Greatest MIchigan Receiver Ever
So, who's the best M receiver since 1949? (That is all the further back the MGoBlue archive goes, sorry).
Looks like it is AC (Formula, what formula, we don't need no stinkin' formula!!!!!)
Top 10 in order Based on Net Yards:
Edwards 3541 (14.1 YPA)
Carter 3076 (19.1 YPA)
Toomer 2657 (18.6 YPA)
Terrell 2317 (15.2 YPA)
Manningham 2310 (16.9 YPA)
Streets 2284 (15.9 YPA)
Walker 2269 (12.9 YPA)
Avant 2247 (13.3 YPA)
McMurtry 2163 (19.5 YPA)
Howard 2146 (16.0 YPA)
Top 12 in order based on YPA (1,000 Yds Minimum):
Kolesar 23.4 (1425 Yds)
Jim Smith 23.1 (1683 Yds)
McMurtry 19.5 (2163 Yds)
Carter 19.1 (3076 Yds)
Jokisch 18.8 (1088 Yds)
Toomer 18.6 (2657 Yds)
Hayes 17.3 (2144 Yds)
Knight 17.1 (1508 Yds)
Manningham 16.9 (2310 Yds)
Bean 16.2 (1509 Yds)
Howard 16.0 (2146 Yds)
Streets 15.9 (2284 Yds)
January 15th, 2009 at 2:25 PM ^
Any information on number of game winning touchdowns or 3rd down receptions converted to 1st downs? Give me those numbers over total yards any day. And how can you ask "the Greatest Ever" when you only take data from 1949?
January 15th, 2009 at 3:06 PM ^
Although it is theoretically possible that a receiver prior to 1949 has better numbers, the odds are thousands to one against.
Take a look at the guys listed. Any of them play in the 50s, 60s, or early 70s?
Nope, AC played 79-82.
January 15th, 2009 at 3:31 PM ^
Does this apply to all sports? So Babe Ruth played in a different time and era and since the game has evolved, he definitely shouldn't be considered in an argument of the greatest baseball player ever. Thanks for clearing that up.
So no numbers on 3rd down conversions or game winning touchdowns? How about the total number of plays the defense spent double covering the guy because they thought he deserved it enabling other receivers to get more grabs? Sure I can look at total yards, total receptions and yards per catch until I'm blue in the face, doesn't mean anything though in the grand scheme. I'm definitely not saying these guys shouldn't be involved in the discussion, just the information you presented isn't telling the whole story.
January 15th, 2009 at 4:15 PM ^
Yes, in some respects it does. In baseball, pitching has changed dramatically with almost no one pitching more than 7 innings.
Home runs, not so much. That's why if you list Home Runs per At Bat, the Babe is still near the top.
As you were fully aware when you asked the question, the statistics you asked for do not exist in any data base (that I am aware of).
I used the data that exists in the statistical archives on MGoBlue.
Now, we could ignore statistics completely and just trust that our memories and our minds could sort out the differences between 10-20 players over the last 125 years.
Dude, if you can do that, immediately buy a ticket to Las Vegas, play poker and become independently rich!!
January 15th, 2009 at 4:33 PM ^
i have to add a few things on why the Babe's 714 HR total is more impressive than Barry Bonds. First of all, the Babe spent quite a few years pitching before he played outfield. In fact, for those who don't know, Ruth had 94 wins and a 2.28 ERA. 1919 was the final year he pitched significantly. He also hit 29 homeruns that year. In 1920 he moved full-time to the outfield and immediately hit 54 HR's. This is after he spent about 5 years pitching. You'd figure that to be, minimum, around 150 extra homeruns if he had actually played outfield from day 1. To add on to that, Babe played in an era where the ball was heavier and harder to hit far. In fact, in one year, he hit more homeruns than almost every other team in the rest of MLB because of this. The bats were also heavier in those days, making it harder to get velocity on your swing as you're coming through the strike zone. Finally, the pitching mound was lower back then, giving the pitcher an advantage when delivering the ball. The mound wasn't raised until I believe 1969. One more thing to add that I almost forgot is that Babe played in an era where it was HIGHLY unlikely that he ever juiced up. Just thought I'd add those reasons to Enjoy Life's post as to why the Babe is, to me, the most impressive homerun hitter of all-time.
January 15th, 2009 at 4:49 PM ^
"Finally, the pitching mound was lower back then, giving the pitcher an advantage when delivering the ball. The mound wasn't raised until I believe 1969."
strike that, reverse it.
January 15th, 2009 at 4:53 PM ^
i feel like a dumbass now. I don't know why I was thinking they raised it. I checked..it was 1969. It went from 16'' to 10''. I'm an idiot. Thanks Dex.
January 15th, 2009 at 4:56 PM ^
I figured it was a honest mistake
January 15th, 2009 at 4:58 PM ^
i can't believe i got that reversed. i have no idea why, but for some reason i always forget the direction the mound moved lol
January 15th, 2009 at 5:42 PM ^
He played from 1973-1976. He really was the first of the great Michigan receivers, and played for the Steelers (yes, he has rings). You should pay better homage to him.
Ralph Clayton (1976-1979) was pretty damn good too (20.8 yards per catch career average).
Jack Clancy had 1 great year (1966, 76 catches, 1,077 yards).
January 15th, 2009 at 6:19 PM ^
Jim Smith (73-76):
#15 based on total yards (1687)
#2 in YPA (as I posted) at 23.1
My mistake, I only looked at total yards when checking the years they played.
Also, I must have been on some good drugs. I left out the #3 receiver based on YPA!!!!
As you said, I left out Ralph Clayton (76-79), #21 based on yards @ 1393 Yards, #3 based on YPA @ 20.8 YPA
I was not trying to say other players were not "good" or "great". I only said that there were no players before the late 70's to make the Top 10.
Obviously, I made another mistake and should have used 1973.
Mea Culpa
BTW, Best YPA is 58.0 by Tim Hendricks (54-55) -- 1 catch in his career.
January 15th, 2009 at 6:41 PM ^
Usually there is some kind of arbitrarily set career minimum receptions. Something like 50.
January 15th, 2009 at 8:39 PM ^
Yeah, I have been using the MGoBlue statistics archive and there is no minimum so you get every player that has played since 1949.
That is cool and when you do a sort by total yards, there is, of course, no problem.
But, when you do any YPA, everyone is listed and I have to select a minimum and manually look through all the names to get the top 10 (which usually means looking through the first 100 or so names.
So, it is prone to error on my part.
January 15th, 2009 at 4:09 PM ^
...but is there a specific pre-1949 Michigan wide receiver that you believe should be included in the discussion?
January 15th, 2009 at 5:51 PM ^
great ones in all of football. Benny Friedman to Bennie Oosterbaan, 1925-1926; 14-2 overall record. Termed unstoppable
January 15th, 2009 at 2:26 PM ^
1) AC
2) oosterbaan (end)
3) Des
4) Braylon
5) Kramer
6) Manningham
7) Toomer
8) Kolesar
9) McMurtry
10)Avant
January 15th, 2009 at 2:40 PM ^
Not as effective as with RBs, but impact at Michigan:
Carter 3076 (19.1 YPA) 58751.6
Edwards 3541 (14.1 YPA) 49928.1
Toomer 2657 (18.6 YPA) 49420.2
McMurtry 2163 (19.5 YPA) 42178.5
Manningham 2310 (16.9 YPA) 39039
Jim Smith 23.1 (1683 Yds) 38877.3
Hayes 17.3 (2144 Yds) 37091.2
Streets 2284 (15.9 YPA) 36315.6
Terrell 2317 (15.2 YPA) 35218.4
Howard 2146 (16.0 YPA) 34336
Kolesar 23.4 (1425 Yds) 33345
Avant 2247 (13.3 YPA) 29885.1
Walker 2269 (12.9 YPA) 29270.1
Knight 17.1 (1508 Yds) 25786.8
Bean 16.2 (1509 Yds) 24445.8
Jokisch 18.8 (1088 Yds) 20454.4
January 15th, 2009 at 2:53 PM ^
1) AC
2) Braylon
3) Everyone else
January 15th, 2009 at 2:53 PM ^
For those that saw AC and Edwards play, I think most would agree that Carter was the better player. But, Edwards is #2 imo. (at least since Bo arrived).
January 15th, 2009 at 6:08 PM ^
and I am usually nostaglic for the past. But Edwards is the best WR Michigan ever had.
Carter was handicapped by Bo ('nuff said) and the erratic QB play. He also benefited from a better running game (with defenses keying to stop the run), but only marginally so versus Edwards.
To me the difference was, when Michigan needed to get the ball to Carter, they couldn't (not withstanding the Indiana game, when they gave him a cushion and let him catch it on the 15 or so). I saw that too many times.
Edwards had 38 straight games with a reception; Carter had 20 (and yes, Carter started as a true freshman). Teams could shut down Carter, but not Edwards.
Edwards was a much bigger target and his yards per completion suffers because he was such a go-to guy on third down.
I don't know if pro careers would provide much insight back to a players college career. I strongly suspect that Edward's pro career will be much better than AC's.
January 15th, 2009 at 6:27 PM ^
Edwards is only #16 in YPA @ 14.1
That is 5 yards per catch less than AC.
Using AC as the base this is 25% less YPA.
I'm just sayin'.
January 15th, 2009 at 7:39 PM ^
I know this will cause a shit-storm with you, but I'm not the biggest fan of yards-per-catch from a receiver. Obviously, by breaking tackles, they can boost it. But it seems like it's largely dependent on the offense they run.
When Elvis, for instance, was QB, and was passing to Alexander Hayes, Toomer, etc., our passing game was significantly more vertical than it was in the latter half of Lloyd's regime. We had numerous plays that were, essentially, "Get Braylon the ball in space", where he caught a flare and turned it into 6 or 7 yards.
Now, I've only see Carter on the Big Ten's greatest game, but I don't recall seeing him run many "long hand-off" type routes.
For the record, I'd tend to say Carter is better, but I don't think the difference between the two is as large as YPC says.
January 15th, 2009 at 7:39 PM ^
I know this will cause a shit-storm with you, but I'm not the biggest fan of yards-per-catch from a receiver. Obviously, by breaking tackles, they can boost it. But it seems like it's largely dependent on the offense they run.
When Elvis, for instance, was QB, and was passing to Alexander Hayes, Toomer, etc., our passing game was significantly more vertical than it was in the latter half of Lloyd's regime. We had numerous plays that were, essentially, "Get Braylon the ball in space", where he caught a flare and turned it into 6 or 7 yards.
Now, I've only see Carter on the Big Ten's greatest game, but I don't recall seeing him run many "long hand-off" type routes.
For the record, I'd tend to say Carter is better, but I don't think the difference between the two is as large as YPC says.
January 15th, 2009 at 7:39 PM ^
I know this will cause a shit-storm with you, but I'm not the biggest fan of yards-per-catch from a receiver. Obviously, by breaking tackles, they can boost it. But it seems like it's largely dependent on the offense they run.
When Elvis, for instance, was QB, and was passing to Alexander Hayes, Toomer, etc., our passing game was significantly more vertical than it was in the latter half of Lloyd's regime. We had numerous plays that were, essentially, "Get Braylon the ball in space", where he caught a flare and turned it into 6 or 7 yards.
Now, I've only see Carter on the Big Ten's greatest game, but I don't recall seeing him run many "long hand-off" type routes.
For the record, I'd tend to say Carter is better, but I don't think the difference between the two is as large as YPC says.
January 15th, 2009 at 3:01 PM ^
I gotta say Carter. A plausible argument can be made for Toomer over Edwards.
January 15th, 2009 at 3:09 PM ^
Where the heck is Derrick Alexander? He has to be near the top!
January 15th, 2009 at 4:19 PM ^
Derrick:
#12 Total Yards with 1977
#13 YPA with 15.8
January 15th, 2009 at 3:40 PM ^
The Logical way to figure out the best receiver is to first figure out the worst Quarterback. Sure, Anyone can catch nice soft accurate passes from Tom Brady, but when you can come up w/ a shoestring catch on an underthrown ball 3 yards behind you, to me that exemplifies the best receiver. Now I am pretty young, so there may have been someone worse, but the worst QB I have ever seen play for Michigan is Nick Sheridan. And our top Receiver this year at least yardage wise was Marty Odoms. So my vote goes for him.
January 15th, 2009 at 3:41 PM ^
I can stand behind.
January 15th, 2009 at 3:45 PM ^
Tyrone Butterfield
January 15th, 2009 at 4:19 PM ^
Career Stats:
5,167 Total Net Yds.
25.1 YPC
Awards:
2x Biletnikoff Award Winner
3x All-American
4x All-Big Ten
Big Ten Freshman of the Year
2005 Michigan MVP
Measurables:
11'0"
237 lbs.
4.41 Forty
Intangibles:
Friend of Jason Avant
Made of Dreams
Who could it be?
January 15th, 2009 at 4:21 PM ^
Damn, I forgot Tacopants!!!
January 15th, 2009 at 4:26 PM ^
(Gumption + Spit + Sticktoitiveness)/Shenanigans = Charles A. Tacopants
January 15th, 2009 at 4:44 PM ^
Did you just completely make up the "Charles A."?
What does the "A" stand for?
January 15th, 2009 at 4:48 PM ^
But "A." stands for awesome.
January 15th, 2009 at 4:34 PM ^
Bennie was "considered one of the best ends of his era".
All American in Basketball and All Conference in Baseball. Overall, of course, is one of the greatest Wolverines of all time.
Stats were hard to find:
Three Time All American
Led the Big Ten in touchdowns in 1925 with eight
Anyone know total yards or YPA??
January 15th, 2009 at 9:24 PM ^
YPA or YPC?
January 15th, 2009 at 4:39 PM ^
terrence robinson
January 15th, 2009 at 4:45 PM ^
That would be sweet!!!!
January 15th, 2009 at 5:00 PM ^
No one is making the arguement for Desmond? The man has two of the best plays in Michigan history with his catch against ND and his return against the Luckeyes. I know he was more of an all around player than receiver but he came up huge in big games. Something I will always love about him.
January 15th, 2009 at 5:13 PM ^
I'd take McMurtry back in a heartbeat. Kolesar, too. He was SOOOOO clutch.
January 15th, 2009 at 5:55 PM ^
Here goes a top 5:
1. Carter- the guy changed college football.
2. Desmond- still the most electrifying player I've ever seen. Also had great, great hands. I'm really tempted to put him #1.
3. Braylon- probably the best athlete
4. Terrell- word is Lloyd's coaches thought he had the best ability; probably a better route runner than Braylon, but lacking the explosiveness. I watch Julio Jones at Bama and I see a Terrell clone.
5. Hmmm... Marquise Walker? Jason Avant? Derrick Alexander? Yale Van Dyne? not sure here.
January 15th, 2009 at 7:44 PM ^
based on the stats, any top 5 that doesn't include Toomer is off, IMO.
January 15th, 2009 at 8:19 PM ^
go here:
http://mgoblog.com/diaries/freep-top-u-m-receivers-past-15-years
This doesn't mean anything in particular, but John Kolesar was one of my favorite players in my childhood. It's always nice to see that he still has a place in M history.
January 15th, 2009 at 8:37 PM ^
Apparently you are trying to cause three shitstorms, chitown :P
Honestly, with wide receivers, stats schmats. This goes a little bit for running backs, too, but backs have more control over their stats than receivers, so stats are more useful. Wide receivers have a little bit more of a flair for the dramatic than running backs. We appreciate workhorses and blood-and-guts running backs like Mike Hart and give them nicknames like A-Train. Wide receivers are a little more intangible, and I think the greatest ones are the ones that give us the greatest moments. Amani Toomer's stats blow Desmond Howard's out of the water, and Braylon Edwards had a really weak-looking YPC, relatively speaking; and no disrespect to Toomer because he was a helluva receiver, but Edwards and Howard top my list.
January 15th, 2009 at 8:48 PM ^
Chitownblue was referring to me in particular since his argument on QBs was based in large part on YPA.
I decided to give him a pass on this one (no shit storm).
That said, if we are just relying on our memories and how much we liked a player or thought they were really good, then stats don't matter.
As I said on another post, my memory is not that good (remembering hundreds of plays over decades) and my mind is not that good either (processing all that remembering and distinguishing between players).
So, to me, stats do matter.
January 16th, 2009 at 10:26 AM ^
I think stats matter as well. I was only trying to say that I think YPC is heavily dependent on the type of offense they're running.
I think you can look at it this way:
Strictly on a usage basis (how effective he was per use), Carter was much more effective than Braylon. Obviously
However, Edwards was a larger "weapon", merely because he was deployed more. Admittedly, he wasn't as effective every time he touched the ball, but he had his number called more often, which means that his value to his team probably eclipses Carter's.
It's hard to say who was the best player - Kolesar may be the greatest actual WR in Michigan history, but in that offense, with that QB, we would have never known it. The type of things Carter and Edwards were asked to do were different, and I think that explains part of the discrepancy.
That said, looking purely at numbers, Carter was significantly more productive every time he touched the ball, and doesn't fall THAT far short of Edwards' total production. So I'd go AC.
January 16th, 2009 at 10:13 AM ^
Alexander was a great combination of receiver and returner. But not better than Howard. If you are going to rank the WR/KR guys of the last 20 years, I go:
Howard
Alexander
Breaston
January 19th, 2009 at 11:59 PM ^
but a quick aside:
I've always had a nice, steady, calm feeling pre-snap(s) when I'd look to the wideouts and know the guys standing there were an extension of the long tradition of great M WR.
When's the last time we were this lacking at WR? Have we ever been?
i'm not so good on the history, just curious