Ever to play the game. NFL , CFL , whatever.
I agree. It's gotta be Rice hands down.
Jerry Rice without a doubt... Did you really have to ask?
Active CFL - Milt Stegal (Yes, even now)
Active NFL- Marvin Harrison
Definitely Rice. Just trying to settle an argument with my girlfreinds' bro. He says its Brian Kelly. Not sure what he's on.
I agree with Rice in the NFL but can't pick a guy who never won a championship for CFL pick. I would go with Allan Pitts or Brian Kelly.
Fernandez was the best the CFL ever saw. Greer was pretty good two.
They starred in the CFL and did well in the NFL. Not many others can say that. That means more than many want to admit as well.
Tommy Joe Coffey
Nah Jerry Rice
I dont think Championships determine whos the best receiver in a league. Championships are a team effort, you can be the best yet not have the team to do it.
Championships are merely one factor in assessing a players career. Longevity is another.
It is pretty hard to argue against Jerry Rice as the best receiver in football history.
He owns most of footballs records, played forever and won several championships.
He is the complete package.
In the CFL, I think it was Allan Pitts.
I think he was the highest ranked receiver in TSN's "Top 50" list and I agree.
Brian Kelly was a pretty fair receiver, and was the highest ranked wide receiver on the TSN list.
I personally would argue that choice, but he was pretty good.
Should have played longer....
Rice while fantastic wasn't the type of player that would dive for balls like Lynn Swann, pure flow speed type of guy. I'd take Swann for overall athletic ability but hard to vote agains't Rice, I'll admit that, just didn't like his style as much.
Obviously Stegall in the CFL for sure but I also liked the way Brian Kelly played the game and Terry Evanshan, liked his route running. Like Biletnikoff for the Raiders.
Tommy Joe Coffey
Nah Jerry Rice
Rats.... you had me going there for a second. I REALLY REALLY wanted to believe you. (Guess whose name is on my Ti-Cat jersey.)
Mark (from Cambridge)
Marquis players are paid the big bucks for one reason and that's to bring home the championship. Stegall failed in this regard, where others did not, it could be argued as well that Stegall came up short in the "big games", another measuring stick.
If you are chosing the "greatest ever" you have to look at the full package and as somebody pointed out Jerry Rice had the full package.
Like someone said, championships are just one factor. and not the main factor. if a guy has 250 yds and 2 td's in " the big game " yet his d stinks, they lose, does that drop his stock ? no. henri richard has 11 cup rings. is he the greates hockey player ever ? no. jim paek has 2 cup rings for pttsburgh. means nothing. trent dilfer has a superbowl. means nothing. so while you can add it to a guys resume, its not the final count of a guys career.
Like someone said, championships are just one factor. and not the main factor. if a guy has 250 yds and 2 td's in " the big game " yet his d stinks, they lose, does that drop his stock ? no. henri richard has 11 cup rings. is he the greatest hockey player ever ? no. jim paek has 2 cup rings for pttsburgh. means nothing. trent dilfer has a superbowl. means nothing. so while you can add it to a guys resume, its not the final count of a guys career.
You're right, Championships are one factor and not the whole story and in Stegalls case it is a non-factor. Was Stegall an exemplary receiver, absolutely. Is his legacy tainted by the lack of a ring, absolutely. It all comes down to accomplishing goals and if you were to ask any player in any league what their number 1 goal is, I would strongly suggest that every player will say a ring.
Has Milt Stegall had a wonderful career, absolutely. Would he trade any of his accomplishments on the field for one ring, I believe he would say yes.
To go with the hockey analogy, Ray Bourque would still be a superb player with a great legacy in Boston. I still believe the highlight of Ray's career took place in Colorado.
Marcel Dionne was probably a better player than Henri Richard but Richard is the one with the legacy.
Definitely Stegall, or any player, would likely trade everything for a Championship. But that still doesnt mean his accomplishments as a receiver, stats wise, arent more important to go off of when actually rating a player. What if it wasnt a players #1 goal ? Then does that make him excempt from all the " he didnt win a championship " talk ? You can say " well, it wasnt his goal, so who cares, it doesnt matter in his case ".If he acheives everything else, then Championships dont matter.So saying he didnt acheive his goal by winning a Championship really pales in comparision to a players all time stats over an entire career. If Ray Bourque never went to Colorado as a rent-a-player, his accomplishments over 20 years would not be any different. He would still be the best D man ever, next to Orr some would say. He was a far better player with the Bruins as a non-champion, so the championship never made him better, just gave him his personal goal. Marcel Dionne is more well known and in most peoples eyes rated as a better player than Henri Richard. Most of his legacy comes from his last name.