Better Player? Randy Moss or Marshall Faulk

[dtait93]

3 hours ago, DirtyDez said:

That’s not a yes or no.

Your talking in hypotheticals. The fact is there is only 1, debatebly 2, receivers better than Moss. He was that good to the point of clearly being head and shoulders above the all time elite receivers and that speaks more about Moss’ greatness than it does the talent level at his position. To say that there’s a disparity in the top end quality of running backs and receivers is creating a myth as there is 0 factual proof to make such a claim, and your actually holding Moss’ greatness against him for being that much better than the elite receivers of all time. Faulk barely cracks top 5 (if that) amongst running backs, and though he’s an all-time great at his position, he’s not an all-time great at his position like Moss is at his.

[Danger]

On 9/11/2018 at 4:58 PM, Blahstoise said:

Freddie Mitchell

People know.....

FredEx changed how we look at wide receivers, truly revolutionary.

[DirtyDez]

1 hour ago, dtait93 said:

Your talking in hypotheticals. The fact is there is only 1, debatebly 2, receivers better than Moss. He was that good to the point of clearly being head and shoulders above the all time elite receivers and that speaks more about Moss’ greatness than it does the talent level at his position. To say that there’s a disparity in the top end quality of running backs and receivers is creating a myth as there is 0 factual proof to make such a claim, and your actually holding Moss’ greatness against him for being that much better than the elite receivers of all time. Faulk barely cracks top 5 (if that) amongst running backs, and though he’s an all-time great at his position, he’s not an all-time great at his position like Moss is at his.

Comparing where players rank at their position only matters if it’s the same position.  Choosing Moss has nothing to do with where Faulk ranks among RB’s.  If you think Moss s better and made a bigger impact then it’s that simple. 

[lancerman]

On 9/11/2018 at 8:55 PM, El ramster said:

Lol you don’t know anything then. 

Nah. As pure talent we've never seen a WR play at the level of WR from an athletic perspective before or since. Like Rice was better for longevity and consistency, but Moss at his best was like playing with all the cheat codes on. Faulk might be the best pass catching RB ever (I personally like LT better overall), but I would never put him close to guys like Sanders/Brown/Payton even Sayers. I don't even know if he's a top 10 RB all time. Moss is probably the 2nd greatest WR of all time at a position where the number 1 has a real argument for GOAT player.

[lancerman]

1 hour ago, DirtyDez said:

Comparing where players rank at their position only matters if it’s the same position.  Choosing Moss has nothing to do with where Faulk ranks among RB’s.  If you think Moss s better and made a bigger impact then it’s that simple. 

Sure but you're comparing a guy whose only real competition for being the best at his position is a guy who had absurd longevity, owns all the stat records despite inflation, has the hardware, and is arguably the greatest football player vs a guy who is probably fringe top 10 at his position. It's not like you're comparing the number 2 WR ever to the number 4 RB ever and could make a case that 1-3 for that position are all better than number 1. Like you could maybe pull that with a position like TE where you could argue Sanders/Brown/Payton were better overall than whoever you have number one between Gronk or Gonzalez. But even at this position the only WR who is definitively better than Moss is Rice who might be better than everybody, and it's not like all the guys ahead of Faulk as RB's are in the GOAT category for overall players

[dtait93]

5 hours ago, DirtyDez said:

Comparing where players rank at their position only matters if it’s the same position.  Choosing Moss has nothing to do with where Faulk ranks among RB’s.  If you think Moss s better and made a bigger impact then it’s that simple. 

So tell me, what’s the standard of determining betternes and bigger impact when comparing players at different positions?

[TecmoSuperJoe]

9 hours ago, dtait93 said:

Your talking in hypotheticals. The fact is there is only 1, debatebly 2, receivers better than Moss. He was that good to the point of clearly being head and shoulders above the all time elite receivers and that speaks more about Moss’ greatness than it does the talent level at his position. To say that there’s a disparity in the top end quality of running backs and receivers is creating a myth as there is 0 factual proof to make such a claim, and your actually holding Moss’ greatness against him for being that much better than the elite receivers of all time. Faulk barely cracks top 5 (if that) amongst running backs, and though he’s an all-time great at his position, he’s not an all-time great at his position like Moss is at his.

This isn't a fact. It's an opinion. 

[Malik]

Moss had a better and longer peak. It is Moss easily.

[dtait93]

1 hour ago, PapaShogun said:

This isn't a fact. It's an opinion. 

Straight facts homie 

[DirtyDez]

6 hours ago, dtait93 said:

So tell me, what’s the standard of determining betternes and bigger impact when comparing players at different positions?

In this specific one length of peak is why I’d choose Moss.  He was first team all pro ten years apart and you could argue that 5 different QB’s had career years throwing to him.

[NFLExpert49]

Well, the passing game will always be potentially much more significant to an offense than a running game. 

Sure, Faulk also had rare receiving ability for a running back, but when you factor in all the touches and targets, there's just no way the yards per attempt on a play intended for Faulk, run and/or pass, is anywhere near the yards per attempt for an elite wide receiver.

I view the running game as a side dish to the entree that is the passing game. At least in the last 30, 35 years. You do it to open up the passing game, but it's the passing game that is going to drive any great offense. 

[FrantikRam]

Faulk.

And I don't think it's close. Marshall has an MVP, and in a non-MVP season became only the 2nd 1000-1000 guy in NFL history. Marshall won a ring, and was the focal point of the offense. I can't believe people are putting Moss above him.

WRs are dependent upon QB play to be effective. RBs are not. Put Moss on Faulk's Indy teams and we're not having this discussion.

[El Ramster]

It’s funny how people called/call Moss a transcendent talent. In what way? The forward pass? That’s been along since the 50s and 60s.

Built? Not many 6’4 90 lbs WRs around.

What exactly did he revolutionized? While Faulk and Roger Craig took the RB to the next level. How lethal having a RB with that combination can be. You see way more hybrid Rbs now that what Moss did. Steven jackson, Warrick Dunn, Brian Westbrook, Todd Gurley, Ladanian, Le’veon and so on.. The effect is felt much longer. I ask again what exactly did Moss revolutionized? 

Because the forward was there before he got there and it’s still around. 

[TecmoSuperJoe]

14 hours ago, El ramster said:

It’s funny how people called/call Moss a transcendent talent. In what way? The forward pass? That’s been along since the 50s and 60s.

Built? Not many 6’4 90 lbs WRs around.

What exactly did he revolutionized? While Faulk and Roger Craig took the RB to the next level. How lethal having a RB with that combination can be. You see way more hybrid Rbs now that what Moss did. Steven jackson, Warrick Dunn, Brian Westbrook, Todd Gurley, Ladanian, Le’veon and so on.. The effect is felt much longer. I ask again what exactly did Moss revolutionized? 

Because the forward was there before he got there and it’s still around. 

Craig, and Faulk didn't revolutionize the running back position. They were great players, but not the first to be utilized in the fashion they were. Chuck Foreman was a quality runner, and receiver for the Vikings for a few years in the 70s. Before him, Lenny Moore with the Colts in the 50s/60s. 

Moss didn't revolutionize anything either. He was just really good at his craft.

[El Ramster]

1 hour ago, PapaShogun said:

Craig, and Faulk didn't revolutionize the running back position. They were great players, but not the first to be utilized in the fashion they were. Chuck Foreman was a quality runner, and receiver for the Vikings for a few years in the 70s. Before him, Lenny Moore with the Colts in the 50s/60s. 

Moss didn't revolutionize anything either. He was just really good at his craft.

First both over 1k running and 1k receiving