Jump to content

OT: Terrell Owens Vs Randy Moss


Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, greenwichjetfan said:

Randy Moss is the GOAT WR.

Jerry put up better stats for longer, but he also played for a coach and on a team that was the actual embodiment of “playing chess when the rest of the league was playing checkers”. 

Megatron and TO are honorable mentions. Larry Fitz falls just outside of the top 5 because he simply wasn’t as physically gifted.

When Randy wanted to be “on”, he was the best ever, and was nearly impossible to defend. He was also must see TV. 

No he wasn't (at least, imo).  If both players were at their peak, I'd still take Jerry Rice.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TuscanyTile2 said:

No he wasn't (at least, imo).  If both players were at their peak, I'd still take Jerry Rice.

This is nonsense. They're bigger, faster, stronger now than they were then and they'll be bigger, faster, stronger still in the future. Every argument for older as better is stretching one if not both definitions. If peak Jerry Rice had to line up against Revis he would lose close to 100% of the reps right at the snap and be crying like a girl by the middle of the third quarter. I am not exaggerating here. Like. A. Girl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Waka Flocka Flacco said:

This is nonsense. They're bigger, faster, stronger now than they were then and they'll be bigger, faster, stronger still in the future. Every argument for older as better is stretching one if not both definitions. If peak Jerry Rice had to line up against Revis he would lose close to 100% of the reps right at the snap and be crying like a girl by the middle of the third quarter. I am not exaggerating here. Like. A. Girl.

I dont think so.  Players in the 90s were running 4.2 and 4.3 40s, there just wasnt quite as many of them.  Rice lined up againt prime time, who is twice the coverage player Revis ever was.

I would also take Rice over Moss, gun to my head.  Rice was literally uncoverable.  You couldn’t jam him at the line, he had Barry Sanders like agility, he was outrageously fast off the go (the best release ever), had better hands than Moss, better stamina, the best RAC of all time and had better route running.  I mean the amount of seperation he got was like what 5’8 slot receiver gets and yet he had the height and strength of the big receivers of today.  He would frequently own double teams… Just insane

And while he never had anything like TO or Moss speed, he was still running by a lot of people (you rarely see him caught from behind).

Moss meanwhile had that unbelievable speed.  He could probably run stride for stride with Prime time.  He also had unbelievable balance and jumping ability, and was the best deep jump ball player of all time.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Waka Flocka Flacco said:

This is nonsense. They're bigger, faster, stronger now than they were then and they'll be bigger, faster, stronger still in the future. Every argument for older as better is stretching one if not both definitions. If peak Jerry Rice had to line up against Revis he would lose close to 100% of the reps right at the snap and be crying like a girl by the middle of the third quarter. I am not exaggerating here. Like. A. Girl.

LOL.  "Okay".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Hael said:

I dont think so.  Players in the 90s were running 4.2 and 4.3 40s, there just wasnt quite as many of them.  Rice lined up againt prime time, who is twice the coverage player Revis ever was.

I would also take Rice over Moss, gun to my head.  Rice was literally uncoverable.  You couldn’t jam him at the line, he had Barry Sanders like agility, he was outrageously fast off the go (the best release ever), had better hands than Moss, better stamina, the best RAC of all time and had better route running.  I mean the amount of seperation he got was like what 5’8 slot receiver gets and yet he had the height and strength of the big receivers of today.  He would frequently own double teams… Just insane

And while he never had anything like TO or Moss speed, he was still running by a lot of people (you rarely see him caught from behind).

Moss meanwhile had that unbelievable speed.  He could probably run stride for stride with Prime time.  He also had unbelievable balance and jumping ability, and was the best deep jump ball player of all time.

 

52 minutes ago, TuscanyTile2 said:

LOL.  "Okay".

You're on the wrong side of history and reality. One day somebody is going to be better than Tom Brady, and then it's gonna be the massholes bloviating for all eternity about why he ain't, and nobody really needs to be that guy until then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Waka Flocka Flacco said:

This is nonsense. They're bigger, faster, stronger now than they were then and they'll be bigger, faster, stronger still in the future. Every argument for older as better is stretching one if not both definitions. If peak Jerry Rice had to line up against Revis he would lose close to 100% of the reps right at the snap and be crying like a girl by the middle of the third quarter. I am not exaggerating here. Like. A. Girl.

Revis couldn’t handle Steve Johnson

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Facts said:

Marshall is closer to Antonio Brown than Moss or Owens.

 

3 hours ago, Joe Willie White Shoes said:

Owens is closer to Antonio Brown than Moss or Marshall.  Total nut job and pariah.  

Keep In mind I'm not saying Marshall is better than either guy, I just prefer Marshall's style of play for the type of offense I would run. Also I'm trying to keep the Nutty personalities all of them seem to have out of the equasion I'm just talking pure talent. 

Marshall did not play as many games as the other 2 did 40 less games to be exact and he still put up 12,300 yards and 83 TD's and if you take the prime years Marshall is right there keeping in mind his last 2 years were bad due to injury Marshall only had ten years of real production. Marshall also played with crappy QB's his entire career

Bottom line each receiver is different in their own way and I always prefer the possession guy over the burner 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Waka Flocka Flacco said:

This is nonsense. They're bigger, faster, stronger now than they were then and they'll be bigger, faster, stronger still in the future. Every argument for older as better is stretching one if not both definitions. If peak Jerry Rice had to line up against Revis he would lose close to 100% of the reps right at the snap and be crying like a girl by the middle of the third quarter. I am not exaggerating here. Like. A. Girl.

 Just so you are aware Jerry Rice lined up against Deion Sanders, a young Deion Sanders and ate him up alive when Dieon Was in Atlanta and they played 2x a year. When it comes to Revis while he was a great corner in his prime he was great because he was asked to cover in a very short window of time due to Rex's scheme which usually got to the QB in under 3 seconds. Revis was not the best cover guy in deeper coverages and that was proven a few times and in some big situations. A lot of times great players are utilized in great schemes that fit them sometimes they are not >Revis went to TB and was not close to the same guy he was here in NY and was still in his prime.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Smashmouth said:

 Just so you are aware Jerry Rice lined up against Deion Sanders, a young Deion Sanders and ate him up alive when Dieon Was in Atlanta and they played 2x a year. When it comes to Revis while he was a great corner in his prime he was great because he was asked to cover in a very short window of time due to Rex's scheme which usually got to the QB in under 3 seconds. Revis was not the best cover guy in deeper coverages and that was proven a few times and in some big situations. A lot of times great players are utilized in great schemes that fit them sometimes they are not >Revis went to TB and was not close to the same guy he was here in NY and was still in his prime.

Rice at 40 was still a top 10 guy. That was 02, which isn’t forever ago.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Irish Jet said:

Owens is the best receiver I've seen play. Incredible in every area of the game. Would drop the odd pass but almost always made up for it a play or two later. Moss was obviously the better deep threat but in the era where guys were murdered across the middle Owens would make plays there time and again. He was just a beast after the catch as well. The complete receiver. 

I think if Moss never got the move to that crazy New England offence to play with the GOAT then this wouldn't even be a debate. It still pisses me off that they got him so cheap and even restructured his contract to take a stupidly low salary. Everyone and their mother could see he would turn it around in New England. 

TO would have been incredible with the Pats. The QB can be the difference between a HOF WR and a guy being seen as a JAG, it's that important and Owens never played with the absolute best. As it is he was dominant under the best QB's he played with - McNabb and Romo, especially McNabb in that first year. TO took the blame for that falling apart but everything I've heard about it seems to suggest McNabb was equally if not more responsible for alienating Owens. It sucks he got injured in 2004 as that was an incredible team and Owens took them to another level. Even with one leg he was their best player in the Superbowl. 

 

I remember that SUPer bowl with the eagles and mcnab, the whole team was beat to sh*t, sad looking. TO was the only guy to show up and he looked great! Maybe I am remembering it wrong but i always remembered that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Biggs said:

 

I didn't see him play but Don Hutson should be in the conversation.  Don Hutson retired in the 40's.  His 99 TD receptions weren't surpassed for 40 years and he had double the amount of receptions as the next closest receiver.   He was the most dominating offensive player of his era.  Babe Ruth domination.

Lance Alworth may have had the two best seasons in a row of any WR.  In 65 and 66 in an era where the QB and WR weren't protected he averaged 20 yards per, 110 yards per and 1 TD per game.  He was the first AFL only player elected to the HOF.   He was all pro 6 consecutive seasons.  Staggering numbers for the era.

 

I dont intend any offense to you personally, but this argument is crazy.

No one who played before 1970 can be considered the best of all time or even in the convesation for the best of all time. 

Anyone who thinks that they can lacks a historical understanding of the NFL and AFL in that time.

This was before colleges had scouts in every district of every state in the Country, tracking the very best players in the high school system. Before the NFL had access to the great pool of talent they do now. The NFL was evaluating talent based on newspaper clippings.

In other words, the talent pool of the NFL between 1920 and 1950 was pathetic. There are people on this forum that may have made the teams. The first black player wasn't in the NFL until close to 1950.

Many had normal jobs and "jobbed in" for the game on the weekend. Know what that means? It means they didnt even practice with their team during the week. 

To consider Hutson among the greats is an INSULT to the greats. Same with Alworth, but to a slightly lesser extent.

  • Thumb Down 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Facts said:

I dont intend any offense to you personally, but this argument is crazy.

No one who played before 1970 can be considered the best of all time or even in the convesation for the best of all time. 

Anyone who thinks that they can lacks a historical understanding of the NFL and AFL in that time.

This was before colleges had scouts in every district of every state in the Country, tracking the very best players in the high school system. Before the NFL had access to the great pool of talent they do now. The NFL was evaluating talent based on newspaper clippings.

In other words, the talent pool of the NFL between 1920 and 1950 was pathetic. There are people on this forum that may have made the teams. The first black player wasn't in the NFL until close to 1950.

Many had normal jobs and "jobbed in" for the game on the weekend. Know what that means? It means they didnt even practice with their team during the week. 

To consider Hutson among the greats is an INSULT to the greats. Same with Alworth, but to a slightly lesser extent.

You realize Alworth was faster and could highpoint the ball higher than last years best WR Cooper Kupp.  Kupp ran a 4.62 40.  Alworth was a track star in college, he ran the 100, 220 and was a long jumper.  He could absolutely play today and dominate.   Cooper Kupp is not a freak athlete.  Alworth was. 

As far as an insult.  A blue ribbon committee of current and former players coaches and media voted on the top 100 of all time.  Hutson is 9 on the list.  Alworth is 38.  Jerry Rice is the No. 1 player on that list.  

Now I agree Hutson probably couldn't dominate today.  He played in a league that didn't have black players and wasn't very popular. All we know was he was a complete outlier in a smaller pool.  I certainly think Namath, Staubach and Sony Jurgensen could play in today's NFL.  So could plenty of players from the 60's and 70's.  You do make a good point.  They would probably be better with more competition and playing full time.  

FYI there were 2 players in the 62 draft who are in the HOF.  Both of them could play today.  Alworth and Merlin Olsen. 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Biggs said:

You realize Alworth was faster and could highpoint the ball higher than last years best WR Cooper Kupp.  Kupp ran a 4.62 40.  Alworth was a track star in college, he ran the 100, 220 and was a long jumper.  He could absolutely play today and dominate.   Cooper Kupp is not a freak athlete.  Alworth was. 

As far as an insult.  A blue ribbon committee of current and former players coaches and media voted on the top 100 of all time.  Hutson is 9 on the list.  Alworth is 38.  Jerry Rice is the No. 1 player on that list.  

Now I agree Hutson probably couldn't dominate today.  He played in a league that didn't have black players and wasn't very popular. All we know was he was a complete outlier in a smaller pool.  I certainly think Namath, Staubach and Sony Jurgensen could play in today's NFL.  So could plenty of players from the 60's and 70's.  You do make a good point.  They would probably be better with more competition and playing full time.  

 

 

I mostly agree.  Some of the guys from the 50s and 60s would be able to compete today.  Some not so much. 

But one thing I think we can all agree on...  this guy would still be fun to watch in today's game if we had a time machine.

image.png

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, nycdan said:

I mostly agree.  Some of the guys from the 50s and 60s would be able to compete today.  Some not so much. 

But one thing I think we can all agree on...  this guy would still be fun to watch in today's game if we had a time machine.

image.png

 

He was another outlier and he absolutely could play in any era at a very high level.   He was also an incredible Lacrosse player.  He played for Manhasset High right in the shadow of Shea Stadium.  Should have been on the Jets.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Waka Flocka Flacco said:

This is nonsense. They're bigger, faster, stronger now than they were then and they'll be bigger, faster, stronger still in the future. Every argument for older as better is stretching one if not both definitions. If peak Jerry Rice had to line up against Revis he would lose close to 100% of the reps right at the snap and be crying like a girl by the middle of the third quarter. I am not exaggerating here. Like. A. Girl.

You can't compare eras like that. Players are bigger, faster, stronger now because of advancements in training, technology, economics (they make so much money they train all year round while players in the past had to work in the offseason), and evolution . Then you have the rules changes that have made the NFL more and more of a passing league.  You have to compare players from the past vs their peers and not look at raw stats or pure physical gifts.  Jerry Rice was not only talented, but his training regimen back in the 80s was considered off the charts. You have to factor in that he was in the best physical shape back then and would be the same today taking advantage of all the training tools that exist today.  

Rice was head and shoulders better than any receiver in the 80-90s.  He is so clearly the best of all time that it's not even close. And you have to consider players like Hutson and Alworth and Maynard as well.  Maynard led the NFL in career receiving yards into the 1980s.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Facts said:

I dont intend any offense to you personally, but this argument is crazy.

No one who played before 1970 can be considered the best of all time or even in the convesation for the best of all time. 

Anyone who thinks that they can lacks a historical understanding of the NFL and AFL in that time.

This was before colleges had scouts in every district of every state in the Country, tracking the very best players in the high school system. Before the NFL had access to the great pool of talent they do now. The NFL was evaluating talent based on newspaper clippings.

In other words, the talent pool of the NFL between 1920 and 1950 was pathetic. There are people on this forum that may have made the teams. The first black player wasn't in the NFL until close to 1950.

Many had normal jobs and "jobbed in" for the game on the weekend. Know what that means? It means they didnt even practice with their team during the week. 

To consider Hutson among the greats is an INSULT to the greats. Same with Alworth, but to a slightly lesser extent.

You have the argument backwards.  There were elite athletes in every era.  You are insulting some of the all time greats based on when they played rather than how they played. Players with todays weight rooms and diet and supplements who played at 280 pounds in the 1960s could easily be 320-350 today. Players who ran a 4.6 40 then could run a 4.4 today with proper training.  Just stop.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Joe Willie White Shoes said:

 

 

15 minutes ago, Biggs said:

He was another outlier and he absolutely could play in any era at a very high level.   He was also an incredible Lacrosse player.  He played for Manhasset High right in the shadow of Shea Stadium.  Should have been on the Jets.  

The Jets didn't exist when Brown graduated from Syracuse.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, nycdan said:

I mostly agree.  Some of the guys from the 50s and 60s would be able to compete today.  Some not so much. 

But one thing I think we can all agree on...  this guy would still be fun to watch in today's game if we had a time machine.

image.png

 

Well, if those guys played today, do you also give them access to today's training and medical?

If Deacon Jones ran a 4.5 then, with training dies he run a 4.4 now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Joe Willie White Shoes said:

 

The Jets didn't exist when Brown graduated from Syracuse.  

And he could have played for the Jets when we did exists.  Both Riggins and Biggs left the Jets to play for Washington.    It would have been great to get him when he was in his prime.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, RutgersJetFan said:

So here's the play at 2:55. If you turn the sound up you can even hear the crowd act like someone just hit a game winning shot in the Final Four. The way Moss just blows by Revis is nuts and then he just completely goes on to smoke Coleman, Vilma, and Barrett, shouldn't even be possible. When he was on his game nobody on the field could touch him. Even Simms talks right after about how the Jets are playing as safe a defense as you can possibly play here and it doesn't matter.

 

That reminds me of video games where you had the speed burst button. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, RutgersJetFan said:

Put me in the camp that would take Moss over Rice. Hands down. Prime Moss might be the greatest overall player I ever saw. 

Is there even a camp that would take Moss over Rice or are you 2 guys just sharing a tent ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, chirorob said:

Well, if those guys played today, do you also give them access to today's training and medical?

If Deacon Jones ran a 4.5 then, with training dies he run a 4.4 now?

There really is no argument for players playing against their peers. They played against the best players of their time just like the ones today do. Its not fair to try and compare players of 60 years ago to players of today. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Waka Flocka Flacco said:

 

You're on the wrong side of history and reality. One day somebody is going to be better than Tom Brady, and then it's gonna be the massholes bloviating for all eternity about why he ain't, and nobody really needs to be that guy until then.

Its going to be harder and harder for NFL teams to do what the Pats did and what Tom Brady Did hell its getting harder and harder just to repeat and that's not just about talent level (which does play a part) Its about the trades and also free agency . As we see more and more trades and more and more players switching teams we see sloppy football because it takes years to build up to a level to play well as a team. I equate what Tom Brady has done to the 56 game hitting streak its not going to be duplicated . TB played in 10 sb's and won 7 not ever happening again not in the direction the NFL  is going.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Biggs said:

You realize Alworth was faster and could highpoint the ball higher than last years best WR Cooper Kupp.  Kupp ran a 4.62 40.  Alworth was a track star in college, he ran the 100, 220 and was a long jumper.  

There is a reason NFL teams didn’t sign Usain Bolt.

There is a reason why the NFL isn’t littered with track athletes.

5 hours ago, Biggs said:

He could absolutely play today and dominate.  

No he wouldn’t.

He wouldn’t even start.

5 hours ago, Biggs said:

As far as an insult.  A blue ribbon committee of current and former players coaches and media voted on the top 100 of all time.  Hutson is 9 on the list.  Alworth is 38.  

 

Yes, there is a very weird contingent of media and old timers that like to bring up old players for various reasons. Most of them know they couldn’t compete today but there are political reasons that influence some of this.

5 hours ago, Biggs said:

Now I agree Hutson probably couldn't dominate today.  

He wouldn’t even make a team.

5 hours ago, Biggs said:

FYI there were 2 players in the 62 draft who are in the HOF.  Both of them could play today.  Alworth and Merlin Olsen. 

The NFL is pushing legacy players into the HOF. They’re literally been changing rules to get them in. It’s political.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Smashmouth said:

Its going to be harder and harder for NFL teams to do what the Pats did and what Tom Brady Did hell its getting harder and harder just to repeat and that's not just about talent level (which does play a part) Its about the trades and also free agency . As we see more and more trades and more and more players switching teams we see sloppy football because it takes years to build up to a level to play well as a team. I equate what Tom Brady has done to the 56 game hitting streak its not going to be duplicated . TB played in 10 sb's and won 7 not ever happening again not in the direction the NFL  is going.

Somebody is going to be better because that's how it works. 10 and 7 is beside the point just like 56 doesn't make Dimaggio the best. Brady's better than whoever the last guy was until the next guy comes along.

Saying Rice was better than Moss is like saying Ruth was better than Bonds. It's pointless even if it's not provably wrong. Once you're having the conversation the argument is already over. This goes triple for Jordan fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Smashmouth said:

Is there even a camp that would take Moss over Rice or are you 2 guys just sharing a tent ?

Old people romanticizing the past is actually a pretty commonly accepted notion. I'm guilty of it myself when younger people put Travis Scott on. Who cares? Was Bill Russell better than Lebron? How the **** should I know? And more importantly how the **** would anyone know the answer to that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RutgersJetFan said:

Old people romanticizing the past is actually a pretty commonly accepted notion. I'm guilty of it myself when younger people put Travis Scott on. Who cares? Was Bill Russell better than Lebron? How the **** should I know? And more importantly how the **** would anyone know the answer to that?

I was just joking with ya RJF "the who is better" arguments have always been ridiculous. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont think its that hard to make comparisons between eras.  Sports in the last 30 years hasn’t changed *that* much.  40 times, height/weight of the position were all roughly comparable.  The Dallas Cowboy Oline of the 90s could easily play today, and they would be just as dominant.  Larry Allen is still probably the biggest athletic freak in the history of his position.

In football, there was a pretty big change between the 70s and 80s.  Thats really when you saw what looks more like a modern look, and when the money really started to balloon and attracted all the talent of the world.

The big thing thats changed is longevity and less the genetics of the players.  ACL tears used to be the end of a players career, and now people make routine comebacks.

Of course, every so often there is a meta shift in how a position is played.  For instance TEs used to be bigger and stronger, and now they are more athletic, designed to be pass catchers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, nycdan said:

I mostly agree.  Some of the guys from the 50s and 60s would be able to compete today.  Some not so much. 

But one thing I think we can all agree on...  this guy would still be fun to watch in today's game if we had a time machine.

image.png

 

Those uniforms are beautiful. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know it's tough to say but yes.  WRs usually have some combination of traits that make them great.
Height, Speed, Grittiness, Smart, Agility, Hands...
I think Moss had the most unique height/speed/hands combo we've ever seen.  He made plays that DBs were simply spectators on, powerless to do anything to stop him.  Rice won by outhustling and being smarter than any DB on the field.  But let me ask you this:
If you had 2011 Darrelle Revis defending (or Deion in his prime), what WR would you think would have a better chance of beating them?
Rice was better
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...