I love posts like this and it’s a shame that they never get much traction here. Great read, OP!
Something I’ve always been curious about is a list of greatest revivers of all time strictly measured by how they compare to their peers in each season they played.
In chess, for example, everyone has an Elo rating so you can really easily just compare them to the average of the rest of the top players to get a near perfect quantifiable description of dominance. How difficult would it be to go back each season and figure out a ranking of receivers based on a set of criteria, give points to each receiver based on their position in the rankings, and then calculate who is the best based on these points?
I love posts like this and it’s a shame that they never get much traction here. Great read, OP!
Something I’ve always been curious about is a list of greatest revivers of all time strictly measured by how they compare to their peers in each season they played.
In chess, for example, everyone has an Elo rating so you can really easily just compare them to the average of the rest of the top players to get a near perfect quantifiable description of dominance. How difficult would it be to go back each season and figure out a ranking of receivers based on a set of criteria, give points to each receiver based on their position in the rankings, and then calculate who is the best based on these points?