It was the start of the "west coast" offense....with Joe Montana and Bill Walsh.
LT was a one man wreacking crew....nothing was ever like him.
You cannot diminish Rice because of system. He did it with Montana, yes. He also did it with Young and Rich Gannon, in an era where they didn't throw it like they do today. Joe Montana never threw for more than 4000 yards. Steve Young did it just twice, neither significantly more than 4000 yards.
In 1987, he scored 22 TDs on 65 catches. Imagine that. That's 2nd All-Time to Moss during the historic 2007 Patriots' season where they broke all the offensive scoring and passing records during their undefeated run.
I think the debate is pointless, IMO. One was a WR playing offense, the other was LT, they were both historically great, you really can't compare the two meaningfully.
not “dominate”. Sorry to be that guy. That one is a pet peeve of mine.
Approved.
In football discussions (especially regarding the draft), the misuse of "dominate" is up there with "they should have went with..." for grating on my mind's ear.
I suspect if the question were asked on a 49ers board, you'd see opposite answers.
I watched both guys their whole careers, and I suspect the answer is that it's probably closer than being suggested here.
Yes, LT changed the way the game had to be played. But Rice wrecked games and dominated in his own way too. As with LT, you might have the odd good game against him, but both were guys the opposing team had to try and scheme for.
Rice was his eras greatest (non kicker) scorer. He had 208 TDs in 303 games, and when he retired, he owned pretty much all the WR records.
When the NFL ranked their all time top players, they were 1. Jim Brown, 2. Rice, 3 Taylor.
I don't personally have any issue with rating LT "more dominant"(depending on your definition), but it's much closer than is being expressed here.
the best defenders of all time have had more impact on the game than the best offensive players (non QBs) of all time. There are players other than LT that were more dominant than Jerry Rice.
that Jerry Rice was the best WR ever. LT is the best LB ever.
One on offense and one on defense. Defense wins championships - so along those lines - I take LT. God he was amazing to watch. Wish Giants had a clone of him now.
"Throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, Taylor was a disruptive force at outside linebacker, and is credited with changing defensive game plans, defensive pass rushing schemes, offensive line blocking schemes, and offensive formations used in the NFL."
it's very close between them. LT gets a hometown bump from fans here but Jerry Rice was fucking incredible. Might be the greatest non-QB offensive player in history, just as LT might be the greatest defender in history.
the best defenders of all time have had more impact on the game than the best offensive players (non QBs) of all time. There are players other than LT that were more dominant than Jerry Rice.
This is gibberish. Why are defenders more impactful than the very best offensive players?
the product of Walsh' system (so was Montana for that matter).
LT "literally", changed how football is played.
NO comparison.
So was 40 year old Rice the product of Bill Callahan's WCO aided by a mid 30s Tim Brown? I just watched early 20s Brandon Aiyuk barely scrape his first 1000 yard season almost half Rice's age in Oakland. Clearly everyone can get 1000 yard seasons at WR, at any age.
I tend to think fans' have a bias towards how their particular team fared against that player. With respect to Rice, he never really tore up the Giants' defense like he did other defenses. Somehow that's a knock on him as opposed to just acknowledging how good the Giants' defense was.
Most of this board thinks the Montana to Rice combo that won the game in '88 could've been done by 3/4 of the QB/WR in the league at the time. Two of the greatest players in the history of the league just got really lucky you know, while Brady to Moss at the very end of SB42 possibly being able to catch a pass in double coverage has people biting their nails rewatching the highlights......
Eye test LT was great, but the stats kinda underwhelm for an undisputed GOAT level defensive player, you have to admit. I'd like a bit more dominance personally. #12 in tackles, #14 in sacks (since 1982).
Even Moss & TO have amazing #s, neck and neck for best ever if it wasn't for Rice.
LT > Rice is probably correct, but 30 other fanbases likely don't all see it that way, let alone the slam dunk, don't-insult-my-intelligence, that is being touted here.
the best defenders of all time have had more impact on the game than the best offensive players (non QBs) of all time. There are players other than LT that were more dominant than Jerry Rice.
Who? I seriously suggest you and others reevaluate his numbers. He was Babe Ruth of offense.
the best defenders of all time have had more impact on the game than the best offensive players (non QBs) of all time. There are players other than LT that were more dominant than Jerry Rice.
Who? I seriously suggest you and others reevaluate his numbers. He was Babe Ruth of offense.
Seriously, people should look back at Rice's numbers compared to others.
The NFL 100 put Rice second due mostly to longevity (LT 3rd). You can make a good, rational argument for both.
Seriously, people should look back at Rice's numbers compared to others.
The NFL 100 put Rice second due mostly to longevity (LT 3rd). You can make a good, rational argument for both.
Jerry Rice was NOT a dink and dunk/YAC receiver.
He was not. Plus, Rice played in an era where:
+ going over the middle was like going through Aleppo in Syria. Safeties and LBs were allowed to hit receivers with impunity. There was NO emphasis on leading with the helmet or targeting.
+ corners could be much more aggressive with WRs off the LOS.
and the geometry of the game. No other modern athlete in any major sport has even remotely done that. Get out of here with this Jerry Rice crap.
LT was my favorite player Rice deserves his place in this conversation because there are two different sides of the ball. And he was dominant everywhere - regular season and post season.
To not recognize that shows a clear bias.
Hell, a reasonable argument can be made that Reggie White was just as dominant as LT.
Rice was a great WR and HOF but in order to have as great a career as he did he was helped by playing with 2 premier QBs in Montana and Steve Young for most of his career.
LT not only changed the game but also made everyone around him better. He did not need any assistance towards being great.
Walsh's offense was a system and it really was not about one player. There is book written by Jaworski that goes into it but here are some excerpts from another article I found. I could not find the article I wanted but Walsh also talked about the '81 Giants and LT specifically.
"San Francisco guard Randy Cross had suffered through all the losing prior to Walsh's arrival and was there for much of the glory that followed. Nineteen eighty-one was also Randy's favorite season, and he recognized how much its success sprang from the Niners having won that first playoff game against a team like the New York Giants. "This game proved to everyone -- and ourselves -- that what we did worked. Against the smashmouth New York Giants, we showed we belonged. We'd only won ten games the previous three years, and there was no rich tradition of winning, so it meant a lot to get that first one." Walsh later acknowledged, "We won our first Super Bowl with a less-than-great football team, even though at the time people thought it was outstanding. But as you look back, you now realize it couldn't compete with today's teams. Joe was dependent on the system for survival -- in fact, all of us were -- and we believed in it."
"This game made clear the potential dominance of a pass rushing outside linebacker in the 3-4 defense. Now every team was on the lookout for someone like Lawrence Taylor, a force that could disrupt an opponent's passing game."
"This game made clear that left tackles are critical. Bill Walsh had gotten away with using John Ayers to stop Taylor, but that was only a short-term solution. If the Niners were going to prosper, they'd have to get a better athlete on Montana's blind side -- and did in '83, drafting Bubba Paris. Today the offensive left tackle is one of the highest-paid positions in the NFL, and it all started because coaches could now see how critical a good one was to keeping their quarterback healthy."
"This game inspired innovation from offensive minds . . . Taylor's arrival forced Redskins coach Joe Gibbs to modify his Air Coryell-oriented offense into a new system that relied upon the H-back position to neutralize L.T. Joe's breakthrough made Washington a dominant team over the next decade, earning three Super Bowl championships."
It's pretty interesting to see how much changed in Walsh system in later years and Parcells talked about this with how they added more weapons into the arsenal. DC's then had to counter with moves like getting ILB's with speed to cover, etc. Chess match.
One player. LT. Two HOF HC's changed systems and positional value.
I'll see if I can find one where Rice has one written about him like this. I haven't yet.
based on getting around LT and trying to minimize the damage he could do. Although, defenses altered their coverages to keep Rice in check, they didn't define their entire defensive game plan around him.
based on getting around LT and trying to minimize the damage he could do. Although, defenses altered their coverages to keep Rice in check, they didn't define their entire defensive game plan around him.
This is such a silly argument. First of all, we don't know that. Second of all, they absolutely DID devise their entire game plan around limiting Rice, they just didn't all go about it the same way. Some changed their coverages, others added exotic blitzes to take the passing game off schedule, others changed their lineup to adjust for Rice (going to base nickel alignments way before that was a regular occurrence). Some, I'm sure, did all of the above.
Likewise, I'm equally sure that there were teams that did not devise their entire gameplan around LT (although I'm sure many of those teams paid the price for that). And it's not like LT was playing with a bunch of scrubs and teams could afford to zero in on him - he had HOF-worthy teammates around him that helped keep opponents honest in their scheme as well.
Each player is rightfully considered the greatest at their own position and worthy of consideration for GOAT at any non-QB position (simply because QB is and should be a separate distinction). I personally would choose LT, but I'm well aware of my own bias in making that choice. But I don't think you can go wrong with either, and I'd add a handful of other all-time greats into the discussion as well.
Who before him was the combination of athletcism, production, route running and longevity that we have come to expect from today's truly elite WRs? Jefferson? Joiner? Carmichael? Biletnikoff? Branch? Alworth?
Rice came into the league where Charlie Taylor was still considered an all time great. Good player, yes, but not an alltime talent.
Yes, Rice changed the position. He came in and became the standard. What you sought in a WR, and then he rewrote the record book so completely, his marks may stand several generations.
It's no knock on LT if some folks think Rice was better. You don't have to be so sensitive about it. Both are legends of the game.
And as a Giants fan I always rooted against him.
RE: RE: Teams generated their offensive game plans
based on getting around LT and trying to minimize the damage he could do. Although, defenses altered their coverages to keep Rice in check, they didn't define their entire defensive game plan around him.
This is such a silly argument. First of all, we don't know that. Second of all, they absolutely DID devise their entire game plan around limiting Rice, they just didn't all go about it the same way. Some changed their coverages, others added exotic blitzes to take the passing game off schedule, others changed their lineup to adjust for Rice (going to base nickel alignments way before that was a regular occurrence). Some, I'm sure, did all of the above.
Likewise, I'm equally sure that there were teams that did not devise their entire gameplan around LT (although I'm sure many of those teams paid the price for that). And it's not like LT was playing with a bunch of scrubs and teams could afford to zero in on him - he had HOF-worthy teammates around him that helped keep opponents honest in their scheme as well.
Each player is rightfully considered the greatest at their own position and worthy of consideration for GOAT at any non-QB position (simply because QB is and should be a separate distinction). I personally would choose LT, but I'm well aware of my own bias in making that choice. But I don't think you can go wrong with either, and I'd add a handful of other all-time greats into the discussion as well.
That's even sillier and not close to being true. Although Rice was a GOAT at his positions, Montana was the 49ers biggest offensive threat during that era.
there are debates still as to who is the best WR of all time. Jerry is never mentioned as the best offensive player of all time. Never mentioned as the best football player of all time.
LT is regarded as the best linebacker, often times the best defensive player ever...and also on a short list of players as the best football player in history.
RE: Rice is the most overrated great player ever. A system WR
LT was a force of nature. Probably could have played any position other than QB and I wouldn’t have bet against him doing that!
System WR? Did you watch Jerry Rice? He just ran the best routes, had the best hands, was a gamebreaker and clutch player who could excel with every QB he played with and every coach over 20 years.
the best defenders of all time have had more impact on the game than the best offensive players (non QBs) of all time. There are players other than LT that were more dominant than Jerry Rice.
This is gibberish. Why are defenders more impactful than the very best offensive players?
that continues to emerge. I believe Rice came into the league in '85. Most colleges were still heavy run offenses though there were some that did throw it around.
In the last 15 years that has been a very big increase in athletes who are now playing football that may have played track or some other sport. It's fun position and one that pays a lot of money which will attract more to the game.
There was not a LT before LT and there still has not been one since imv.
I be pretty surprised if in the next 15 years we don't see some incredible gifted WR's come into the league and be even more surprised if there is not a a very legitimate player that is perhaps better than Rice.
I don't think some of his records will be touched tough.
there are debates still as to who is the best WR of all time. Jerry is never mentioned as the best offensive player of all time. Never mentioned as the best football player of all time.
LT is regarded as the best linebacker, often times the best defensive player ever...and also on a short list of players as the best football player in history.
NFL Network did the greatest 100 players of all-time at least twice. Rice has finished #1 and #2.
I find it harder and more impactful to be a dominant pass rusher (whos also responsible for the run), hence my first post. I’m taking LT and White before Rice because of that. Rices longevity doesn’t mean much for this particular question since this wasn’t “who had the better career”. You may disagree with my classification, and that’s fine.
I find it harder and more impactful to be a dominant pass rusher (whos also responsible for the run), hence my first post. I’m taking LT and White before Rice because of that. Rices longevity doesn’t mean much for this particular question since this wasn’t “who had the better career”. You may disagree with my classification, and that’s fine.
I'll say this for reference.
Rice's eleven straight years from 1986 to 1996 are better than any other player's 10-11 straight years in NFL history. He was a video game.
And it would very likely have been 12 straight great years if he didn't tear his ACL and MCL in the opener of 1997.
Seriously, people should look back at Rice's numbers compared to others.
The NFL 100 put Rice second due mostly to longevity (LT 3rd). You can make a good, rational argument for both.
Jerry Rice was NOT a dink and dunk/YAC receiver.
He was not. Plus, Rice played in an era where:
+ going over the middle was like going through Aleppo in Syria. Safeties and LBs were allowed to hit receivers with impunity. There was NO emphasis on leading with the helmet or targeting.
+ corners could be much more aggressive with WRs off the LOS.
And Rice never flinched.
There was a site once that did an analysis of every Rice catch over half a season or so and found that he didn't go over the middle very often and if he did he wasn't going to challenge the DB.
For a good chunk of his career, he was playing in a West Coast Offense with Hall of Fame QBs throwing him the ball, and facing NFC defenses that were designed to stop power run-heavy teams like the Giants, Redskins, Bears, and Cowboys. It wasn't until the late-90s that Tony Dungy's Cover-4 was designed specifically to stop the West Coast Offense. Rice still did well - which is a testament to his skill within the WCO - but other WRs started putting up similar numbers. His longevity was remarkable, but he fell off the table the moment he found himself playing in Norv Turner's offense which wasn't the WCO.
If you were starting a team and had first pick who would you take?
and again, I’m factoring in the positions. I’m not discounting what Rice accomplished, I just don’t think it’s as impactful as what LT and White did on the other side of the ball, not to mention the difference in difficulty.
I’ll never take the best WR over the best pass rusher, simple as that.
Exactly. Rice set a standard for excellence but LT changed how teams played. Think about it. Today if there was an LT caliber player and a Rice caliber player, who do you think teams would rather have? It's a no brainer. LT caliber on your defense, all day every day!
Seriously, people should look back at Rice's numbers compared to others.
The NFL 100 put Rice second due mostly to longevity (LT 3rd). You can make a good, rational argument for both.
Jerry Rice was NOT a dink and dunk/YAC receiver.
He was not. Plus, Rice played in an era where:
+ going over the middle was like going through Aleppo in Syria. Safeties and LBs were allowed to hit receivers with impunity. There was NO emphasis on leading with the helmet or targeting.
+ corners could be much more aggressive with WRs off the LOS.
And Rice never flinched.
There was a site once that did an analysis of every Rice catch over half a season or so and found that he didn't go over the middle very often and if he did he wasn't going to challenge the DB.
For a good chunk of his career, he was playing in a West Coast Offense with Hall of Fame QBs throwing him the ball, and facing NFC defenses that were designed to stop power run-heavy teams like the Giants, Redskins, Bears, and Cowboys. It wasn't until the late-90s that Tony Dungy's Cover-4 was designed specifically to stop the West Coast Offense. Rice still did well - which is a testament to his skill within the WCO - but other WRs started putting up similar numbers. His longevity was remarkable, but he fell off the table the moment he found himself playing in Norv Turner's offense which wasn't the WCO.
I think you mean cover 2 zone or more specifically Dungy’s Tampa 2. When did Jerry Rice play in a Norv Turner offense?
That called a time out because Jerry Rice wasn't on the field. Teams freaked out when LT wasn't on the field, because they couldn't find him and would burn a time out
That is just one example of how LT impacted a team and he wasn't even on the field. Offenses wanted to know where he was all of the time.
He changed the left tackle position, he changed offensive schemes and he changed the linebacker (pass rusher) position. Everyone was looking for ther next LT.
I take nothing away from Jerry Rice. He put up amazing numbers and shattered records that may never be broken again.
Rank them however you want, but if I had the 1st pick in an all time draft, LT is #1 without question.
was definitely a revolutionary individual player. I'd probably rank it Bill Russell easy #1 and LT and Bobby Orr as 2/3 in some order in terms of most influential defensive players in American pro sports history. Russell changed the fundamental nature of his sport which is why he's #1, but LT and Orr added elements to their position that just weren't previously thought possible and expedited the evolution of their sports due to new concepts needing to be introduced to deal with them/copy them.
Rice isn't on the same tier as an offensive player. That would probably be Babe Ruth in a class by himself in terms of revolutionizing offense. But even among football players, Rice might not even make the Top 5 most influential offensive players list.
But I think it's unfair that people are insinuating that Rice benefitted from "the system" more than LT did. Both players had unique talents (LTs pass rushing, Rice's explosive YAC skills) that were specifically highlighted by the revolutionary schemes their legendary coaches made. Let's not get it twisted. LT played for Bill Parcells and Bill Belichick with the best LB unit of his era (honorable mention to the Saints). He got to play with a HOF MLB in Harry Carson and he got to play with an OLB in Carl Banks who BBI almost unanimously agrees played even better than LT in the 1986 playoffs in LT's peak year.
It's ok to admit that LT, as great as he was, was lucky that he was able to land on a team that realized how special he was. When LT was in UNC, he was actually kind of struggling because they were playing him at DE and even DT. They didn't know what to do with him. They put him outside and unleashed him, the rest is history. But in another timeline/dimension, maybe that UNC coach never figures it out. So much of player's greatness is the result of right place/right time, and that applies to both Rice and LT.
..was the more dominant player.
Rice was a great WR, possibly the greatest WR ever.
But he did not do for the SF offense, what LT did for the jints defense.
You should check out Matt's twitter feed today. He's posting nothing but LT, in honor of his 64th birthday.
It's a good refresher course on just how dominant he was.
Especially in his early years.
He was a force, whether it be rushing the QB, dropping back into coverage, or chasing down runners. Oh, and he was pretty good on special teams too!
Seriously, people should look back at Rice's numbers compared to others.
The NFL 100 put Rice second due mostly to longevity (LT 3rd). You can make a good, rational argument for both.
Jerry Rice was NOT a dink and dunk/YAC receiver.
He was not. Plus, Rice played in an era where:
+ going over the middle was like going through Aleppo in Syria. Safeties and LBs were allowed to hit receivers with impunity. There was NO emphasis on leading with the helmet or targeting.
+ corners could be much more aggressive with WRs off the LOS.
And Rice never flinched.
There was a site once that did an analysis of every Rice catch over half a season or so and found that he didn't go over the middle very often and if he did he wasn't going to challenge the DB.
For a good chunk of his career, he was playing in a West Coast Offense with Hall of Fame QBs throwing him the ball, and facing NFC defenses that were designed to stop power run-heavy teams like the Giants, Redskins, Bears, and Cowboys. It wasn't until the late-90s that Tony Dungy's Cover-4 was designed specifically to stop the West Coast Offense. Rice still did well - which is a testament to his skill within the WCO - but other WRs started putting up similar numbers. His longevity was remarkable, but he fell off the table the moment he found himself playing in Norv Turner's offense which wasn't the WCO.
I think you mean cover 2 zone or more specifically Dungy’s Tampa 2. When did Jerry Rice play in a Norv Turner offense?
On the Raiders.
Rice and LT were both dominant. Coordinators had to game plan for both
LT was a one man wreacking crew....nothing was ever like him.
You cannot diminish Rice because of system. He did it with Montana, yes. He also did it with Young and Rich Gannon, in an era where they didn't throw it like they do today. Joe Montana never threw for more than 4000 yards. Steve Young did it just twice, neither significantly more than 4000 yards.
In 1987, he scored 22 TDs on 65 catches. Imagine that. That's 2nd All-Time to Moss during the historic 2007 Patriots' season where they broke all the offensive scoring and passing records during their undefeated run.
I think the debate is pointless, IMO. One was a WR playing offense, the other was LT, they were both historically great, you really can't compare the two meaningfully.
Approved.
In football discussions (especially regarding the draft), the misuse of "dominate" is up there with "they should have went with..." for grating on my mind's ear.
I watched both guys their whole careers, and I suspect the answer is that it's probably closer than being suggested here.
Yes, LT changed the way the game had to be played. But Rice wrecked games and dominated in his own way too. As with LT, you might have the odd good game against him, but both were guys the opposing team had to try and scheme for.
Rice was his eras greatest (non kicker) scorer. He had 208 TDs in 303 games, and when he retired, he owned pretty much all the WR records.
When the NFL ranked their all time top players, they were 1. Jim Brown, 2. Rice, 3 Taylor.
I don't personally have any issue with rating LT "more dominant"(depending on your definition), but it's much closer than is being expressed here.
One on offense and one on defense. Defense wins championships - so along those lines - I take LT. God he was amazing to watch. Wish Giants had a clone of him now.
This is gibberish. Why are defenders more impactful than the very best offensive players?
LT "literally", changed how football is played.
NO comparison.
So was 40 year old Rice the product of Bill Callahan's WCO aided by a mid 30s Tim Brown? I just watched early 20s Brandon Aiyuk barely scrape his first 1000 yard season almost half Rice's age in Oakland. Clearly everyone can get 1000 yard seasons at WR, at any age.
I tend to think fans' have a bias towards how their particular team fared against that player. With respect to Rice, he never really tore up the Giants' defense like he did other defenses. Somehow that's a knock on him as opposed to just acknowledging how good the Giants' defense was.
Most of this board thinks the Montana to Rice combo that won the game in '88 could've been done by 3/4 of the QB/WR in the league at the time. Two of the greatest players in the history of the league just got really lucky you know, while Brady to Moss at the very end of SB42 possibly being able to catch a pass in double coverage has people biting their nails rewatching the highlights......
Eye test LT was great, but the stats kinda underwhelm for an undisputed GOAT level defensive player, you have to admit. I'd like a bit more dominance personally. #12 in tackles, #14 in sacks (since 1982).
Even Moss & TO have amazing #s, neck and neck for best ever if it wasn't for Rice.
LT > Rice is probably correct, but 30 other fanbases likely don't all see it that way, let alone the slam dunk, don't-insult-my-intelligence, that is being touted here.
For a good chunk of their careers they were the best players on the field every week, offense or defense.
Who? I seriously suggest you and others reevaluate his numbers. He was Babe Ruth of offense.
Rice is the greatest position perfectionist combined with athlete of all time.
I love them both.
Quote:
the best defenders of all time have had more impact on the game than the best offensive players (non QBs) of all time. There are players other than LT that were more dominant than Jerry Rice.
Who? I seriously suggest you and others reevaluate his numbers. He was Babe Ruth of offense.
Seriously, people should look back at Rice's numbers compared to others.
The NFL 100 put Rice second due mostly to longevity (LT 3rd). You can make a good, rational argument for both.
Jerry Rice was NOT a dink and dunk/YAC receiver.
Seriously, people should look back at Rice's numbers compared to others.
The NFL 100 put Rice second due mostly to longevity (LT 3rd). You can make a good, rational argument for both.
Jerry Rice was NOT a dink and dunk/YAC receiver.
He was not. Plus, Rice played in an era where:
+ going over the middle was like going through Aleppo in Syria. Safeties and LBs were allowed to hit receivers with impunity. There was NO emphasis on leading with the helmet or targeting.
+ corners could be much more aggressive with WRs off the LOS.
And Rice never flinched.
LT was my favorite player Rice deserves his place in this conversation because there are two different sides of the ball. And he was dominant everywhere - regular season and post season.
To not recognize that shows a clear bias.
Hell, a reasonable argument can be made that Reggie White was just as dominant as LT.
LT not only changed the game but also made everyone around him better. He did not need any assistance towards being great.
"San Francisco guard Randy Cross had suffered through all the losing prior to Walsh's arrival and was there for much of the glory that followed. Nineteen eighty-one was also Randy's favorite season, and he recognized how much its success sprang from the Niners having won that first playoff game against a team like the New York Giants. "This game proved to everyone -- and ourselves -- that what we did worked. Against the smashmouth New York Giants, we showed we belonged. We'd only won ten games the previous three years, and there was no rich tradition of winning, so it meant a lot to get that first one." Walsh later acknowledged, "We won our first Super Bowl with a less-than-great football team, even though at the time people thought it was outstanding. But as you look back, you now realize it couldn't compete with today's teams. Joe was dependent on the system for survival -- in fact, all of us were -- and we believed in it."
"This game made clear the potential dominance of a pass rushing outside linebacker in the 3-4 defense. Now every team was on the lookout for someone like Lawrence Taylor, a force that could disrupt an opponent's passing game."
"This game made clear that left tackles are critical. Bill Walsh had gotten away with using John Ayers to stop Taylor, but that was only a short-term solution. If the Niners were going to prosper, they'd have to get a better athlete on Montana's blind side -- and did in '83, drafting Bubba Paris. Today the offensive left tackle is one of the highest-paid positions in the NFL, and it all started because coaches could now see how critical a good one was to keeping their quarterback healthy."
"This game inspired innovation from offensive minds . . . Taylor's arrival forced Redskins coach Joe Gibbs to modify his Air Coryell-oriented offense into a new system that relied upon the H-back position to neutralize L.T. Joe's breakthrough made Washington a dominant team over the next decade, earning three Super Bowl championships."
It's pretty interesting to see how much changed in Walsh system in later years and Parcells talked about this with how they added more weapons into the arsenal. DC's then had to counter with moves like getting ILB's with speed to cover, etc. Chess match.
One player. LT. Two HOF HC's changed systems and positional value.
I'll see if I can find one where Rice has one written about him like this. I haven't yet.
This is such a silly argument. First of all, we don't know that. Second of all, they absolutely DID devise their entire game plan around limiting Rice, they just didn't all go about it the same way. Some changed their coverages, others added exotic blitzes to take the passing game off schedule, others changed their lineup to adjust for Rice (going to base nickel alignments way before that was a regular occurrence). Some, I'm sure, did all of the above.
Likewise, I'm equally sure that there were teams that did not devise their entire gameplan around LT (although I'm sure many of those teams paid the price for that). And it's not like LT was playing with a bunch of scrubs and teams could afford to zero in on him - he had HOF-worthy teammates around him that helped keep opponents honest in their scheme as well.
Each player is rightfully considered the greatest at their own position and worthy of consideration for GOAT at any non-QB position (simply because QB is and should be a separate distinction). I personally would choose LT, but I'm well aware of my own bias in making that choice. But I don't think you can go wrong with either, and I'd add a handful of other all-time greats into the discussion as well.
Rice came into the league where Charlie Taylor was still considered an all time great. Good player, yes, but not an alltime talent.
Yes, Rice changed the position. He came in and became the standard. What you sought in a WR, and then he rewrote the record book so completely, his marks may stand several generations.
It's no knock on LT if some folks think Rice was better. You don't have to be so sensitive about it. Both are legends of the game.
And as a Giants fan I always rooted against him.
Quote:
based on getting around LT and trying to minimize the damage he could do. Although, defenses altered their coverages to keep Rice in check, they didn't define their entire defensive game plan around him.
This is such a silly argument. First of all, we don't know that. Second of all, they absolutely DID devise their entire game plan around limiting Rice, they just didn't all go about it the same way. Some changed their coverages, others added exotic blitzes to take the passing game off schedule, others changed their lineup to adjust for Rice (going to base nickel alignments way before that was a regular occurrence). Some, I'm sure, did all of the above.
Likewise, I'm equally sure that there were teams that did not devise their entire gameplan around LT (although I'm sure many of those teams paid the price for that). And it's not like LT was playing with a bunch of scrubs and teams could afford to zero in on him - he had HOF-worthy teammates around him that helped keep opponents honest in their scheme as well.
Each player is rightfully considered the greatest at their own position and worthy of consideration for GOAT at any non-QB position (simply because QB is and should be a separate distinction). I personally would choose LT, but I'm well aware of my own bias in making that choice. But I don't think you can go wrong with either, and I'd add a handful of other all-time greats into the discussion as well.
Ask Joe Theismann; he’ll have a solid opinion.
Two of the best ever to play the game.
LT is regarded as the best linebacker, often times the best defensive player ever...and also on a short list of players as the best football player in history.
System WR? Did you watch Jerry Rice? He just ran the best routes, had the best hands, was a gamebreaker and clutch player who could excel with every QB he played with and every coach over 20 years.
Forced opposing coaches to come up with a new position -h-back- to deal with him.
Quote:
the best defenders of all time have had more impact on the game than the best offensive players (non QBs) of all time. There are players other than LT that were more dominant than Jerry Rice.
This is gibberish. Why are defenders more impactful than the very best offensive players?
Go make more stupid Daniel Jones posts.
In the last 15 years that has been a very big increase in athletes who are now playing football that may have played track or some other sport. It's fun position and one that pays a lot of money which will attract more to the game.
There was not a LT before LT and there still has not been one since imv.
I be pretty surprised if in the next 15 years we don't see some incredible gifted WR's come into the league and be even more surprised if there is not a a very legitimate player that is perhaps better than Rice.
I don't think some of his records will be touched tough.
LT is regarded as the best linebacker, often times the best defensive player ever...and also on a short list of players as the best football player in history.
NFL Network did the greatest 100 players of all-time at least twice. Rice has finished #1 and #2.
I'll say this for reference.
Rice's eleven straight years from 1986 to 1996 are better than any other player's 10-11 straight years in NFL history. He was a video game.
And it would very likely have been 12 straight great years if he didn't tear his ACL and MCL in the opener of 1997.
Rice's Stats - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 16022961 bw in dc said:
Seriously, people should look back at Rice's numbers compared to others.
The NFL 100 put Rice second due mostly to longevity (LT 3rd). You can make a good, rational argument for both.
Jerry Rice was NOT a dink and dunk/YAC receiver.
He was not. Plus, Rice played in an era where:
+ going over the middle was like going through Aleppo in Syria. Safeties and LBs were allowed to hit receivers with impunity. There was NO emphasis on leading with the helmet or targeting.
+ corners could be much more aggressive with WRs off the LOS.
And Rice never flinched.
There was a site once that did an analysis of every Rice catch over half a season or so and found that he didn't go over the middle very often and if he did he wasn't going to challenge the DB.
For a good chunk of his career, he was playing in a West Coast Offense with Hall of Fame QBs throwing him the ball, and facing NFC defenses that were designed to stop power run-heavy teams like the Giants, Redskins, Bears, and Cowboys. It wasn't until the late-90s that Tony Dungy's Cover-4 was designed specifically to stop the West Coast Offense. Rice still did well - which is a testament to his skill within the WCO - but other WRs started putting up similar numbers. His longevity was remarkable, but he fell off the table the moment he found himself playing in Norv Turner's offense which wasn't the WCO.
I’ll never take the best WR over the best pass rusher, simple as that.
Exactly. Rice set a standard for excellence but LT changed how teams played. Think about it. Today if there was an LT caliber player and a Rice caliber player, who do you think teams would rather have? It's a no brainer. LT caliber on your defense, all day every day!
Quote:
In comment 16022988 islander1 said:
Quote:
In comment 16022961 bw in dc said:
Seriously, people should look back at Rice's numbers compared to others.
The NFL 100 put Rice second due mostly to longevity (LT 3rd). You can make a good, rational argument for both.
Jerry Rice was NOT a dink and dunk/YAC receiver.
He was not. Plus, Rice played in an era where:
+ going over the middle was like going through Aleppo in Syria. Safeties and LBs were allowed to hit receivers with impunity. There was NO emphasis on leading with the helmet or targeting.
+ corners could be much more aggressive with WRs off the LOS.
And Rice never flinched.
There was a site once that did an analysis of every Rice catch over half a season or so and found that he didn't go over the middle very often and if he did he wasn't going to challenge the DB.
For a good chunk of his career, he was playing in a West Coast Offense with Hall of Fame QBs throwing him the ball, and facing NFC defenses that were designed to stop power run-heavy teams like the Giants, Redskins, Bears, and Cowboys. It wasn't until the late-90s that Tony Dungy's Cover-4 was designed specifically to stop the West Coast Offense. Rice still did well - which is a testament to his skill within the WCO - but other WRs started putting up similar numbers. His longevity was remarkable, but he fell off the table the moment he found himself playing in Norv Turner's offense which wasn't the WCO.
I think you mean cover 2 zone or more specifically Dungy’s Tampa 2. When did Jerry Rice play in a Norv Turner offense?
That is just one example of how LT impacted a team and he wasn't even on the field. Offenses wanted to know where he was all of the time.
He changed the left tackle position, he changed offensive schemes and he changed the linebacker (pass rusher) position. Everyone was looking for ther next LT.
I take nothing away from Jerry Rice. He put up amazing numbers and shattered records that may never be broken again.
Rank them however you want, but if I had the 1st pick in an all time draft, LT is #1 without question.
Rice isn't on the same tier as an offensive player. That would probably be Babe Ruth in a class by himself in terms of revolutionizing offense. But even among football players, Rice might not even make the Top 5 most influential offensive players list.
But I think it's unfair that people are insinuating that Rice benefitted from "the system" more than LT did. Both players had unique talents (LTs pass rushing, Rice's explosive YAC skills) that were specifically highlighted by the revolutionary schemes their legendary coaches made. Let's not get it twisted. LT played for Bill Parcells and Bill Belichick with the best LB unit of his era (honorable mention to the Saints). He got to play with a HOF MLB in Harry Carson and he got to play with an OLB in Carl Banks who BBI almost unanimously agrees played even better than LT in the 1986 playoffs in LT's peak year.
It's ok to admit that LT, as great as he was, was lucky that he was able to land on a team that realized how special he was. When LT was in UNC, he was actually kind of struggling because they were playing him at DE and even DT. They didn't know what to do with him. They put him outside and unleashed him, the rest is history. But in another timeline/dimension, maybe that UNC coach never figures it out. So much of player's greatness is the result of right place/right time, and that applies to both Rice and LT.
Rice was a great WR, possibly the greatest WR ever.
But he did not do for the SF offense, what LT did for the jints defense.
You should check out Matt's twitter feed today. He's posting nothing but LT, in honor of his 64th birthday.
It's a good refresher course on just how dominant he was.
Especially in his early years.
He was a force, whether it be rushing the QB, dropping back into coverage, or chasing down runners. Oh, and he was pretty good on special teams too!
Quote:
In comment 16022997 bw in dc said:
Quote:
In comment 16022988 islander1 said:
Quote:
In comment 16022961 bw in dc said:
Seriously, people should look back at Rice's numbers compared to others.
The NFL 100 put Rice second due mostly to longevity (LT 3rd). You can make a good, rational argument for both.
Jerry Rice was NOT a dink and dunk/YAC receiver.
He was not. Plus, Rice played in an era where:
+ going over the middle was like going through Aleppo in Syria. Safeties and LBs were allowed to hit receivers with impunity. There was NO emphasis on leading with the helmet or targeting.
+ corners could be much more aggressive with WRs off the LOS.
And Rice never flinched.
There was a site once that did an analysis of every Rice catch over half a season or so and found that he didn't go over the middle very often and if he did he wasn't going to challenge the DB.
For a good chunk of his career, he was playing in a West Coast Offense with Hall of Fame QBs throwing him the ball, and facing NFC defenses that were designed to stop power run-heavy teams like the Giants, Redskins, Bears, and Cowboys. It wasn't until the late-90s that Tony Dungy's Cover-4 was designed specifically to stop the West Coast Offense. Rice still did well - which is a testament to his skill within the WCO - but other WRs started putting up similar numbers. His longevity was remarkable, but he fell off the table the moment he found himself playing in Norv Turner's offense which wasn't the WCO.
I think you mean cover 2 zone or more specifically Dungy’s Tampa 2. When did Jerry Rice play in a Norv Turner offense?
On the Raiders.