lol no way. Peyton Manning's physical and mental skill sets would have him raping in grandpa NFL.
Sorry, but you can't mesh the two eras and say one is better than the other. In fact your argument works against you because with time the NFL has become vastly more popular with far more people trying to play it and thus expanding the talent pool and pushing the performance envelope.
I could argue that the greats of old looked greater because they were playing against worse average competition.
And Rice should be #1. He's hands down the best player at his position, by a long shot. It doesn't matter that there are slightly more important positions to a team, its not even close how much more accomplished he is compared to everyone else.
Sure, comparing across eras is hard, but Peyton isn't the best QB ever, he isn't in the top-5, and he certainly isn't one of the 10 best players to set foot on the field.
Bart Starr:
Five championships, a 105 QB rating in the playoffs, one of the highest YPA's ever. He led the league five times in passer rating (only Steve Young has done it more) and guys like Montana and Unitas only did it twice.
In the playoffs he had the lowest TD-INT ratio ever (1.44) and, remember, he played in an era when 80 QB ratings were the norm, yet his postseason stats are better than Brady's, Manning's, Marino's, Young's, Montana's, or really anyone. Ever.
His 7.85 YPA is 8th best ever. He surpassed an 8.2 YPA six times in his career. As good as Manning is, he's only done that twice. In a league that favors receivers, passing, and offense.
Clutch? Star is the least intercepted QB in postseason history, he threw the game-winning touchdown in two different Super Bowls and was brilliant when he needed to be.
Please. Starr is a million times better than Brady, Manning, Marino, Elway, or whoever else you want to trot out. It isn't even close.
We can go through the reasons that Montana, Staubach, Baugh, and Graham are also better than Manning, but enlighten me on why Manning is better than Starr first.
As for Rice, it's a silly argument. Rice is an amazing talent. He is the 2nd most dominant receiver ever and the most dominant of the modern era. His accomplishments are unmatched, etc, etc. Unfortunately, he was a receiver and, while super-talented guys like him are fun to watch (and great players), they aren't what make football teams great.
Rice joined a 49ers team that was already very good. Yes, he definitely put them over the top, but if he had joined, say, the 2009 Rams his impact would have been minimal. And that's the rub with great receivers. When the team is great, they're great. When the team is mediocre or bad, receivers fade into obscurity. Just look at Randy Moss. He has been part of the two highest scoring offenses in history. He also has never won a Super Bowl and, when he has been on crappy teams, his impact has been next to nothing.
This is perfectly exemplified by the Tom Brady / Peyton Manning effect. Both of them take no-name receivers and make them look like superstars. The minute those guys get removed from the team, they sink back to being obscure afterthoughts.
So, yes, Rice is a great talent, but he isn't the best NFL player ever. Not by a mile.