Who is better, Jones or Fitzgerald?
Deacon Jones leads with a GOAT score of 90.4 against 90.4 for Larry Fitzgerald — a gap of 0.0 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Shareable comparison — send this exact matchup to anyone.
Quick answer
GOAT Rank currently scores Deacon Jones and Larry Fitzgerald level at 90.4. Deacon Jones leads on Dominance, Honours. Larry Fitzgerald leads on Longevity, Statistics.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Jones wins: Dominance, Honours
Fitzgerald wins: Longevity, Statistics
Shareable URL · /compare/deacon-jones-vs-larry-fitzgerald
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Jones leads in 3 of 5 weighted categories.
Cumulative output season by season — the shape of each career against the other.
| Ghost race · career day | 30 | 100 | 365 | 1000 | 1825 | 3650 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇺🇸 Jones | 0 | 0 | 5 | 13 | 68 | 151 |
| 🇺🇸 Fitzgerald | 0 | 0 | 780 | 2,189 | 4,544 | 10,413 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | JonesRetired | FitzgeraldRetired |
|---|---|---|
| Unofficial career sacks | 173.5 | — |
| Pro Bowls | 8 | 11 |
| First-team All-Pro selections | 5 | — |
| Defensive Player of the Year awards | 2 | — |
| Games played | 191 | — |
| Career receptions | — | 1,432 |
| Career receiving yards | — | 17,492 |
| Career touchdowns | — | 121 |
| Seasons played | — | 17 |
| Dominance w25% | 92 | 86 |
| Peak w20% | 94 | 94 |
| Longevity w20% | 86 | 94 |
| Honours w20% | 88 | 86 |
| Statistics w15% | 92 | 94 |
Deacon Jones leads with a GOAT score of 90.4 against 90.4 for Larry Fitzgerald — a gap of 0.0 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Fitzgerald scores higher on statistics, longevity. Jones leads on dominance, honours.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Jones: 90.4, Fitzgerald: 90.4.
Make your case for Jones vs Fitzgerald. The scoring is published in full — if you can point at the pillar or the weight you disagree with, we read it. Read the methodology paper.