1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!
    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers.

    You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
  2. Announcement is LIVE: Read the Forum Post

Hutson vs Rice

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by ivo610, Dec 21, 2010.

  1. Chicocheese

    Chicocheese Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    614
    Ratings:
    +209
    In the immortal words of Steve Marriucci, speaking about Don Hutson: "This guy was catching touchdown passes before QBs were even throwing the ball!"

    'Nuff said.
     
  2. okcpackerfan

    okcpackerfan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    720
    Ratings:
    +179
    It's not an assumption when it is based on fact. You are going to tell me the offensive lines of the 1950's with an average weight of 220 could push around even a college defensive line today? Please. The reason players do not play both sides of the ball nowadays is because of roster expansion (they don't have to) and because players have gotten faster, stronger, and bigger (as I stated earlier) but the field has stayed the exact same size. Therefore we can deduce that more violent hits are taking place currently than in the past and the physical demands are greater for todays athletes.

    Are there players that transcend eras and could play in anytime? sure...I think anyone would agree on that. Example: Am I confident that ray nitschke would not be a good linebacker in todays NFL (ceteris paribus) even though he was great for his time - yes I am. You can call that an assumption but I just go by my opinion and the facts that are laid out before me, I call that "the most logical scenario."

    We will never know the answer so its fun to speculate but in my opinion very very very few players from the past could compete in todays NFL and I absolutely CAN say that.
     
  3. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,125
    Ratings:
    +4,082
    "I've contended for many years that Don Hutson may have been the greatest football player of all time," said Joe Horrigan, vice president of communications for the Pro Football Hall of Fame in Canton, Ohio.

    "No one else has ever dominated their position for the length of time he did, in addition to his defensive and kicking duties. It took nearly 50 years for the next superstar, Jerry Rice, to break some of his records, and Hutson played in an era when the game was not designed for the forward pass like it is today."

    "Sports Illustrated's" Peter King, in the magazine's Sept. 19th issue, wrote: "Jerry Rice's retirement has prompted plenty of people to hail him as the greatest receiver - if not the greatest player - of all time. While Rice belongs in either argument, it says here that players can truly be judged only against others of their respective eras.

    "By that measure, Don Hutson . . . was a more prolific receiver than Rice. Hutson's 99 career TD catches were three times as many as the No. 2 man of his era, and that total stood as an NFL record for 44 years, until Steve Largent broke it in 1989. Here's how he and Rice stack up against the second-best receivers of their generations."
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. okcpackerfan

    okcpackerfan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    720
    Ratings:
    +179
    I think don hutson could be one of those transcendent players but I am more skeptical than most, obviously there is no right or wrong answer.
     
  5. El Guapo

    El Guapo Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    2,569
    Ratings:
    +1,457
    One other factor is how far the game has progressed at the time. Babe Ruth was playing in MLB long after the game had become mainstream. Hutson was playing still in the league's infancy, since it had only been around 15 years when he played. When Ruth joined the Red Sox, organized baseball had been around for at least 45 years give or take. The point being, it's easier to dominate a sport when its just beginning versus where most of these sports stand today. I'm not taking anything away from Hutson, but stating that the thought about outperforming one's contemporaries requires an extra layer of contemplation.

    This is all a good discussion
     
  6. Oshkoshpackfan

    Oshkoshpackfan YUT !!!

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2012
    Messages:
    3,286
    Ratings:
    +1,453
    Really? So the FACT that hutson ran a 9.5 second 100 yard dash WAAAAY back in the day makes him a slow guy? He didn't have the modern day training, high tech light weight shoes, and any performance enhancing suppliments....Please.....fast is fast and that he was. Not to mention he never wore the sticky WR gloves that rice had. He didn't have the protective gear they have now. Yet, he still kicked butt, all without modern advances. Im not saying rice was no good, he is and always will be a damn great WR, but hutson owns rice.
     
  7. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,125
    Ratings:
    +4,082
    But no one else dominated. He stood alone at the top of the mountain. Christ, he still has the Packers record for most TDs. His record stood for 44 years in the nfl.

    How would Rice do if he was asked to play defense too?
     
  8. okcpackerfan

    okcpackerfan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    720
    Ratings:
    +179
    Don Hutson was a great receiver - I would like to point a few things though

    1. the main point people are making is that don hutson was a great receiver in an era when they "didn't throw the ball" - the counter to this is that not many people were geared to stop a passing attack then were they?

    2. There is no fair way to judge a player from one era to the other, if you think comparing them to their peers of the time is a good strategy then that's ok but it's not that great either. The more popular something becomes and the more money that can be made at it the more people are going to do it and the better that profession will become. An example would be that when Don Hutson played not many people were walking around saying they wanted to grow up to play in the NFL therefore the average player was not even close to being as good as they are nowadays.

    3. Stats aren't everything. Is Kareem Abdul Jabbar the best basketball player of all time? Some players simply "get it" before everyone else and change and revolutionize the game. Babe Ruth was one of those players. When looking at stats there is a TREMENDOUS amount of information that isn't shown. It's fun to look at stats because then you have something quantitative to compare.

    For me I will almost always go with the recent guy in football since players get bigger, stronger, faster, smarter, every year and you have to be that much better than the players the year before.
     
  9. okcpackerfan

    okcpackerfan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    720
    Ratings:
    +179
    I thought I made this clear...I will try again. I never said Hutson was slow, never even came close to saying anything close to that. I DID say players in the past were slower on average than they are now (fact).

    On your point though was Hutson's 100 yard dash laser timed? Did they account for wind? What surface did he run it on?

    Obviously there have been fast players throughout history... that's not the argument.

    He didn't have the protective gear they have now? Receivers and defensive backs these days only wear shoulder pads and helmets...what are you talking about?

    Hutson owns Rice? We seem to have a fundamental difference in what the word own means and will have to disagree on that
     
  10. HyponGrey

    HyponGrey Caseus Locutus Est

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    3,758
    Ratings:
    +1,030
    I wouldn't say that's necessarily true. Remember, today's athletes have TIME to get bigger faster stronger, most of the guys back then had full time second jobs. Modern advancements in workout and play technology have been big as well. I'd love to see Hutson with his "talent" for catching the ball if he had all the advantages of players today with speed coaches, gloves, weight facilities, and enough money to have time to actually focus on being a pure WR. Though IMO he might not need any of that to be a starter even in today's NFL.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. okcpackerfan

    okcpackerfan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    720
    Ratings:
    +179
    I think you just proved my point that players today are better. The players in the past did have other jobs and in the off-season they rarely trained or thought about football. Its a year round sport nowadays.
     
  12. mayo44

    mayo44 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I assume you're talking about the Packer HOF here, because Isbell isn't in the NFL HOF.

    With Baugh, you have to say it was close. He changed the way his position was played every bit as much as Hutson did. He was the original prototype of the modern quarterback. And he wasn't just an amazing player at QB either. He was the only player in history to lead the NFL in passing yards, TD passes, passes intercepted and net punting yards all in the same year.
     
  13. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,125
    Ratings:
    +4,082
    Yeah don Hutson is the babe Ruth of the NFL.

    Kareem has volume stats bc of the length of his career in addition to greatness. He is constantly left out of the best of all time but I don't feel he is a fair comparison to Hutson. A more realistic comparison if we are speaking about basketball might be pistol Pete in college. I don't know if pistol Pete was the best college basketball player but he certainly has a strong argument for it.
     
  14. HyponGrey

    HyponGrey Caseus Locutus Est

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    3,758
    Ratings:
    +1,030
    It's a year round sport because players have the money to make it a year round sport. I consider that a "modern advantage" that did not exist back then like sticky gloves. Here's a different perspective, how good would today's players be if they couldn't afford "year round football" and NEVER had have the time for it or the equipment? Especially under the old rules.
     
  15. okcpackerfan

    okcpackerfan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    720
    Ratings:
    +179
    ok? but IT IS a year around sport now... I don't think you are understanding...

    the players in the past (as a collective whole) were not as good as they are now, if you don't believe that then there is really no more discussion because I doubt anyone could convince you.
     
  16. HyponGrey

    HyponGrey Caseus Locutus Est

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    3,758
    Ratings:
    +1,030
    Those are my lines lol. It's a matter of "could" for me (though a few guys I actually think could make it) Seems neither of us "get it"
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,125
    Ratings:
    +4,082
    If today's players are better and the rules make it easier for the offense, why hasn't anyone topped starr in the post season?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. smuggler

    smuggler Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2013
    Messages:
    25
    Ratings:
    +5
    Rice was better. Hutson was greater. Greatness to me means what ThxJackVainisi thinks it means - how well you dominated your peers. Rice did it, but Hutson did it more thoroughly.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1

Share This Page