I have already spoken plenty of time about the problems of last season, but Kerry Collins started all 16 games in 2005 and got 3,756 yards, 20 TDs, and 12 INTs. He didn't have Pro Bowl quality year, but it was respectable. I don't care how many QBs the Raiders went through in the last four years because Moss wasn't on the team in two of them and three of the four QBs he had throwing to him were in one season.
Sorry to let facts get in the way of your argument, but Collins did NOT start all 16 games in 2005. He only played in 15 games.
While Collins number were respectable, so were Moss'.
Also, since you can't be bothered to see the forest for the trees, the point I was making with the QB Carousel that they had in Oakland is the general mismanagement that they are under. I'm sorry that it flew right over your head.
Oh, and yes, 3 of the 4 different QBs throwing to him were in one season. You should be smart enough to realize from the mishaps of the Patriots (unless you aren't old enough to remember back to the early 90's before Bledsoe) that it doesn't matter how good the WRs are if there is a QB carousel going on that can't get them the ball.
You can't be serious with this one. Plenty of teams make really bad strategic decisions that seriously hurt the team. Just because the Vikes and Raiders mismanaged their teams doesn't mean they burnt Moss. They didn't go out and say selfish things that hurt Moss directly or indirectly or quit on Moss. There is a big difference.
Yes, I am serious. Why is it that you are going out of your way to make excuse for such poorly run organizations. YES, they damn well DID burn Moss. Especially Oakland. And they also used Moss as a scape goat, claiming that MOSS was the one behind their problems. Yet, as has been pointed out to you and you continue to refuse to understand (whether out of ignorance or just plain unwillingness) is that the mismanagement in Minnesota and in Oakland had a lot to do with Moss' attitude. And if you don't understand about MORALE of a workforce it means you definitely are too young to even be talking about this because you wouldn't understand it. A workforce or TEAM in this case, whose morale is low, is going to perform poorly. And its not the responsibility of the PLAYERS to raise morale. Its the responsibility of MANAGEMENT.
Shell was doomed to fail. I agree with that. It doesn't mean that Moss speaking out about how the team quit on him didn't play a roll in Shell getting canned in one year.
What does Shell have to do with him telling Lance Kiffin off and hanging up on him when Kiffin called to introduce himself to him. There are a long laundry list of Moss disrespecting authority.
That's funny because Kiffin said it never happened when asked about it at the draft.
Oh, and here is an article about it.
http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/20689
It would be a good idea for you to go more with FACT and less with RUMOR and heresay.
I never said Moss had to be a star. I used Sapp as an example because Sapp stepped up his game because the offense was so bad eventhough it was obvious that players like Moss had quit on the team. I have never used last year to talk about Moss other than his publically quitting on his team.
The world doesn't revolve around YOU. And NO WHERE did I say that you claimed MOSS had to be a star. Maybe you should take a step back and actually READ what is posted instead of making half-arsed assumptions.
BTW, Warren Sapp did NOT step up his game. They changed the defense and the entire defense got better. That's fact.
Again, I said based on the last three year, not just last year. What was Culpepper's numbers in 2004? What was Collins numbers in 2005? If you just look at this past year, you skew the arguement a lot.
Ok. So, instead of being FAIR and admitting that Moss was injured for 5 games (inactive because of the injury for 3 of them) you just want to claim a lack of production. Go ahead and ignore the fact he had 13 TDs that year while basically missing 5 games. Again, you are the person who doesn't look at the truth of things. In 2005, Moss put up good numbers having 60 receptions, a 16.8 YPC (best since his 3rd year in the league) and 8 TDs on an offense that didn't have a good running game. OH, something else to consider about 2005. Moss was a Target 124 times. He only had 2 drops. How many of the other 62 passed were defended or just poorly thrown? I am not sure because neither Stats nor SI.com have that information. But based on Collins completing only 53.5% of his passes, I would bet its ALOT.
Also, sack numbers can be damning to Moss too. Remember Brady got a lot of sacks and hits early last season because he held onto the ball a lot more because his receivers struggled to get open.
Really? You sure about that? Are you sure that Brady took a LOT of sacks early in the season? Because the game logs would beg to differ.
http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/187741/gamelogs/2006
The game logs actually show that Brady took MORE sacks in the 2nd half of the season (14) compared to the 1st half (12).
Here are the game logs for Walter and Brooks.
http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/423084/gamelogs/2006
http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/133233/gamelogs/2006
Sorry, but your "reasoning" just doesn't hold water.
I will conceed Moss is better than Keyshawn, but you will be very hardpressed to prove based over the last three years that Moss is better than Stallworth.
Hmm... well.. since you asked.
http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/302227
Stallworth: 44 games, 166 receptions, 2437 yards (14.68 YPC), 14 TDs
http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/12576
Moss: 42 Games, 151 receptons, 2325 yards (15.4 YPC), 24 TDs
So, in 2 fewer games, Moss had 15 less receptions, 112 less yards, but a higher yards per catch and scored 10 MORE TDs.
I would still say that Moss is better than Stallworth, though marginally so.