Yankee Fans Unite

The reality is: Randy Moss is one of the greatest receivers in the history of the NFL, whether you like him or not.

I would rank Randy Moss pretty high up there as a receiver, though I wonder if he will be able to keep up the high production. It seems the opposition has been covering him heavily lately. Granted a lot of the time he has to be double teamed so it makes it tough to have to do that all the time.

Chosen by players and sportswriters. Mostly players.

Yeah, I know... they don't know the game...

Ok, Al.. let's assume these guys nailed down a top 100 list pretty accurately.
Jerry Rice #2
Lance Alworth #31
Steve Largent #46
Paul Warfield #60
Art Monk #91
Fred Belitnikoff #94
Charlie Joiner #100

Lynn Swann, James Lofton, Tim Brown and Andre Reed didn't even crack the top 100. (Though I'm kinda surprised Tim Brown didn't).

You mean to tell me Randy Moss is going to finish worse than 31st? Or worse than 46th? Or worse than 60th? Ok... 90th? Or not even make the Top 100?

The problem Al is that you get too deep into your own preposterous statements and you're too stubborn to admit that, so you keep on plowing regardless of how absurd some of the ensuing comments you make will be.

I think Randy Moss might have a hard time cracking the top 200.

Aren't you the one that said you start with statistics?

James Lofton has 764 receptions. Lance Alworth only had 542. As you noted, Lofton didn't make the top 100. Bambi is #31, the 2d highest ranked WR of all time.

By your logic, Lofton should rank higher than Alworth. And James Lofton was a great player... but nobody who saw Bambi play would rank Lofton (or Moss) above him.

To be quite honest, Moss is just another big wide-out like lots of big wide-outs the last few years. With an attitude problem.

You're suprised that Tim Brown didn't make the top 100 football players of all time? That's because you aren't old enough to remember enough football players to have any idea of who the all-time greats are.

Do you even have any idea who Sam Huff was? What it meant when Gene Upshaw and Art Shell blocked for Marcus Allen and how they changed the running game? What an amazing runner Jim Brown was? What kind of hits Ronnie Lott dished out, all over the field? How Lawrence Taylor forced teams to completely reconfigure their blocking schemes?

Those guys? Changed football. Moss? Just plays football... when he feels like it.

Yeah, Moss gets double coverage. There are 32 wideouts in the NFL that get double coverage if their team lines up in certain formations. Whoopee.

Al, thanks for saving me a lot of time. You make the same points I would have. John, if you base greatness strictly by stats, you are missing a lot. People of your generation have been espned. It's all about the highlight. Today's game is all about the numbers. Football was a much different game in the past. If you think Jim Brown would not have dominated today's players, you don't know football. I would take Jim Brown over any runnig back in the today's NFL, and it wouldn't be close.
As far as Moss or TO goes, while they are very phyically gifted, there antics would have gotten there heads ripped off back in the day. Besides, there is no way they would put up the same numbers in yesterday's game. Recievers are allowed to run free now, withouit being touched. The NFL and MLB decided long ago that there was more profit in scoring, hence gaudier numbers.

WOW!!!



Any time you and I disagree about something you always bring up my age as if that mattered. Were you around to see Rogers Hornsby or Honus Wagner or Paul Waner or Mel Ott play? Not to mention scores of other great ballplayers that played before your time.
No you weren't, but you probably have an idea of their greatness if you love the history of the game.

Tim Brown was a great WR as I knew. But after having looked at his numbers--that's been confirmed. He's 3rd all time in total receptions, 2nd all time in receiving yards and 6th all time in receiving TDs.

That's not even what the discussion is about. Sure---they would have been clocked by DBs back in the day. But they don't play 'back in the day'. If they did, they probably would have kept their yap shut after 1 hard hit.
But I'm not talking about their antics. This whole discussion started because someone asked someone if they would take Paul Warfield or Randy Moss.
Then Al jumped in with saying there's at least 10 guys he'd take over Moss.

You know what--that's great. Take your 10 WRs. I'd take 1, maybe 2 guys over Moss of all the WRs throughout the NFL. When his career is over, he will be ranked as probably the #2 WR of all time in terms of numbers--and again, that's the bottom line. I know there are a lot of intangibles you don't see on the stat sheet, like blocking during the run. But Randy Moss is a huge reason why the Patriots went undefeated this season. And to say he's not among the NFL's elite receiving corps of all time is plain ignorance.

This is why I like to have discussions like this in person. What I am trying to say is not coming out clearly. I think Moss will go down as one of the greatest recievers ever, statistically. My point is, if he played 30 years ago, he would not have those numbers. If Warfield played today, in the era of wide open offenses, he would put up monster numbers as well. He was that good.

Chris, you make a good point. The game has changed, and because of those changes it affected the stats being put up. There is no real way of evaluating what the old time players would have been able to do if they played today, but I think they could do some serious damage to the stats.

Joiner, Largent or Belitnikoff would have been catching 30 passes a game. They couldn't be covered. Not size, not speed... just perfect routes and great hands. They always got open.


John,

In twenty years when Moss is the #20 receiver statistically, and Jerry Rice is still rated the all-time best (despite being statistically passed by kids currently in high school), you'll start to get it.

When evaluating players, you really have to compare them to the guys they played against. I really have a hard time with analysts who want to talk about the "best ever" in any sport, because you can't compare eras adequately. How would Moss, TO, Marvin Harrison, or any other current receiver handle a more physical game? Tough to say, really. You really have to ask yourself, how does Moss compare to the other receivers of his era? Is he heads and tails better? I'd have to say no, even though he is one of the best, if not the best, receiver right now.

However, we really should wait until his career is over to give an honest assessment of where he ranks among the all-time greats. Until then, we won't be able to objectively compare him to the other receivers of his time.

Agreed Rob.

Heck, you can't even really compare what Tiger Woods is doing in golf to what the yesteryear players did. The clubs have changed so much, the balls, but it is what it is.

It can be fun to speculate, but I don't know if its anything that could ever be resolved.

Good points.

Rice was far and away the best receiver of his era. Alworth was the best (by a long, long shot) of his. Largent and Joiner are the two best possession receivers of all time...theirs or anyones.

John's right.

Did Moss get the most out of his abilities? No, not even close. If he'd had Marvin Harrison's work ethic, Moss would be putting Rice's records in the dust.

As it is, Moss is one of the best 100 players ever. Sorry, Al, he just is. He's an absolute game-changer going all the way back to his days at Marshall.

--Oh, and you knew this was coming. If we're debating the best receivers ever, Marvin Harrison absolutely belongs in the discussion. Top 5 in my opinion, probably top 10 at worst.