This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Say what you will about TO being a locker room cancer and whatnot, but I think it's unfair to say he wouldn't help win championships. He always laid it all out on the field and has had numerous memorable playoff performances (The Catch II, his two second half TDs in the 49ers epic comeback against the Giants, and of course his Super Bowl performance with the Eagles). He doesn't have any rings but that's not for lack of trying.
you're right, and if I looked at the question as "for one year" or for one game, who would you want?" I'd take TO (pretty easily). I almost went with TO for that reason, but I looked at it more from a career perspective.
Owens was an immature crybaby and a lousy teammate but to say he didn't have heart and grit galore is incredibly ignorant. There are many, many, reasons to knock him. A lack of heart/grit are not those reasons.
You could go the opposite way and say, "for the long term" or if you were building a team from scratch, which WR would you rather have? TO is too volatile, you don't know how long he lasts before he wants out or before he has beef with your QB.
Not only is Marvin in the discussion, he is the best of the 3. He didn't have all the crazy highlight catches and runs like Moss or TO because his routes were so good that he was often really wide open. He was the smoothest WR to every play the game.
Yep. Assume you could have any WR from "this generation" for his career. Marvin is the man. Of course, Hines Ward gets consideration in this regard too.
That would definitely put him ahead of Moss. He would be 2nd in receptions, receiving yards, and TDs by a significant margin.
I don't think anyone would change their opinion on either player (even if Moss was still playing and did the same thing you posted for TO). The reality is that both guys are well past their primes and anything that they do from this point on is just padding stats. Assuming of course they would put up the mediocre stat line you suggested. I'm not suggesting that either guy is guilty of trying to pad stats, I think they only want to win a championship. Regardless, their impact as players has been well defined and their legacies have been cemented IMO.
Legacies aren't cemented until long after the player retires, imo. Only the passage of time can give us the right perspective. Part of Jerry Rice's legacy is not only that he was amazing in his prime, but also that he continued to be a productive WR into his 40s. I suggested 850 and 6 because I think that's probably around what Rice averaged from age 36-40 or so, which is insane. Sure, those numbers are mediocre for a WR in his prime, but no one does that past the age of 35. If Owens were able to do it, I'm curious if it would change anyone's opinion of him.Maybe I asked the question backwards. My guess was that most Moss voters would not change their vote, because they're voting for Moss based on pure physical ability/potential/peak performance as opposed to the entirety of his career production on the field. Owens continuing to play for four more years wouldn't change their opinion that Moss was more naturally gifted and/or better at his peak.OTOH I think Owens voters do so in part because of his superior dedication to the game. So maybe I should have asked Owens owners: If Moss "unretired" and played at a productive level until he was 40 years old, would you change your vote? I'd guess many of them would.ETA: LOL just looked it up. From ages 36-40, Jerry Rice averaged 80 receptions, 1028 yards and 7.4 TDs a year. Holy ####.
no. peak>>>longevity
