Yankee Fans Unite

Which is why it's so difficult to compare players [yes, even teams] from different times. Jim Brown not only ran away from people, he ran through and over them in addition.

Peyton Manning, Tom Brady. Would they have been effective back in the 1950's? Great minds, great physiques, great talent. On the other hand, receivers routinely got held up at the line of scrimmage, there was no "in the grasp" or "unabated", and the old pre-AFL ball was bigger.

Interesting to consider.

It is interesting to consider.
I still believe you cannot compare teams or players from different seasons fairly.
But I do believe the game has gotten better. Things have evolved--bigger, faster players and better medicine. I don't know if Tom Brady or Peyton Manning would have been effective in the 50s. It's virtually impossible to determine. The game has changed in enough ways that it would be hard to say whether Peyton Manning could be great in the 50s just as it would be to say if Jim Brown would be great in the 21st century. But I think the former would be more likely only because of the advancements. If you took a 21st century player and went back 40 or 50 years---he would be better than if you took a guy from half a century ago and brought him to today.

I think of Bob Cousy. Do you think he could handle the NBA right now? Not a chance. But could Allen Iverson handle the NBA in the 1950s? He'd tear it up.

It has to be similar in the NFL.

There are at least ten receivers I'd take before Moss (assuming each is in his prime).

Warfield is one of them, although he's way down the list. Rice leads the list.

The game hasn't become better (that's a value judgement). It's become more focused on entertaining people with short attention spans and an inability to grasp the intricacies of the game. Increased offense without the consequent risks that were part of the gamble that teams took before when they went that route.

Al get serious. The talent is way better today.
The scale of human ability is constantly rising. Look at the NBA as a quick example. Michael Jordan was absolute head and shoulders above the NBA's greatest. Now there's a handful of guys that are at Michael's caliber and we're only 10-12 years removed from that period of time. What will the talent be in 20 more years?
Same thing in the NFL. The talent has improved. You can't possibly be serious if you think the game is not at a higher level.

I'd love to see that list of 10 receivers.
Jerry Rice I'll give you.
Give me 9 more you'd take over Randy Moss.
And don't tell me stats are irrelevant.

Randy Moss is currently ranked 4th among all NFL receivers (including TEs) for career TDs. He'll pass Terell Owens (who's 3rd and only 5 more TDs, but is 4 years older) and he'll pass Chris Carter (who is 2nd and has only 6 more TDs). So Randy will finish 2nd at worst in total TDs.

Receiving yards he currently ranks 14th. But if he plays 2 more seasons, he will be ranked 2nd, assuming he continues to average about 1300 yards per season.

And he's ranked 4th for yards per game---Jerry Rice is 7th in that category.

I'm not saying this because he's a Patriot. I'm saying this because he's had a great career and you come off as though he's a joe blow. Give him some credit. And he's only just now 30. He's got 4-5 good years left.

Physical skills are not the only measure of talent.

Rice was better than Moss ever will be. So was Charlie Joiner (a perfect example of how physical talent isn't the measure of the man). So was Lance Alworth.

Heart and determination beat muscle everytime.

The ten?

Jerry Rice
Charlie Joiner
Lance Alworth
James Lofton
Lynn Swann
Fred Belitnikoff
Art Monk
Steve Largent
Tim Brown
Paul Warfield

Oh, and #11? Andre Reed

Then maybe Moss...

Oh, and if the scale of human abilities is constantly rising? Where is today's Albert Einstein? Why hasn't an NBA player matched Wilt's 100 points in a game? Why is it that in 54 years, the world record for running one mile has only dropped by less than 17 seconds (and that record was set 9 years ago)?

There are some feats that are nearly untouchable. 100 points very well may never be reached again. The NBA all around has better athletes, so even the best ones have to go up against better competition.

The one mile run has been shaved off by 17 seconds? That's a lot! And 9 years ago is not that far back. Breaking records takes time.

Einstein was a pioneer in invention. But haven't we as a country, as a world, excelled so quickly since his death 50 years ago?
Besides, I'm talking about physical abilities--with the help from medicine and strength & conditioning programs that they didn't have 40 years ago. That's part of the boost athletes have today over previous generations.

Al that's a list of high quality receivers. But I'd take Moss over most of them. Granted--only if he's the kind of player he has been this season. With Oakland he was a terrible teammate and in Minnesota he was in trouble a lot. But if we're talking about his natural ability on the field, I'd take him 2nd to Jerry Rice.

Muscle? Have you seen Randy Moss!!??

You can take any of the guys on that list for the kind of player they were any time in their career.

Moss may be physically gifted. But he will never be in the same category as the 11 I listed (to be honest, at his peak, I'd take Anthony Carter over Moss as well).

Let me point out that even when they played, Joiner, Belitnikoff, Warfield and Largent weren't supposed to have the physical skills to be starting receivers in the NFL. Mike Singletary was supposedly too slow and too small. Walter Payton wasn't fast enough to be a halfback.

Greatness in sports is not created by physical talent. It is created by those who maximize their physical talent and exceed it. In 1973, there was a man playing center for the NY Knicks who most teams thought of as a potential power forward. Willis Reed. 6 ft 9 in tall. 235 lbs.

Oh, and NBA finals MVP.

Moss? Doesn't even consistently use the talent he has (you can add T.O. to that category).

Al, you can put Rudy (the kid from Norte Dame) in that group by your definition, but he was never going to break NFL records.
Randy Moss, when he is done playing, will rank in the top 2 or 3 in pretty much every receiving category. You can say all you want about heart and determination, but the bottom line in sports is the numbers you put up.

Lance Alworth is ranked 77th for career receptions. Randy Moss, with probably 5 good years in front of him is ranked 20th.
Lynn Swann didn't even crack the top 250 with a mere 336 receptions. Moss has more than twice that.

Betnikoff is 40th in receiving yards and Paul Warfield is 56th. Moss is 14th and counting.

None of those guys on your list, with the exception of Rice will be above Moss in any receiving categories and when you're starting an All-NFL team, you start with numbers.

You put too much emphasis on statistics and not enough on reality. You'll learn.

In ten years, there will be someone who will break every one of Moss's records. And it won't mean crap.

Oh, you think All-NFL teams start with numbers?

http://www.greatsportsrivalries.com/sn_ ... lyers.html

There's the Sporting News list. The 77th guy in career receptions? Is ranked 31st. The 40th guy in career receptions? Is ranked 94th. Guess maybe starting with numbers isn't actually how it works, huh?

All those guys on my list? Will still be greater players than Randy Moss, no matter how many balls he catches.

And your Top 100 is merely a matter of opinion.
There's no way some of the guys on your list are better receivers than Moss. There's a small handful of people in this universe that would take some of those players over Moss and you're on that short list.
I don't focus enough on reality? Al, that's pretty funny, coming from you.