Jump to content

Better Player? Randy Moss or Marshall Faulk

mdonnelly21

By mdonnelly21
in NFL Comparisons

..  

34 members have voted

  1. 1. Better Player


Recommended Posts

dtait93

dtait93

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, DirtyDez said:

 

That’s sort of my point.  Why are other players being brought into it?  

The formula should be which player was better at their position not which player is ranked higher at their position.

Moss was better at his position than Faulk. We know this because there was only one receiver better than him in NFL history whereas Faulk is debatabley not even a top 5 back of all time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KellChippy

KellChippy

Posted
Posted
47 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

I mean, one of those down years in Oakland was 60-1000-8...not going to hear me defend his effort, but two years doesn’t make a career. 

Hell, with Matt Cassel throwing him the ball he put up 69-1000-11. 

Plus, Faulk didn’t exactly have HOF caliber seasons every year either.

I think Moss is a better receiver than Faulk was an rb all time.  I just think you could argue he needs a good situation to be at his best, and was perhaps less transcendent than Faulk during his prime. He was on some pretty bad Colts teams but still produced except in ‘96 when he was hurt. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DirtyDez

DirtyDez

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, dtait93 said:

Moss was better at his position than Faulk. We know this because there was only one receiver better than him in NFL history whereas Faulk is debatabley not even a top 5 back of all time.

So if Moss was the exact same player with the exact same career but there were 5 WR’s better than him (and) Faulk was the exact same player with the exact same career but there were no RB’s better than him your answer would be different?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Soko

Soko

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, KellChippy said:

I think Moss is a better receiver than Faulk was an rb all time.  I just think you could argue he needs a good situation to be at his best, and was perhaps less transcendent than Faulk during his prime. He was on some pretty bad Colts teams but still produced except in ‘96 when he was hurt. 

Definitely don’t believe that Faulk>Moss in their primes. Nor do I believe Faulk was all that other worldly as a Colt (less than 4.0 YPC).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KellChippy

KellChippy

Posted
Posted
55 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

Definitely don’t believe that Faulk>Moss in their primes. Nor do I believe Faulk was all that other worldly as a Colt (less than 4.0 YPC).

Marshall Faulk was arguably the best player in the NFL from 99-01. I don’t think I would say that about Moss at any point in his career. Moss definitely had the longer prime though. Faulk lost effectiveness as the injuries piled up.

As for Faulks time on the Colts, the ypc is definitely unimpressive but not horrible discounting 96. The bulk numbers are still there and I don’t think the Colts had much around him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TecmoSuperJoe

TecmoSuperJoe

Posted
Posted

Two different positions. Even if Moss had a more decorated career as a receiver compared to what Faulk did as a runningback, I'd take Faulk over Moss on my roster in terms of importance. You're getting someone that can attack the defense at two different skill positions on offense. The guy had over 2000 yards from scrimmage four straight years, and two years with over 20 touchdowns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dtait93

dtait93

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, DirtyDez said:

So if Moss was the exact same player with the exact same career but there were 5 WR’s better than him (and) Faulk was the exact same player with the exact same career but there were no RB’s better than him your answer would be different?

There aren’t.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Soko

Soko

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, KellChippy said:

Marshall Faulk was arguably the best player in the NFL from 99-01. I don’t think I would say that about Moss at any point in his career. Moss definitely had the longer prime though. Faulk lost effectiveness as the injuries piled up.

As for Faulks time on the Colts, the ypc is definitely unimpressive but not horrible discounting 96. The bulk numbers are still there and I don’t think the Colts had much around him. 

Your criticism of Moss was his Oakland years (2), when Faulk wasn’t exactly the All-Pro either without Manning/Warner for the most part (I know Manning was abysmal in 98). Doesn’t really make sense to me to give Faulk a pass for some of his years by saying the Colts didn’t have much around him, but then give Moss flak for those awful teams in Oakland. 

All guys need a good situation to be at their best. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KellChippy

KellChippy

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Yin-Yang said:

Your criticism of Moss was his Oakland years (2), when Faulk wasn’t exactly the All-Pro either without Manning/Warner for the most part (I know Manning was abysmal in 98). Doesn’t really make sense to me to give Faulk a pass for some of his years by saying the Colts didn’t have much around him, but then give Moss flak for those awful teams in Oakland. 

All guys need a good situation to be at their best. 

I think ypc is more indicative of the overall offense and team success than individual skill.  I also don’t think his ypc is that unimpressive for the early-mid 90’s.

 I’ll admit it’s not the strongest argument because Moss definitely didn’t get as many targets and opportunities in Oakland as he did else where and still affected the game with his presence.

why are we comparing an rb to a wr again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...