[the 'stache]

If he'd seen an artificial increase in his production, it would be worth mentioning. But he was already the dominant receiver in the game. In 1941, before the U.S. entered WW II, he led the NFL with 58 catches, 738 yards and 10 receiving TDs. The second time he led the NFL in all three categories. He had a freakish 1942 season with those 17 scores, but then he had 11, 9 and 9 the last three years of his career. None of those final three seasons were outside of his norms before the outbreak of WW II.

The war hadn't started for the U.S. when had 34 catches for 846 yards and 6 TD in 1939. The best players in the NFL sure didn't slow him down then, as he averaged a whopping 24.9 yards per catch.

What, in any of his career performance prior to the entrance of NFL players into WW II indicates that he wouldn't have been just as dominant had those players never left? In seven seasons, he'd already led the NFL in catches and yards four times each, and receiving TD six times.

Nobody could stop Hutson.

Originally Posted by howard38

I don't question Hutson's greatness and I agree that by the numbers he was probably the most dominant NFL player ever. But if you're doing such a thorough analysis of his career you should note that over a third of his games and almost half his TDs came between 1942-1945 when the NFL was severely depleted because so many other players went to war.