How big of a Gap between T.O and Marvin Harrison?

[rich homie]

8 hours ago, MagicMT said:

I can understand having Harrison over TO for the reasons you listed, although I don't agree with that POV.  
But Perriman? Really, Perriman..? 
TO has 153 receiving TDs in his carreer. That's 35 more than the number of receptions Perriman managed so far in his time in the league...
I get Owens had some attitude problems but choosing Perriman over him seems like a sure way to lose the all time fantasy draft. 

The point is that I would rather not have TO on my team just given the choice. 

[rich homie]

4 hours ago, Kip Smithers said:

The bold has proven to be false. But go ahead with your narrative.

How has it been 'proven'? 

[ronjon1990]

Depending on who else I have on my team, it's a moderare gap for me.

Harrison was consistent and low key. 

Owens, when his head was on straight, was the more imposing and talented of the two and a huge play waiting to happen. But he could be inconsistent on and off the field and was the polar opposite of low key. 

I'm inclined to take Owens if I've got a solid team and want that extra umph. If I'm trying to build up a team, Harrison all day 

[kc16]

I like both receivers a lot but I’ll say moderate. Owens had the size and strength which I’ll take over Harrison’s slight build. Both were phenomenal to me but I’ll have Owens just above him. To me in that generation, the 2000s, it was Moss, TO, Harrison, and Holt in that order. 

[Mox]

On 12/12/2020 at 10:28 AM, rich homie said:

How has it been 'proven'? 

Teams were better with him and fell off without him. Pretty simply concept.

[rich homie]

2 hours ago, Bullet Club said:

Teams were better with him and fell off without him. Pretty simply concept.

Like when the 2005 Eagles with TO finished 6-10, then they got rid of him and finished 10-6 the following year.

Or when the 2008 Cowboys with TO finished 8-8, then they got rid of him and finished 11-5 the following year.

Or when the 2010 Bengals with TO finished 4-12, then they got rid of him and finished 9-7 the following year.

This isn't even hidden information or anything a quick google search could have revealed all this to you lol.

[Mox]

1 hour ago, rich homie said:

Like when the 2005 Eagles with TO finished 6-10, then they got rid of him and finished 10-6 the following year.

Or when the 2008 Cowboys with TO finished 8-8, then they got rid of him and finished 11-5 the following year.

Or when the 2010 Bengals with TO finished 4-12, then they got rid of him and finished 9-7 the following year.

This isn't even hidden information or anything a quick google search could have revealed all this to you lol.

It's ironic that you tell me to Google something, yet get it wrong. You have Google too and still messed up two of your three points. Blatantly skewing facts in 2005 and straight up put the wrong record in 2008. Even your last point is dumb. He was 37.

2003 49ers: 7-9, lose TO, go 2-14 in 2004. Go from 9th to 30th in Offense.

 

2003 Eagles: 12-4, gain TO in 2004, go 13-1 with him and 0-2 without him. Go from 11th to 8th in offense despite scoring 17 total points in their 2 games without him.

2005 Eagles: 4-3 with TO, 2-7 without him. Missing 9 games of TO they drop to #18 offense overall, averaging 16 ppg without him.

 

2005 Cowboys: 9-7, gain TO in 2006, still go 9-7 but jump from 15th to 4th in offense. 

2008 Cowboys: 9-7 with Romo missing 3 games. 2009 Cowboys win 11 games with Romo playing all 16. Offenses goes from 18th to 14th. This is the first time you could argue a team got slightly better. He was 35.

[rich homie]

13 minutes ago, Bullet Club said:

It's ironic that you tell me to Google something, yet get it wrong. You have Google too and still messed up two of your three points. Blatantly skewing facts in 2005 and straight up put the wrong record in 2008. Even your last point is dumb. He was 37.

2003 49ers: 7-9, lose TO, go 2-14 in 2004. Go from 9th to 30th in Offense.

 

2003 Eagles: 12-4, gain TO in 2004, go 13-1 with him and 0-2 without him. Go from 11th to 8th in offense despite scoring 17 total points in their 2 games without him.

2005 Eagles: 4-3 with TO, 2-7 without him. Missing 9 games of TO they drop to #18 offense overall, averaging 16 ppg without him.

 

2005 Cowboys: 9-7, gain TO in 2006, still go 9-7 but jump from 15th to 4th in offense. 

2008 Cowboys: 9-7 with Romo missing 3 games. 2009 Cowboys win 11 games with Romo playing all 16. Offenses goes from 18th to 14th. This is the first time you could argue a team got slightly better. He was 35.

If we skip over all the nitpicks it just reiterates what I'm saying. In 2005 he was suspended from the team mid-season after getting into fistfights with teammates,  mouthing off about McNabb, and just generally being a pain in the ***. The fact that the Eagles were so bad in that time only helps my argument, TO's absence that year WAS his presence. The Eagles were out there losing games while TO, his skillset, and his cap space were at home doing sit-ups in front of the reporters in his driveway. It's the perfect example of my initial point, that Owens was often more of a detriment to his team than a positive.

[Mox]

2 hours ago, rich homie said:

If we skip over all the nitpicks it just reiterates what I'm saying. In 2005 he was suspended from the team mid-season after getting into fistfights with teammates,  mouthing off about McNabb, and just generally being a pain in the ***. The fact that the Eagles were so bad in that time only helps my argument, TO's absence that year WAS his presence. The Eagles were out there losing games while TO, his skillset, and his cap space were at home doing sit-ups in front of the reporters in his driveway. It's the perfect example of my initial point, that Owens was often more of a detriment to his team than a positive.

This is a long way of saying "I don't care what you say I'm still right."

[rich homie]

9 minutes ago, Bullet Club said:

This is a long way of saying "I don't care what you say I'm still right."

Do you have any rebuttal to my bigger point that TO's presence was often detrimental to his team that isn't "well ackshually the Cowboys were 9-7 not 8-8!!!"

[ET80]

21 minutes ago, rich homie said:

Do you have any rebuttal to my bigger point that TO's presence was often detrimental to his team that isn't "well ackshually the Cowboys were 9-7 not 8-8!!!"

Um...

3 hours ago, Bullet Club said:

2003 49ers: 7-9, lose TO, go 2-14 in 2004. Go from 9th to 30th in Offense.

 

2003 Eagles: 12-4, gain TO in 2004, go 13-1 with him and 0-2 without him. Go from 11th to 8th in offense despite scoring 17 total points in their 2 games without him.

2005 Eagles: 4-3 with TO, 2-7 without him. Missing 9 games of TO they drop to #18 offense overall, averaging 16 ppg without him.

 

2005 Cowboys: 9-7, gain TO in 2006, still go 9-7 but jump from 15th to 4th in offense. 

... He had a lot to go with it. There's a demonstrative improvement from pre and post TO.

I get that you don't like TO - a lot of people don't. But these are pretty telling of his impact on an offense.

[rich homie]

2 minutes ago, ET80 said:

Um...

... He had a lot to go with it. There's a demonstrative improvement from pre and post TO.

I get that you don't like TO - a lot of people don't. But these are pretty telling of his impact on an offense.

Nobody is denying that an offense often played better when T.O. was on the field for them than when he didn't. That's not in question here. (although I would say the Cowboys offense was much more due to Romo than TO, especially considering they got better when he left). The point is that TO also often hurt his team with his ego, selfishness, and diva personality, which has supposedly been 'proven false' 

[Jeezla]

T.O. could be more "dominant", but Harrison was much more consistent, unless he was getting mauled by Ty Law, which is part of the reason we have the PI rules we do today. I think the gap between the two is very small, if there's a gap at all. It's more of a preference between a physicaly dominant rac WR, or a polished route runner. I prefer the speedy route runners, like Terry McLauri, over the rac monsters like AJ Brown, but I'd be happy with either one. Just like TO vs Marvin, I don't think there is a gap between McLaurin and AJ, it's just preference.

Edited December 20, 2020 by Jeezla