two seasons, and even though Sharpe caught more
>passes both of those seasons, Rice caught for more yards.
Sharpe has had more yards receiving than Jerry Rice over the last two years.
Fact: Sharpe 2735 yards receiving from '92-'93
Rice 2704 yards receiving from '92-'93
Rice does have more yards/catch, Sharpe has more catches, and the TD race is
Jerry 25, Sterling 24. Not much separates these two in the last two years
with Holmgren.
Bruce Lattimore
>RICE FACTS
[ irrelevant career facts ]
I am not saying that Jerry (in his prime) wasn't a better receiver. Just saying
that Jerry is the best ever, but now Sterling is better. I am not saying Sterling
won't eventually be considered the best ever, either.
>IN 1993
>Jerry Rice led the NFL in Touchdowns caught, and total Touchdowns.
>Jerry Rice led the NFL in receiving yards.
>Jerry Rice was All NFL.
>Jerry Rice was in the Pro Bowl.
>Jerry Rice caught 98 passes.
IN 1992
Jerry Rice did not lead the NFL in any receiving categories.
Jerry Rice was in the Pro Bowl.
Jerry Rice caught 84 passes.
>SHARPE FACTS
>IN 1993
>Sterling Sharpe led the NFL in Passes caught.
>Sterling Sharpe was All NFL.
>Sterling Sharpe was in the Pro Bowl.
Sterling Sharpe caught 112 passes, an NFL record that was his.
IN 1992
Sterling Sharpe led the NFL in Passes caught.
Sterling Sharpe led the NFL in Receiving TDs.
Sterling Sharpe led the NFL in Yards Receiving.
Sterling Sharpe was the first WR to lead the NFL in all three major receiving
categories since Don Hutson (of the Packers).
Sterling Sharpe was All-NFL.
Sterling Sharpe was in the Pro Bowl.
Sterling Sharpe caught 108 passes, an NFL record.
Sterling Sharpe may very well have deserved MVP (but that is another debate).
>COMPARISON
>Sterling Sharpe consistently catches more passes than Jerry Rice.
Yes.
>Jerry Rice consistently catches for more yards than Sterling Sharpe.
Not over the last 2 years (2735-2704).
>Jerry Rice consistently catches for more TDs than Sterling Sharpe.
Close over the last 2 years (25-24).
>Jerry Rice has many more career achievements.
Yes, but this isn't a career comparison.
>No other receiver compares with Jerry Rice and Sterling Sharpe.
>They are a step above all others.
That we can agree on. They are both a pleasure to watch.
>GREG
Marlon Shows
|> In article <1994Jun20.2...@uts.amdahl.com>,
|> Ronnie Townsend <ron...@uts.amdahl.com> wrote:
|> >In article <2ttdl7$4...@longwood.cs.ucf.edu> re...@longwood.cs.ucf.edu (Thomas Renzy) writes:
|> >>I think it's tough to say! I'll go with Sterling because he never had
|> >>a John Taylor or a Brent Jones to take away Double teams. I believe
|> >>Rice is the best Big Play Receiver in the league, but after seeing what
|> >>Sharpe has done with no running game, no quarterback(until now Farve
|> >>is great!) and no other half way decent receivers to take the pressure
|> >>off him. To have over 100 catches 2 years in a row is amazing, but it's
|> >>even more amazing when the OTHER TEAM KNOWS YOU'RE GOING TO THROW TO HIM!!!!
|> >
|> >This is an overrated stat to me... Sharpe has a lot of catches but his
|> >average per catch is only slightly more than a good running back can attain.
|> >Any good receiver can catch a bunch of dinks against zone defense... provided
|>
|> Not many good receivers, if Sharpe's the only one that can catch 100 more than
|> one year.
It's not the other recievers fault they have better offenses.
|> >he has the smarts to read that defense and a QB to deliver the ball. That
|> >Rice averages many more TDs and nearly 5 more yards per catch is a very
|> >teling stat indeed...
|>
|> Yep. Tells you that Montana and Young are not bad at all.
And that Rice is nice.
|>
|> >As for the "he has no company" theory that would seem
|> >idiotic coming from the same people who proclaimed Jackie Harris the best
|> >tight end in the league.. The No QB argument is also problematic seeing as
|>
|> Hmm, I thought it was Rice's fans who claimed that, because Sterling was the
|> only threat on the Pack, he caught all those passes. Does it STILL sound
|> idiotic?
Jackie Harris sucks.
Any questions?
|> >how Rice and Co. have made 300 yards/game passers out of such dignitaries as
|> >Matt Cavanaugh, Jeff Kemp and Steve Bono.... It seems that no matter who is
|>
|> For how many games? And I believe SF had some QB before Rice got there
|> that was reasonable at throwing passes. What was his name, Idaho?
|>
|> >throwing, Rice and co have made them look like all-pros. I believe Majkowski
|> >had a pro-bowl season before he got greedy and Favre looks like a good QB
|>
|> Yep, one, and even then Sharpe didn't catch 100.
Because, even then, GB had a sorta balanced attack.
|> >except for his penchant for throwing interceptions.. which is probably a
|> >side-effect of looking at Sharpe too much... Sharpe is a true great receiver
|> >but I see no need to diminish what Jerry Rice has done in this league... I
|> >have gone on record that I think Tim Brown is the most talented receiver in
|> >the league right now anyway..
|>
|> Mike
|> --
|> DISCLAIMER - These opoi^H^H "damn", ^H, [esc :q :qq !q "shit!" :Q! "Whaddya
|> mean, Not an editor command?" :wq ^C^C^C !STOP ^bye ^quit :quit! !halt ...
|> ^ESC :wq :w! :wq! :qq!! ^STOP [HALT! HALT!!! "Why's it doing this?" :stopit!
|> :wwqq!! ^Z ^L ^ESC STOP :bye bye bye! "Hey, what's this red button d..."
--
Marlon Shows
Marlon Shows
|> In article <2u5668$h...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> sh...@athena.mit.edu (Marlon Shows) writes:
|> >In article <2u2lq8$7...@chaos.dac.neu.edu>, gmon...@lynx.dac.neu.edu (garry monahan) writes:
|> >|> Kenneth Kendrick (ken...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
|> >|>
|> >|> : >In <CrILs...@world.std.com> a...@world.std.com (allan b goodrich) writes:
|> >|>
|> >|>
|> >|> : >>To say who is better than who, Which is the better Wide Reciver Sterling
|> >|> : >>Sharpe, or Jerry Rice?
|> >|>
|> >|> : I have to give it to Rice. He has got speed, hands and composure. The
|> >|>
|> >|> Do you mean to say that Sharpe, Rison, etc. lack these attributes?
|> >
|> >Not to the same extent as Rice.
|> >
|> >|> : strange thing about watching Rice is that it looks as if he is just
|> >|> : cruising along, no big deal, and then you realize he has gone 70 yards
|> >|> : for a touchdown. He makes it look so easy! Irvin should be in this
|> >|>
|> >|> I could give you a nickel for every time Rice has "cruised 70 yards for
|> >|> a TD," and you wouldn't even have bus fare.
|> >
|> >
|>
|> One thing that disturbs me about these threads is how people twist the
|> arguments to suit their purposes... Sharpe is best because of numbers right?
|> He produces more on a lesser team so he must be best... and yet Barry Sanders
|> produces less than a certain kid in Dallas and yet he is best? Make up your
|> of the class of all receivers... He has the best combination of speed, hands
|> moves and size of all the elite receivers... Rice was clearly the best for
|> a while but clearly he has lost half-a-step and can no longer run by the
|> best DBs in the league and with 10 years worth of film available on him there
|> is considerable more stuff to study on him... Sharpe gets too many dinks and
|> does nothing with them to turn me on so one must give Rice props for turning
|> so many of those short dumps into big plays... Irvin lacks the speed of
|> either play and gets it done with guile and strength... I don't rate him
|> on a par with Rice, Sharpe, Brown and Rison in terms of talent... but one
|> cannot argue with his success...
Wrong again Ronnie.
Barry has a higher avg yrd/per carry Ratio than Emmitt.
He produces more than Emmitt.
Thank you for playing.
|>
|>
|> --
|> Ronnie T.
|> -------------------------------------------------------------
|> Systems Engineer Specialist
|> Amdahl Open Systems Technical Support
--
Marlon Shows
Ronnie Townsend
>In article <1994Jun21.1...@uts.amdahl.com>,
>Ronnie Townsend <ron...@uts.amdahl.com> wrote:
>>more yardage and more touchdowns on fewer catches (while running the same
>>offense that Sharpe is in) and you claim Sharpe is better. To be more productive
>>with fewer opportunities says better receiver to me..
>
>Unless, of course, you are double-and-triple covered all the time.
But you're sooooo good you can score even when double teamed.. right?
>
>>This "system" argument is bunk. If a guy is open and catches passes and scores
>>a lot of TDs then he's a good receiver. Period. Irvin doesn't get into the
>
>Then how is Tim Brown the best receiver of the group? He's among the lowest
>of the group.
To compare Tim Brown and Michael Irvin's career stats even though both have
had seasons drastically shortened by injury is ludicrous.. throw out the
injury shortened seasons and they both belong... Based on the last couple
of years.. they are both deserving of a spot in the top 10..
No you are... I stated that Tim Brown has the best combination of physical
tools and is the most talented... As bad as Bret Favre may be, he is light
years ahead of Todd Marinovich, Rusty Hilger, Jay Shroeder and some of the
other stiffs who have flung the ball in Tim's direction... One season with a
decent Qb and BINGO! Tim Brown joins the elite. It is my personal opinion
after watching all of them that Tim Brown, who is as big as any of them,
faster than all except Rison, has great hands, tremendous open-field moves
and has become a student of the passing game... He has the most physical talent
of any receiver in the league and if he stays healthy, will supplant them all.
I rate Rice at the head of the class based simply on his production, his
clutch plays and the fact that he does what it takes to get his team the win...
The other guys are not as productive. Each has at least a "good" quarterback
tossing the ball at him... Irvin and Rice have great QBs and play on great
teams... with great complementary receivers around them... Does that make it
easier for them? Maybe, but it also means a lot fewer passes thrown in their
direction... I admire Sterling Sharpe for what he accomplishes but the 49er
offense calls for him to catch a lot of 5-10 yard passes and make something
happen... That his average is around 11 yards per catch means that at least
in 1993.. he didn't make much happen... Blame his injury if you must but you
must concede that he was not very productive in terms of yardage and TDs last
year... If he produces more this year.. then we can re-evaluate... Irvin gets
more yards and plays in more of a "vertical" passing attack... Rice plays in
an identical offense but has a better QB on his team. Rison has a revolving
door of Miller/Wilson/Hebert and has remained productive... I think Tim Brown
showed last year what a difference a decent Qb can make... You people can
dis Favre and Majkowski all you want but they have been head and shoulders
above anything the Raiders had to offer until last year. So who's the best?
My conclusion is that at this moment, Rice is still the man... The four
youngsters are nipping at his heels but if I had to bet on one rising beyond
Rice and putting up Rice-like numbers... it would be Tim Brown.. He's the only
one with the combination of size, speed, hands and running ability to score
as often in the open field as Rice does. Irvin is a little too slow, as is
Sharpe... Rison doesn't get props because of the R&S but he looks like the
genuine article too... Reed seems to be slipping, Miller still relies too
much on speed and Carter has never belonged on this list...
Ronnie Townsend
Not true.. both Rod Woodson and Deion Sanders have had pretty good success in
the last couple of years playing Rice straight up... I have not watched how
teams play Sharpe that often simply because not a lot of Green Bay games are
broadcast out here. I do seem to recall that he was single covered when he
caught the winning TD against Detroit in the playoffs... actually it didn't
look like he was covered at all on that play... But then Fontes has never been
accused of being a genius...
Rajpal Singh Thiara
The Cowboys' defense is. There is some help for the
corners, but the Cowboys rarely double-team WRs. Didn't Sharpe
only catch 4 passes for 34 yards in the first match-up last year.
I also recall that he didn't do much in the playoff game(except
for catching one short underneath pass and running about 40 yards
because Norton was out of position before he was caught from
behind by the Cowboys' OLB Darrin Smith. He also caught a late
meaningless TD in that game).
Rice also didn't do a heck of a lot until late in the
game against the Cowboys in either game last year.
I guess that means the Cowboys have the best CBs in the
game.
Rajpal Singh Thiara
>
>The NFL's best receivers:
>
>1) Jerry Rice
>2) Sterling Sharpe
>3) Andre Rison
>4) Anthony Miller
>5) Michael Irvin
>6) Andre Reed
>7) Tim Brown
>8) Webster Slaughter
>9) Rob Moore
>10) Haywood Jeffires
>
>This is my opinion.
>Post your opinion.
>Don't flame this one.
1) Jerry Rice
2) Sterling Sharpe
3) Andre Rison
4) Michael Irvin
5) Tim Brown
6) Ernest Givins
7) Irving Fryar
8) Andre Reed
9) Anthony Miller
10) Eric Martin
Michael Fester
>still makes all those catches? Last I saw, Rice was double teamed all the
>time also.
> No defense is foolish enough to cover Sharpe or Rice with a single man.
Deion Sanders, anyone?
Tom O'Connell
above Webster. Rob Moore had exactly one
touchdown in 845 yards and 64 catches last year. THis is the rottenest
TD per catch ratio for a starter in the league by a wide margin.
I watched Rob last year and I want to check this out. DId anybody else
notice him continually breaking off his patterns? It seemed to me
that Boomer always seemed to be throwing where it looked like Moore
was going, but Moore stopped. Is he known for this, or did I just
happened to watch odd plays?
I love Herman, however. If he had a decent qb he would catch 100 passes.
It was a shame how many times that pitiful excuse for a QB ROdney Peete
missed him.
Watch for an up and comer, Horace Copeland, BTW (I think thats the guy.
He plays for Tbay and he was a rookie last year)
Bruce Lattimore
>tools and is the most talented... As bad as Bret Favre may be, he is light
>years ahead of Todd Marinovich, Rusty Hilger, Jay Shroeder and some of the
>other stiffs who have flung the ball in Tim's direction... One season with a
>decent Qb and BINGO! Tim Brown joins the elite. It is my personal opinion
>after watching all of them that Tim Brown, who is as big as any of them,
>faster than all except Rison, has great hands, tremendous open-field moves
>and has become a student of the passing game... He has the most physical talent
>of any receiver in the league and if he stays healthy, will supplant them all.
Brown may be talented, but pure talent alone does not get you to the top.
Packer rookie 7th round pick is 6-2 and ran the fastest 40 in the draft.
Does this guarantee he will be a good WR? Hell no. Sharpe is as big as
Brown, yet stronger. Brown is faster, but not by a lot. Sharpe has better
hands and is the best in the NFL after the catch. I do think Brown is one
of the top 5-6 WRs in the NFL though, and look for him to have a big year.
>I rate Rice at the head of the class based simply on his production, his
>clutch plays and the fact that he does what it takes to get his team the win...
They all have been VERY productive. I won't touch the "does what it takes"
line.
>I admire Sterling Sharpe for what he accomplishes but the 49er
>offense calls for him to catch a lot of 5-10 yard passes and make something
>happen... That his average is around 11 yards per catch means that at least
>in 1993.. he didn't make much happen... Blame his injury if you must but you
>must concede that he was not very productive in terms of yardage and TDs last
>year... If he produces more this year.. then we can re-evaluate...
Let's do some evaluating now:
From '89-'93
------------
Sharpe: 14.9 yds/rec (from '89'-'92; no '93 because of injury)
Sharpe: 15.4 yds/rec (from '89'-'91; under Lindy Infante's system)
Rice: 15.5 yds/rec
Not much of a difference to me.
>Irvin gets
>more yards and plays in more of a "vertical" passing attack... Rice plays in
>an identical offense but has a better QB on his team.
Are you listening to yourself? You just stated that Irvin plays in more of a
"vertical" passing attack, yet you knock Sharpe for his lower yards/catch.
Also, I would take Troy Aikman over Steve Young any day, but that is another
thread.
One other point I wanted to make Ronnie. You seem to dis the catches stats,
while pumping yards and TDs. Did you know that Sterling Sharpe led the NFL
in 1992 in receptions, YARDS receiving, and TDs? First time that has been
accomplised since Don Hutson. Also, Sterling Sharpe has had more YARDS
RECEIVING than any player in the NFL over the last two season with 2735, Irvin
a close 2nd with 2726, and Rice a close 3rd with 2704. In TDs receiving, Andre
Rison leads with 26, Rice a close 2nd with 25, and Sharpe a close 3rd with
24 (+4 in 2 playoff games). Then, in receptions Sharpe leads with 220, Rice
is a distant 2nd with 182, Rison is a distant 3rd with 179. You tell us how
productive Rice has been, insinuating that the other players haven't been as
productive - but they have. Rice may be better (that is an opinion), but
statistically (in recent years) Sharpe, Rison, Rice, and Irvin have been
very similar in production. Who is better is a matter of opinion! The thing
is Packer fans get to see A LOT of Rice and Irvin, so we get a firsthand feel
for who is better, while many Dallas and San Fran fans hardly ever get to
see Sterling. When you watch him battling weekin and weekout, you get a
great appreciation for his talent.
>Ronnie T.
"Choo choo, baby! Choo, choo!"
Ronnie Townsend
Pardon me but in 1993 Emmitt averaged right at 5.0 yards/carry and Barry
averaged 4.4.. I believe the former is a higher number than the latter..
>
>Thank you for playing.
You've just shown yourself to be .. no I won't say it...
Rager
> I guess that means the Cowboys have the best CBs in the
> game.
No (unless they've recently signed Woodson and Deion). It means that the
whole Cowboys D is geared towards the 49ers' O. Since GB implement a
similar offense, Dallas does what it does. :P
--
Richard Duran, President and GM of the Pachucos GO Niners!!!!!!
rdu...@cs.utep.EDU (U-TEP) GO Miners!!!!!!
"Go against the grain until the end!" ~ James Hetfield
Tony
sh...@athena.mit.edu (Marlon Shows) writes:
>In article <2u534n$n...@dns1.NMSU.Edu>, gth...@nmsu.edu (Gregory R. Thiele) writes:
>|> How about a fact comparison.
>|>
>|>
>|> SHARPE FACTS
>|> Sterling Sharpe holds the record for most catches in a season (112).
>|> Sterling Sharpe may break the record for career catches (Art Monk/Jerry Rice).
>|> Sterling Sharpe has caught over 100 passes in a season twice, over 90 once.
>|> Sterling Sharpe led the NFL in Passes caught.
>|> Sterling Sharpe caught 112 passes.
>|>
>|> COMPARISON
>|> Sterling Sharpe consistently catches more passes than Jerry Rice.
Not to knock Sharpe, but what do you expect being that he is the
only dude on the team who can catch the damn ball!! Sharpe doesn't
have to contend with a John Taylor, Brent Jones or Tom Rathman for
balls thrown his way.
He's a great talent, but his 'reception' stats are GROSSLY
overrated.
-Tony-
GO 49ERS!!!
Scott Lawrence
Well, those stats seem to settle it. Jerry Rice is the best receiver in
the NFL, perhaps of all time.
Scott Lawrence
Kenneth Kendrick
>In article <2u7ha6$l...@dns1.nmsu.edu>,
>Gregory R. Thiele <gth...@nmsu.edu> wrote:
>>Is somebody saying that Sharpe is better because he gets double teamed and
>>still makes all those catches? Last I saw, Rice was double teamed all the
>>time also.
>> No defense is foolish enough to cover Sharpe or Rice with a single man.
>Deion Sanders, anyone?
The Cowboys covered both of these recievers man-to-man. Sharpe must have
had a field day against single coverage!!!
Oh, wait. He didn't even make a significant impact. My mistake. (Of
course Rice is used to all that single coverage, so it only makes sense
that he was held to non-superhuman numbers.)
Fact is I fear Rice more than any other offensive player in the league.
Sharpe is up there, but Rice scares me even when we are up by 14 with less
than 1 minute on the clock. Of course, Thurman Thomas will always be
known as the scourge of the Cowboys.....
Ken Kendrick
Go Cowboys!!!
STEEGMANN THOMAS D
>In article <2u6so2$9...@news.doit.wisc.edu> HE...@MACC.WISC.EDU (John Heim) writes:
>>In <1994Jun21....@uts.amdahl.com> ron...@uts.amdahl.com writes:
>>
\\\ lots of >>>>>>>>> deleted \\\
>Okay, the word is consistency.. ever hear oif it? I thought not... When
>we have our biennal Marino vs Montana argument... some will argue that marino
>is better because of numbers... others will argue that Montana is the man
>because of winning and championshiops and minor shit like that. Others will
>cite Elway and his ability to carry a bad team... Then we argue whither
>Smith, Sanders or Thomas... Again numbers versus winning and ability to
>carry a team... Then there is the Rice/Sharpe/Irvin/Rison argument.. numbers
>versus winning versus ability to carry a team...
>
>
>So... at QB.. Marino has the numbers, Montana has the rings and the winning
>percentage Elway has... well... the teeth?
>
blah blah blah
>Now at RB.... Emmitt has the numbers, Emmitt has the rings and Emmitt has
>carried his team to the pinnacle of the sport... twice. Especially this
>past season and did so while hurting. Barry has been to the NFC championship
>game once and Thurman has... well... nice teeth? So the argument at running
>back is really no argument at all. By whatever yardstick one uses, Emmitt comes
>out on top. Yards/carry, yards/game, touchdowns, receptions.. choose your
>weapon.
You just had to know that this guy is a Cowboys fan! Wait until emmitt
leads the NFL 4, count 'em 4 ronnie, years in a row in total yards, then we
can talk about the total weapon. Its not hard to look good when surrounded
by the line that emmitt is.
tom steegmann
Coz
> While you have a point, let me remind you that in 1986, when Rice
> became a superstar, catching bombs one-handed and, I believe, leading
> the NBA in catch-yardage, the QB was the immortal Kemp.
??????????????????????????????