Hopefully people realize that Randy Moss........

[FootballGuy]

I could think of quite a few WRs I'd rather have than Randy Moss.

Me too. And this list is based on right here right now. If you want to talk about retired players and players past their prime, then it gets a LOT bigger.

1) Reggie Wayne
2) Andre Johnson
3) Larry Fitzgerald
4) Brandon Marshall
5) Vincent Jackson
6) Desean Jackson
7) Marques Colston
8) Calvin Johnson
9) Donald Driver
10) Miles Austin

 

[FlockOfSeagulls]

Me too. And this list is based on right here right now. If you want to talk about retired players and players past their prime, then it gets a LOT bigger.

1) Reggie Wayne
2) Andre Johnson
3) Larry Fitzgerald
4) Brandon Marshall
5) Vincent Jackson
6) Desean Jackson
7) Marques Colston
8) Calvin Johnson
9) Donald Driver
10) Miles Austin

we are talking about career numbers ; not Johnny-come-latelys.
most of these guys on your list are newbies as far as being even mentioned in upper echelon of Wrs . Do I like guys like Austin , Jackson, Johnson, and Colston; heck ya. But lets see them produce further into their careers before we turn them into hall of famers.

Jackson is the ultimate onedimensional wr, but lets give him time to develop.

Austin is in his 4th season and just this year broke into starting lineup. This comes from the biggest Cowboy fan you would ever meet.

Marshall is even more volatile than Moss at same stage in their careers.

Donald Driver has been a very good WR over and extended career. Very good NOT great. Majority of Packers career he has been the no.2 receiver on those teams.

 

[primetime]

tHANK YOU!!! Someone else understands what point I am trying to get across. Moss is one dimensional. What the Moss supporters keep saying are "look at his stats". Well, catching a bunch of deep balls can inflate stats.

Honestly, when you see Moss catch a slant, is he going to take it to the house? When you see Moss catch a two yard out, will he break it for 20 more yards? NO. But if you throw the ball deep, no one is better. This makes him ONE DIMENSIONAL.

The other receivers that were listed are true playmakers. They can beat you on ANY route. Fitzgerald might even be getting better than Moss on deep routes, but he can also torment defenses on any other route. Moss doesn't command that type of respect from a defense. Again, every highlight you see of Moss is a bomb. Or a fade route.

The point Flock, is that Randy Moss is an overall average receiver. You take away the 9 route from Moss, and what do you have? An average receiver.

 

[FlockOfSeagulls]

Randy Moss is 6th in NFL history in all-time receiving yards. He is third in active WRs behind Isaac Bruce (37) and Terrell Owens at (36). Moss is only 32 ; so barring injury he blows past both those guys as early as next year. When he passes Bruce he will only trail the GREAT Jerry Rice.

Randy Moss is 4th all-time in NFL history in number of TD`s . This all-time list; not just WR list. He is only 4 TDs out of 3rd place

Randy Moss is 10th all-time in number of catches with 926 . Only active players with more are Tony Gonzalez with 999, Terrell Owens 1006 , and Isaac Bruce with 1024. Tony is 33, Isaac is 37, and T.O. is 36

yea AVERAGE MY ASS

Average players don`t turn up on the NFL`s all-time WRs records lists. If he doesn`t get injured he will be 2nd total yards ; 2nd in tds ; and 2nd to 3rd in numbers of catches.

This really pains me to stick up for Moss cause I`m not a big fan of his . But I can look past that to see the guy will retire as one of greastet WRs of all-time. Lots of people will say he was 2nd only to immortal Jerry rice

 

[Cy/MiG]

You say most WRs are "one dimensional". EXACTLY my point. What makes Moss special? He's just like your average receiver. But to be called the greatest, he can't be one dimensional. Rice can beat you on any route and he ran routes better than anyone. Irvin, Brown, Owens, Holt, and Bruce could all beat you deep, but they could also beat you on ANY ROUTE. They were not one dimensional.

Owens is totally one dimensional. He is notorious for drops, too.

Brown was fast, but not much else, just like Moss. After he lost his speed, he redefined his game, but he was never much more than 1 1/2 dimensional at best.

Holt is one of the, if not THE, most underrated receiver of all time. Your average fan would never consider him as a top-25 guy, even though he is much better than that.

 

[Cy/MiG]

we are talking about career numbers ; not Johnny-come-latelys.
most of these guys on your list are newbies as far as being even mentioned in upper echelon of Wrs . Do I like guys like Austin , Jackson, Johnson, and Colston; heck ya. But lets see them produce further into their careers before we turn them into hall of famers.

A millions times yes.

Randy Moss is 6th in NFL history in all-time receiving yards. He is third in active WRs behind Isaac Bruce (37) and Terrell Owens at (36). Moss is only 32 ; so barring injury he blows past both those guys as early as next year. When he passes Bruce he will only trail the GREAT Jerry Rice.

Randy Moss is 4th all-time in NFL history in number of TD`s . This all-time list; not just WR list. He is only 4 TDs out of 3rd place

Randy Moss is 10th all-time in number of catches with 926 . Only active players with more are Tony Gonzalez with 999, Terrell Owens 1006 , and Isaac Bruce with 1024. Tony is 33, Isaac is 37, and T.O. is 36

yea AVERAGE MY ASS

Average players don`t turn up on the NFL`s all-time WRs records lists. If he doesn`t get injured he will be 2nd total yards ; 2nd in tds ; and 2nd to 3rd in numbers of catches.

This really pains me to stick up for Moss cause I`m not a big fan of his . But I can look past that to see the guy will retire as one of greastet WRs of all-time. Lots of people will say he was 2nd only to immortal Jerry rice

Again, a million times yes.

I'm no Moss fan (I'm a Burgh fan!), but he will probably end up #2 all time and is currently top 5-10.

I don't care if he is 'one dimensional', he is one of the greatest ever.

 

[primetime]

You Moss supporters do realize that you're proving my point. The only thing you are looking at are his numbers. But pay attention to what I am saying. Moss is a one dimensional receiver. That means he is only great in ONE route.

To be truly considered a great receiver, you must be a COMPLETE receiver. For example, Cy/MiG brings up an excellent receiver. I would take Torry Holt over Randy Moss any day! Why? Because Torry Holt is good at the fundamentals of being a good receiver. Torry Holt can BEAT YOU on ANY route. Not just one kind of route, but ALL ROUTES. Moss can't do that.

If you think T.O. is one dimensional, then you have no idea what one dimensional is. T.O. is one of the best route runners in the NFL. Owens has proven he can make a play on ANY route. If you say he is one dimensional, can you please explain how?

Flock, dude, you only bring up numbers, which really do not tell the whole story about Moss. Numbers have nothing to do with the fundamentals of being a receiver. My point is Moss is only dangerous on one kind of route. All you do is bring up stats. How about this? Can you please tell me you remember a time where Moss ran a slant, broke a few tackles, or juked out the DB on the way to the end zone? You can't. Moss' TDs are typically deep routes, fades, or a 1st and goal type TD catch. Moss can't run a deep out to save his life. He half asses his route running, but when he runs the 9 route, he's great. Moss is overrated. I would pick Tim Brown over Moss any day. I would pick Chad Ochocinco over Moss any day. I would pick Andre Reed over Moss any day. Why? They are complete receivers, Moss isn't.

 

[FlockOfSeagulls]

You Moss supporters do realize that you're proving my point. The only thing you are looking at are his numbers. But pay attention to what I am saying. Moss is a one dimensional receiver. That means he is only great in ONE route.

To be truly considered a great receiver, you must be a COMPLETE receiver. For example, Cy/MiG brings up an excellent receiver. I would take Torry Holt over Randy Moss any day! Why? Because Torry Holt is good at the fundamentals of being a good receiver. Torry Holt can BEAT YOU on ANY route. Not just one kind of route, but ALL ROUTES. Moss can't do that.

If you think T.O. is one dimensional, then you have no idea what one dimensional is. T.O. is one of the best route runners in the NFL. Owens has proven he can make a play on ANY route. If you say he is one dimensional, can you please explain how?

Flock, dude, you only bring up numbers, which really do not tell the whole story about Moss. Numbers have nothing to do with the fundamentals of being a receiver. My point is Moss is only dangerous on one kind of route. All you do is bring up stats. How about this? Can you please tell me you remember a time where Moss ran a slant, broke a few tackles, or juked out the DB on the way to the end zone? You can't. Moss' TDs are typically deep routes, fades, or a 1st and goal type TD catch. Moss can't run a deep out to save his life. He half asses his route running, but when he runs the 9 route, he's great. Moss is overrated. I would pick Tim Brown over Moss any day. I would pick Chad Ochocinco over Moss any day. I would pick Andre Reed over Moss any day. Why? They are complete receivers, Moss isn't.

I am sorry but you ruined your credibility on this subject when you actually said T.O. was one of the best route runners in the NFL . I watched him for three years for the Cowboys and he is one of sloppiest route runners in the game. The biggest on-field problem Cowboys had with him was not all the drops but was his complete laziness when it came to route running . He cut-off more routes than anyone in recent memory. When he was properly bumped at line out scrimmage most times he stopped the route all together.

Moss is a great route runner compared to Owens . Moss has also been very successful running drag and crossing routes over the middle and Out routes to the sidelines and curl routes as well.

 

[theticklingmaster]

There are lies, (d---) lies, & this statistic: Moss has only caught 12 balls in his last 4 playoff games. Great receivers demand the ball. He doesn't seem to do so.

 

[primetime]

Flock, you crack me up. Terrell Owens runs routes very well. He is one of the hardest working receivers there are. It is his off-field persona that turns people against him. He works very hard in practice and he has worked hard at his craft. If you recall, it is MOSS that gets the "lazy" reputation, not T.O.

Have you REALLY watched Moss play? I mean, REALLY watch him play. He does not run crisp routes. Again, any other route he runs besides the deep route, he is very average. He doesn't run the deep out well. He doesn't run any routes well except the route that requires him to jump ball the pass.

Randy Moss is a one dimensional receiver, but the absolute best when it comes to a deep ball. You know I'm right.....

 

[ticklingfeet4fu]

Flock, you crack me up. Terrell Owens runs routes very well. He is one of the hardest working receivers there are. It is his off-field persona that turns people against him. He works very hard in practice and he has worked hard at his craft. If you recall, it is MOSS that gets the "lazy" reputation, not T.O.

Have you REALLY watched Moss play? I mean, REALLY watch him play. He does not run crisp routes. Again, any other route he runs besides the deep route, he is very average. He doesn't run the deep out well. He doesn't run any routes well except the route that requires him to jump ball the pass.

Randy Moss is a one dimensional receiver, but the absolute best when it comes to a deep ball. You know I'm right.....

Is that important for you to be right?


Because TO caught 55 balls and dropped about the same amount.

Randy Moss caught 83.

Because in ALL SPORTS you aren't right. You aren't wrong. It is subjective. Stats play a major role in backing up your statements. When you say it isn't about stats...then why keep them?

So let me remind you...beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You think Randy Moss is one dimensional others don't. You aren't wrong Prime...but they aren't either.

 

[primetime]

Of all people to say "Is that important for you to be right?".....you should talk.

What is so hard with understanding my point? If you truly pay attention to what I'm saying, Moss' stats are irrelevant. I am pointing out how he plays during the game. I am pointing out his skills as a receiver. Is he a threat outside of the deep ball? Why is it that hard to answer? If there were no balls thrown to Moss on DEEP passes, would he be considered a great wide receiver? The answer is HELL NO. People know I'm right. The only argument people have tried to counter are his inflated stats. Take away the deep ball, and Moss is just as good as Deion Branch.....

Oh yeah, ticklingfeet4fu, read that quote again in my signature next to Kobe. Everytime I read it, I think of you......

 

[FlockOfSeagulls]

Of all people to say "Is that important for you to be right?".....you should talk.

What is so hard with understanding my point? If you truly pay attention to what I'm saying, Moss' stats are irrelevant. I am pointing out how he plays during the game. I am pointing out his skills as a receiver. Is he a threat outside of the deep ball? Why is it that hard to answer? If there were no balls thrown to Moss on DEEP passes, would he be considered a great wide receiver? The answer is HELL NO. People know I'm right. The only argument people have tried to counter are his inflated stats. Take away the deep ball, and Moss is just as good as Deion Branch.....

Oh yeah, ticklingfeet4fu, read that quote again in my signature next to Kobe. Everytime I read it, I think of you......

You crack me up

the ONLY reason you say his stats are irrelevant is because they blow your arguments out of the water.

Guess what prime ?

If you take away any players best attribute they become less of a player. That is just common sense. And your only defense to anything is your tape recording of '' If you are paying attention'' garbage. Maybe its YOU that aren`t paying attention

 

[ticklingfeet4fu]

Of all people to say "Is that important for you to be right?".....you should talk.

What is so hard with understanding my point? If you truly pay attention to what I'm saying, Moss' stats are irrelevant. I am pointing out how he plays during the game. I am pointing out his skills as a receiver. Is he a threat outside of the deep ball? Why is it that hard to answer? If there were no balls thrown to Moss on DEEP passes, would he be considered a great wide receiver? The answer is HELL NO. People know I'm right. The only argument people have tried to counter are his inflated stats. Take away the deep ball, and Moss is just as good as Deion Branch.....

Oh yeah, ticklingfeet4fu, read that quote again in my signature next to Kobe. Everytime I read it, I think of you......

I don't have to be right Prime. In fact, I am wrong many more times than I am right. That is a fact. You have taken this rather personally whereas I have not meant any attack towards you. Sports is about opinion. And opinions are very subjective. That doesn't make you wrong Prime. But it doesn't make you right either. It makes it what it is...sports. That is why stats come into play.

If stats are so irrelevant ( in the case you have pointed out in regards to Moss ) then why keep them? You can't have stats relevant for some and not relevant for others. Again...it is not an attack. If stats aren't relevant they they should stop keeping them at once. There is a reason they keep them.

Also why do people know you are right? If they knew you were right, they wouldn't debate you, would they? That would seem to me like a waste of their time. If they believed you were right nobody would have said anything and this thread would already be on page two.

 

[primetime]

ticklingfeet4fu, serious dude? Do you really think I am taking this debate about Randy seriously? The Kobe Bryant posts, yeah, it was personal. This, not even close.

Speaking of taking things personal, didn't you do the same around the time the Lakers won the championship and I told all the Kobe haters to go do something? If I recall, you did get rather bent out of shape.

Jokes aside, obviously no one pays attention. Now that I do remember debating you, you never really did pay attention to what point I try to bring across. You sure are missing the point here. What point did I make about Randy Moss' stats. In fact, what am I trying to point out about Randy? What does his stats mean in comparison to the point I am trying to bring up? That should keep you busy for a while. Let's see if you can answer questions....

Flock, how on Earth are your stats blowing my argument out of the water? For real. How?

You're only proving my point. If you take away Moss' strongest (and only) attribute, then you have what? An average receiver. You can take away the deep ball on Terrell Owens, Reggie Wayne, and Torry Holt, and guess what? They are STILL GREAT receivers. Why? Because they run all the routes efficiently. Take away the deep threat, they will kill you on a slant. Take away the slant, they will get you on a double move. Take away the double move, and a 10 yard comeback will kill you. For someone like T.O., he can take a 2 yard catch and turn it into 80 yards. Why? Because he is a great all around receiver. MOSS IS NOT. Randy Moss can not beat you on any other route EXCEPT THE DEEP PASS.

His stats mean nothing. Who gives a flying monkey's ass if he catches 1000 slant routes. Guess what? When he catches that slant route, which generally goes 2 to 7 yards across the field depth wise, that's all Moss will get. 2-7 yards. He's not a physical receiver. he's not exceptionally quick. He runs the laziest routes of every "star" reciever, yet you point out his career stats. Hell, since you want to point out stats, let's look at Terrell Owens....

Career stats:

1006 receptions
14,951 yards receiving
144 TDs

The fun thing is, T.O. did not get most of those numbers on freakin bombs. T.O. actually is a hard worker. He runs routes and he can kill defenses on ANY routes. Torry Holt is another example of a receiver that can beat you on any route. Moss can't.

Can you understand my point now? Or are you going to come back with "Moss has these huge stats!". Why don't you tell me when was the last time you seen Moss carve up a defense on any route except the deep ball? You can't. Steve Smith (Carolina) is a much better receiver than Moss. Moss is overhyped.

 

[ticklingfeet4fu]

ticklingfeet4fu, serious dude? Do you really think I am taking this debate about Randy seriously? The Kobe Bryant posts, yeah, it was personal. This, not even close.

Speaking of taking things personal, didn't you do the same around the time the Lakers won the championship and I told all the Kobe haters to go do something? If I recall, you did get rather bent out of shape.

Jokes aside, obviously no one pays attention. Now that I do remember debating you, you never really did pay attention to what point I try to bring across. You sure are missing the point here. What point did I make about Randy Moss' stats. In fact, what am I trying to point out about Randy? What does his stats mean in comparison to the point I am trying to bring up? That should keep you busy for a while. Let's see if you can answer questions....

Flock, how on Earth are your stats blowing my argument out of the water? For real. How?

You're only proving my point. If you take away Moss' strongest (and only) attribute, then you have what? An average receiver. You can take away the deep ball on Terrell Owens, Reggie Wayne, and Torry Holt, and guess what? They are STILL GREAT receivers. Why? Because they run all the routes efficiently. Take away the deep threat, they will kill you on a slant. Take away the slant, they will get you on a double move. Take away the double move, and a 10 yard comeback will kill you. For someone like T.O., he can take a 2 yard catch and turn it into 80 yards. Why? Because he is a great all around receiver. MOSS IS NOT. Randy Moss can not beat you on any other route EXCEPT THE DEEP PASS.

His stats mean nothing. Who gives a flying monkey's ass if he catches 1000 slant routes. Guess what? When he catches that slant route, which generally goes 2 to 7 yards across the field depth wise, that's all Moss will get. 2-7 yards. He's not a physical receiver. he's not exceptionally quick. He runs the laziest routes of every "star" reciever, yet you point out his career stats. Hell, since you want to point out stats, let's look at Terrell Owens....

Career stats:

1006 receptions
14,951 yards receiving
144 TDs

The fun thing is, T.O. did not get most of those numbers on freakin bombs. T.O. actually is a hard worker. He runs routes and he can kill defenses on ANY routes. Torry Holt is another example of a receiver that can beat you on any route. Moss can't.

Can you understand my point now? Or are you going to come back with "Moss has these huge stats!". Why don't you tell me when was the last time you seen Moss carve up a defense on any route except the deep ball? You can't. Steve Smith (Carolina) is a much better receiver than Moss. Moss is overhyped.

Why? What does it matter to you what I think that you take it personally?

But this Moss thread is rather pointless if you ask me. Again...it is in the eye of the beholder. I could personally careless about Moss. I didn't like his act anywhere. But there are people who think he is a great receiver. They are not wrong because that is their opinion. Just like at no point in this thread did I ever say you were wrong...because you are not.

But to say anyone's stats are irrelevent to make your case is not the case. Because if one receivers stats are irrelevent then ALL of them have to be irrelevent. And since they use those same stats to induct players into the HOF they are relevent. So regardless of what you or I think of Moss...he is probably a HOF receiver. And if he goes into the HOF...one dimensional or not...it blows your argument out of the water.

 

[primetime]

*Sigh* funny how a guy who has been running rampant against others in this sports forum, is telling me that it is all about opinion. It's all just a matter of opinion huh? I will remember that next time I see you berating Maniactickler for saying the Pats will win the Super Bowl. Yeah, it's all just a matter of opinion....

How does providing stats blow my argument out of the water? Sit down and pay close attention. I am going to give you instructions on how people are supposed to counter my argument.

My case: Randy Moss is one dimensional. If you take away the deep pass, you might as well call Randy Moss, Randy Jones.

The case people have tried to argue: Randy Moss has outstanding statistics over his career. Again, what does that have to do with him being good at other routes?

The case you WANT to use: Randy Moss on any given route can make a big play. For example, in such and such game, Randy Moss took a 3 yard slant, broke 2 tackles, made a sharp cut move on the safety and raced 50 yards for the score. See primetime, Randy Moss CAN beat defenses on any routes.

Now, in the "Case you WANT to use", do career stats have anything to do with that example? No. It talks about Randy Moss on a different route, priving he is an all around receiver. That is how you "blow my argument out of the water".

Simple, right folks? Now how come none of my detractors have been able to do it? Because my case is RIGHT. Randy Moss is one dimensional.

 

[Cy/MiG]

Saying Randy Moss is one dimensional (speed/deep routes) is like saying Shaq is one dimensional (size/strength).

It's partially true, but it doesn't matter, because both are HoFamers and both will be remembered as the best of their eras.

 

[ticklingfeet4fu]

*Sigh* funny how a guy who has been running rampant against others in this sports forum, is telling me that it is all about opinion. It's all just a matter of opinion huh? I will remember that next time I see you berating Maniactickler for saying the Pats will win the Super Bowl. Yeah, it's all just a matter of opinion....

How does providing stats blow my argument out of the water? Sit down and pay close attention. I am going to give you instructions on how people are supposed to counter my argument.

My case: Randy Moss is one dimensional. If you take away the deep pass, you might as well call Randy Moss, Randy Jones.

The case people have tried to argue: Randy Moss has outstanding statistics over his career. Again, what does that have to do with him being good at other routes?

The case you WANT to use: Randy Moss on any given route can make a big play. For example, in such and such game, Randy Moss took a 3 yard slant, broke 2 tackles, made a sharp cut move on the safety and raced 50 yards for the score. See primetime, Randy Moss CAN beat defenses on any routes.

Now, in the "Case you WANT to use", do career stats have anything to do with that example? No. It talks about Randy Moss on a different route, priving he is an all around receiver. That is how you "blow my argument out of the water".

Simple, right folks? Now how come none of my detractors have been able to do it? Because my case is RIGHT. Randy Moss is one dimensional.

Maniac and I are friends...so we will always banter back and forth. So you can remember that but the fact that he and I are friends it is more about having fun and keeping things alive out here. Maniac has always been entitled to his opinion. Our most recent was his team he said would be 11-5 next year. I said 7-9. He told me when I was sober to please repost my prediction...I did I said 5-11. It is all fun and games with Maniac and I.

As far as a route runner it does not change the fact that he is probably a HOFer based on numbers. The HOF voters are not going to say he ran only one route. Making your argument as it is a moot point. They care about stats. That is all they are interested in.

Again...you are NOT right Prime. You are not wrong either. You keep wanting everyone to fall to your feet and say " I am sooo sorry Prime...you are right about everything and we are all wrong. " Well Prime...I would expect rose petels at your feet anytime soon. It is about opinion. You can't be right because the topic is subjective.

If the topic were 2+2 =4 and we all came out here and said no you are wrong Prime it is 5 then you are right. But that isn't the topic now is it? The thread is SUBJECTIVE. Anything subjective is open to various interpretations.

Again...I am not trying to give you my friend a hard time. The thread is very subjective. There is no right or wrong.

 

[primetime]

Here is where the problem is. Did I ever say Randy Moss WILL NOT be a Hall of Famer? Think about that question for a second. Am I saying Randy will not be elected in the Hall of Fame? Because if I didn't, then why would his career stats mean anything with my original post?

I am right. I said Moss is one dimensional. Yet, not one of my detractors have countered THAT argument with anything substantial. When I made the original post, I expected to see someone throw out how Moss actually beats teams on other routes, which would make him more than one dimensional. Go back and read the counter points people have laughably thrown out. Not ONE of my detractors have come up with examples on how Moss is NOT one dimensional. That is why I am right. Until someone can counter the argument of he is an all around receiver, I am correct about Moss' "one dimensionalness".

Oh yeah, Shaq is one dimensional. That definitely is true.

If this was an argument about Moss being in the Hall Of Fame, then yes, his career statistics are the proper counter point. But that's not what I'm talking about am I?

Now, can anyone really counter my point? Probably not. Because what I say is true. Randy Moss is one dimensional.

Ticklingfeet4fu, I only "argue" when I know I'm right. Do you ever see me in countless threads in this sports forum going on and on about everything posted here? Nope. I pick my battles. Unless I know I'm right, I will not "debate" my point.

 

[FlockOfSeagulls]

Here is where the problem is. Did I ever say Randy Moss WILL NOT be a Hall of Famer? Think about that question for a second. Am I saying Randy will not be elected in the Hall of Fame? Because if I didn't, then why would his career stats mean anything with my original post?

I am right. I said Moss is one dimensional. Yet, not one of my detractors have countered THAT argument with anything substantial. When I made the original post, I expected to see someone throw out how Moss actually beats teams on other routes, which would make him more than one dimensional. Go back and read the counter points people have laughably thrown out. Not ONE of my detractors have come up with examples on how Moss is NOT one dimensional. That is why I am right. Until someone can counter the argument of he is an all around receiver, I am correct about Moss' "one dimensionalness".

Oh yeah, Shaq is one dimensional. That definitely is true.

If this was an argument about Moss being in the Hall Of Fame, then yes, his career statistics are the proper counter point. But that's not what I'm talking about am I?

Now, can anyone really counter my point? Probably not. Because what I say is true. Randy Moss is one dimensional.



Ticklingfeet4fu, I only "argue" when I know I'm right. Do you ever see me in countless threads in this sports forum going on and on about everything posted here? Nope. I pick my battles. Unless I know I'm right, I will not "debate" my point.

on closer inspection.....you are correct in not jumping into alot of sports threads

on closer inspection... you generally only make or join threads involving guys off your favorite teams and tell us how great they are

Examples of this would be : Kobe Bryant, Deion Sanders and Jerry Rice

If anyone doesn`t agree with the lovefest with YOUR guys then it isn`t pretty

You are the ULTIMATE HOMER....D'OH

 

[primetime]

On closer inspection, you have no clue on how to debate a topic.

Of course I will jump in on topics that interest me. Kobe, Deion Sanders, Jerry Rice are a few of my favorites. Why would I want to discuss a topic that does not interest me? That's the problem with people. They open their yaps without having a vested interest in the actual topic, yet, act like they know what they're talking about.

Take this thread for example. People may not agree about my point, yet, instead of trying to counter my points with well thought out arguments, they fling out crap that has no bearing, and hoping to change the topic to something they might have a leg to stand on. For example, how did we start talking about Deion Sanders vs Rod Woodson?

Another example, Moss' career stats. The stats do not tell you that he is not a complete receiver. If you played in the NFL for 10 years, and all you ever did was catch a 10 yard out a 100 times a season, what would your career stats look like? You would have a 1000 receptions, one of the highest career marks ever. Moss has a bunch of catches, but his yards are inflated because of his specialty, the deep route. You can't deny this (yet, you will...).

Hey, can you tell me what other route Moss routinely beats coverages with and makes the big play? The key word is ROUTINELY.

 

[FlockOfSeagulls]

On closer inspection, you have no clue on how to debate a topic.

Of course I will jump in on topics that interest me. Kobe, Deion Sanders, Jerry Rice are a few of my favorites. Why would I want to discuss a topic that does not interest me? That's the problem with people. They open their yaps without having a vested interest in the actual topic, yet, act like they know what they're talking about.

Take this thread for example. People may not agree about my point, yet, instead of trying to counter my points with well thought out arguments, they fling out crap that has no bearing, and hoping to change the topic to something they might have a leg to stand on. For example, how did we start talking about Deion Sanders vs Rod Woodson?

Another example, Moss' career stats. The stats do not tell you that he is not a complete receiver. If you played in the NFL for 10 years, and all you ever did was catch a 10 yard out a 100 times a season, what would your career stats look like? You would have a 1000 receptions, one of the highest career marks ever. Moss has a bunch of catches, but his yards are inflated because of his specialty, the deep route. You can't deny this (yet, you will...).

Hey, can you tell me what other route Moss routinely beats coverages with and makes the big play? The key word is ROUTINELY.

As far as I know you don`t have a VESTED INTEREST in Randy Moss.

Why does a person NEED to have a VESTED INTEREST in a topic to be able to comment . I thought since we both in the U.S.A that one of our fundamental rights was freedom of speech.

All a VESTED INTEREST means is that you are biased for a team , person , or idea and aren`t able to look at the topic objectively .

Bt the way , wasn`t it you that recently compared Moss to Owens ? How did Owens get in a topic about Randy Moss ?

I am not a Randy Moss hater or a Randy Moss fan. Its pretty OBVIOUS which one you are and you know what ; you are entitled to love or hate him as you choose. But don`t get upset when others don`t share your opinions.

When you are started this thread did you want and expect EVERYONE to agree with you to the letter of your law ?

 

[primetime]

You have no idea what to say anymore do you? I mean really. Why do you think I mentioned Terrell Owens? Did I not use him to point out the differences between him and Moss? Didn't I say that T.O. knows how to run routes, and can beat a defense on any route, not just one particular pattern? You know, I think my use of Owens helps support what i'm trying to say about Moss. You really have no clue on what you're saying. Just flapping the gums away just to flap the gums away.

Oh, anyone can post in a topic, but damn, can't they at least argue the point with pertinent arguments? When I made the thread, of course I wanted people to disagree, but can they disagree with some pertinent information? I take it you didn't read my post about how you're supposed to argue my point without looking silly. You're supposed to counter my point by showing how Moss can hurt defenses when he runs a slant, or a hook, a hitch, anything but a deep pass.

Hopefully you can see what I mean. For example, people have thrown in stats as a reason why Moss is not one dimensional. Here's an analogy as to why career stats are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Primetime:

Shaquille O'Neal can only dunk the basketball. He can't make a jump shot to save his life.

Counter arguments that would be similar to what people have written on this topic:

Shaq has over 25,000 points scored in his career. What are you talking about Primetime?

Now, what the hell does Shaq's career stats have to do with him being only able to dunk the basketball and nothing else? NOTHING. Same point I am mentioning about Moss. Does that clear it up? It probably does, but you won't admit it because then you made a bunch of posts that made no sense.

 

[ticklingfeet4fu]

You have no idea what to say anymore do you? I mean really. Why do you think I mentioned Terrell Owens? Did I not use him to point out the differences between him and Moss? Didn't I say that T.O. knows how to run routes, and can beat a defense on any route, not just one particular pattern? You know, I think my use of Owens helps support what i'm trying to say about Moss. You really have no clue on what you're saying. Just flapping the gums away just to flap the gums away.

Oh, anyone can post in a topic, but damn, can't they at least argue the point with pertinent arguments? When I made the thread, of course I wanted people to disagree, but can they disagree with some pertinent information? I take it you didn't read my post about how you're supposed to argue my point without looking silly. You're supposed to counter my point by showing how Moss can hurt defenses when he runs a slant, or a hook, a hitch, anything but a deep pass.

Hopefully you can see what I mean. For example, people have thrown in stats as a reason why Moss is not one dimensional. Here's an analogy as to why career stats are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Primetime:

Shaquille O'Neal can only dunk the basketball. He can't make a jump shot to save his life.

Counter arguments that would be similar to what people have written on this topic:

Shaq has over 25,000 points scored in his career. What are you talking about Primetime?

Now, what the hell does Shaq's career stats have to do with him being only able to dunk the basketball and nothing else? NOTHING. Same point I am mentioning about Moss. Does that clear it up? It probably does, but you won't admit it because then you made a bunch of posts that made no sense.

Hard to argue a point with you when you say stats are irrelevant. See if Moss ran only one route then he would average 30 to 35 yards per reception. You say he runs NOTHING but one route. DEEP routes. Then why does he average 15.6 yards per catch. If he ran only deep routes and didn't catch slants or in tight routes he would average 30 yards a catch, wouldn't he?

But I know Prime you are going to tell me I don't know what I am talking about or I am stupid or do I ever watch football or that was a dumb argument but while you get ready to type that...think about this for a moment...it is subjective. You are not right. You are not wrong. Problem here is you think you are and you think everyone else is wrong.