Pretty fascinating how much more diverse the eras are on the receiver list than the qb list. Anyone have any thoughts? More 3- and 4-wide sets, more pass-catching tight ends, and more emphasis on hitting rbs coming out of the backfield mean more targets for all those 40+ touchdown seasons?
That's definitely part of it. More passing means more wide receivers. There's also the idea that back then the really elite athletes stood out way more than today. See Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell on the basketball side for examples of this. If you've got one of those guys, you get them the ball. Now, there are a handful of truly elite receivers, but the guys nipping at their heels on the same team are very close in talent. Sometimes your 3rd WR has a better coverage matchup, so they get fed, while your WR #1 has double coverage. Talent and coaching schemes I think have a part to play in that discrepancy as well. It is pretty cool to see those difference play out though.
I wonder if Jim Brown had played 16 game seasons whether he would place on the rushing TD list.
After I got him for Amari Cooper XD