If he’d been an ass or just ignored me I’d still consider him the greatest of all time. This just makes it easier.

In run dominant league and played as place kicker for some seasons.

What are your thoughts on the argument (and this is applied in any sport) that players over the last 20+ years are better athletes on defense….But as you said, it’s hard to compare players from such drastically different eras.

this hutson guy sounds like he was great. i wish there were some type of highlight reel i could see of him.

thought that was awesome. although its Buster, instead of Busta. whatever.

I don’t know if I’d even consider Payton the greatest running back of all time. Certainly one of the greatest, but Barry Sanders is very much in that conversation. Talk about some crappy surrounding talent (Scott Mitchell anybody?).

Comparing a WR who plays in space with a RB who was pounded game after game is a little less than an equal comparison.

It is a little less than an equal comparison, but not in the sense that one is greater than the other so much as simply in the sense that the two are different. You can’t make the argument that playing a more physical position gives you a comparative advantage. It cause severe comparative problems, but the idea that a running back can be better than a receiver by virtue of playing a different position just doesn’t work. By that token, I could make the argument that Roger Craig was a better player than Joe Montana.

I think the only way to judge them against each other is by judging them against their peers first. You start to do that when you say:

The average life span of an NFL running back is 4-5 years. Payton played twice that long…

I made a convenient editorial cut there. I hope you don’t think I’m trying to misrepresent your words. There is a real case for a guy who succeeds without a supporting case versus a guy who does, and we all know that Jerry Rice had one of the greatest supporting casts of all time. I am in no way saying that you’re wrong or arguing with you on that count. What Payton did with the players he had around him for much of his career was incredible, and Rice had every single advantage in that respect that Payton may not have. So in that aspect, the benefit of the doubt obviously goes to Payton.

What I want to touch on, though, is the idea that Payton played at an elite level for 2-3 times longer than the average running back. Just a ridiculous number, we can both agree. But let’s extend that to Rice. I don’t know the actualy number, but I think it’s fair to say that it would be optimistic to say that the average receiver plays for around 10 seasons. Heck, it’s probably optimistic to say that the average player plays anywhere approaching 10 years. Rice played for 21. By my optimistic number, that’s at least twice as long as the average receiver. So, by the same token, Rice played 2-3 times longer than the average player at his position. So, in terms of positional longevity, both guys are relatively even.

Beyond that, Payton played 13 years essentially without missing a game. Rice played his 21 years and essentially didn’t miss a single game 19 of those. 14 (I think) of the games that he did miss were the result of a nasty, nasty injury. As durable as Payton was, it’s ridiculous to take anything away from Rice on that count because he missed so ubelievably few games over such a long period himself. Like you said about Payton, for Rice to miss so few games over his career, even accepting the injury year, is beyond incredible. Again, the two players are at least comparable there.

And as far as toughness, I won’t take anything away from Payton, but I think that you go a long way to sell Rice short. Most of Jerry Rice’s success was made in the most difficult, least open area of the field for a receiver to play in. The bread and butter of his game was in going across the middle, where, make absolutely no mistake, he took a real pounding on a week to week basis. He didn’t just play for years and years by keeping himself away from contact. In fact, he probably took as much contact as any other receiver just because of the particular demands of the offense that he played in and how often it had him running into high contact areas.

Plus he was a devasting blocker, an excellent receiver and was a back-up kicker and QB on the team.

Again, you’re selling Rice short. Rice was an excellent runner, and was routinely used by the teams he played on in gadget plays and reverses. I understand that’s a weak side of the argument and I won’t push it for anything, but it’s still important to remember. More important, though, is that Rice is widely considered to be one of the best, if not the best blockers at his position in history. He was by absolutely no means just a pass-catcher. He played as all around a game as any player at his position, and he did most of it better than anybody else either. I think saying that Payton was a better all around player is largely based on the fact that he played a more naturall “all-around” position. In terms of the actal versatility of the positions, Rice did everything at an elite level much the same way Payton did.

So in terms of longevity, toughness, and all-around ability, I think the two are probably pretty even. Like you say, Payton gets the benefit of the doubt in terms of his surrounding cast.

Where I think the argument blows wide open, though, is simply that Rice’s numbers are almost completely untouchable, whereas Payton’s simply aren’t.

Single Season: Payton’s most yards rushing in a season came in 1977, when he ran for 1,852 yards. Not only was that not even the best individual season ever at the time that he did it (Jim Brown in 1963 and O. J. Simpson in 1973 both had more), but 10 guys have exceeded it since then. His 14 rushing touchdowns that season (also a career high) is good for 51st all-time. I’d LOVE to see his receiving numbers against every other running back, but I can’t find them. I’m sure he did extremely well, though, so I won’t fuss over it as a sticking point.

Rice’s best season in terms of yards for a season came in 1995, when he caught for 1,848 yards. That’s a number that was number 1 at the time (which broke Charlie Hennigan’s astounding 34-year-old record), and remains that most receiving yards in a single season today. Furthermore, Rice has 5 of the top 30 individual seasons for a receiver all-time. Payton only has the one season in the top-30 for his position. To contrast, Barry Sanders has 2 sesons in the top 10 alone. Going further, Rice’s 22 TD season in 1987 was #1 at the time, breaking the previous record by an astounding 4 TDs, and lasted for 20 years before Randy Moss broke it last season. To repeat: Rice’s best individual scoring season as a receiver: #2 all time. Walter Payton’s greatest single scoring season as a rusher isn’t even top-50 all-time.

In terms of total touchdowns in a season, receiving and rushing, Rice is in the top-10 for that 1987 season (tied for 8th with Moss, TD, and OJ). To elaborate on that, beyond Rice and Moss, every single player in the top-30 all time for total TDs in a season is a running back. The same position Payton played. The same position that Payton’s best season is tied for 68th all-time. Rice had three seasons with more TDs than Payton’s single best, in a category that heavily favors running backs.

But OBVIOUSLY, single seasons don’t mean nearly as much as career numbers. So how do these guys look against the rest of their respective positions for their careers.

Now, for Payton, this is much, much more like it. His career total yards is second only to Emmit Smith, and almost 4,000 more total yards than anybody who played either as his peer or before him. Now that is ridiculous. Valid or invalid, I won’t make the Barry Sanders argument. Plain and simple, Sanders didn’t make the numbers. Say what you will about Sanders, but he left the game before he touched Payton, and that will always be a point against him. You could go back and forth with Emmit Smith, but shy of Sanders, he’s also about 4,000 yards better than any of his peers. By era and as an all-around player, Payton was probably still easily better, so I won’t screw around with the Smith argument either. Payton’s career accomplishment was unprecedented and remains absolutely insane. In terms of rushing TDs, Payton finished up tops history and remains 4th in history. Unparalleled by anybody in his era but, heck John Riggins, and just edging Jim Brown. Still, that record wasn’t only touchable, but shatterable. Smith has over 50 more rushing TDs for his career! Tomlinson’s career isn’t even on the wrong side of 30, and he’s all but obliterated it.

Payton’s numbers were great, but have proven time and time again to be eminently touchable.

Now Rice: He STILL has nearly 8,000 more total receiving yards for his career than the next closer guy (Isaac Bruce, FYI). Only one player has a conceivable shot at that record (Randy Moss), and he likely has to play close to 10 more seasons to do it. Rice’s receiving totals are so far beyond anybody else in history, among his peers, and among current players that it’s a stretch to believe that ANY player will ever surpass them. It’s beyond ridiculous. Its completely insane. He was so much better at his position than any other player who has ever played the game. Walter Payton may have been better than any other running back in history, by whatever metric you’re using, but hs achievements are on every single count not only touchable, but second to many.

And I haven’t even gotten to receiving TDs or total TDs. Rice has nearly 60 more receiving TDs than the next closest receiver in history (Owens). Most receivers don’t get 60 TDs in their careers, and Rice has nearly has that as the DIFFERENCE between him and the next guy! It’s practically inconceivable.

Scoring for his career, Rice is again #1 all-time – again in a category that is dominated by running backs. With over 30 more than the next guy (Smith), and over 60 more than the next active players (Owens and Tomlinson), that’s another mark that may never be touched by anybody else… ever.

So, when you combine that Rice was one of the most durable, toughest, long-standing, versatile, all-around players at his position of all-time and then concede the same about Walter Payton with the fact that Payton did what he did with less around him, you can start to make a case that Payton was the better player. But when you look at the breadth of the accomplishments of the two players, Rice completely and utterly blows every other player who has ever played the game out of the water.

There’s no competition. Rice all the way, man.

Get off the Bears nuts. Their board is over here, go bother them.

And learn to reply, the fact that you can’t figure that simple thing out speaks volumes about you.

That’s why I didn’t use Emmitt Smith as an example.

Madden and Ditka know a lot about football but quotes like that are subjective opinion.

He’s a back who completely dominated and he also did everything from pass catching to run blocking. And he did it on god awful teams.

Jim Brown is widely considered the greatest RUNNING back of all time. Of course the next block Brown throws will be his first as well as his next pass caught.

Emphasis mine. You’re way understating Jim Brown’s receiving abilities here. Brown averaged over 29 receptions a seasons while Payton averaged close to 38. Brown also averaged more yards per catch and had more career receiving TD’s than Payton.

One could argue Brown caught less passes than Payton because he was a better a runner than Payton and thus he didn’t need to catch as many passes but when he did catch passes he was more effective than Payton. I’m not going to argue that Brown was a better receiving RB than Payton, because frankly it’s going to be pointless, but I will argue that the difference between the two is vastly less significant than you believe.

It’s hard to compare players from different eras, so I’ll take the guy who dominates the record books

Walsh says “I think if you name the 5 best players of all time, he’d be one of them, and then it would be up to people to pick their preference. But you couldn’t find a better player than Jerry Rice.”

I’d value Walsh’s opinion ten fold over Ditka’s.

If you’re replying to a comment, click reply just below that comment. I assume you were asking about my previous comment.

When it comes to the modern era there is no disputing that Rice is the GOAT. Payton was great I’d pick him second to Sanders(Sorry I just loved Sanders). But Rice did get 3 rings and I’m sorry but in Pro football not all, but a whole lot of the greatness can be linked to how many rings the player has and what his stats were in helping his team get those rings. Payton is awsome. But no one in the modern era is better than Rice on the offensive side of the ball. Defensively I’d go with LT or Lott.

Please see my comment above. I think you’ll see that I look both at the numbers and significantly deeper in terms of how great of a tough, durable, versatile, all-around player Rice was at his position, in ways that rival Payton in nearly every single way except for having a better cast around him.

Yup. Although, GRM has been better recently. I’ve found myself agreeing with him, which is unsettling.

But I think there’s a bit of sharksrog in there, too — except replace Lincecum with Payton/McMahon/Buddy Ryan.

That’s what happens when you get fans voting subjectively.

Don’t get me started. There’s a handful of 49er WR’s better than Taylor but unfortunately nobody wants to recognize them because they didn’t watch them play when they were 12.