IMO the only players that should be on a list like this are QBs, left tackles, and maybe defensive ends. But my definition of indespensable might be different than most.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jacoby_Ellsbury @ Jul 24 2008, 09:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>IMO the only players that should be on a list like this are QBs, left tackles, and maybe defensive ends. But my definition of indespensable might be different than most.</div> I wouldn't stick to this formula, because every once in a while one will run into a MVP-caliber WR/RB that puts most LTs/DEs/etc to shame.
The issue I have with running backs being on these lists is that the offensive line does a lot of their work. I'm not saying running backs aren't tough SOB's who don't work their asses off, but the quality of the o-line can make a back look a better (or a lot worse) than he actually is. All wideouts are replacable. Even players like Jerry Rice and Randy Moss weren't/aren't the be-all end-all for their franchise.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jacoby_Ellsbury @ Jul 24 2008, 10:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The issue I have with running backs being on these lists is that the offensive line does a lot of their work. I'm not saying running backs aren't tough SOB's who don't work their asses off, but the quality of the o-line can make a back look a better (or a lot worse) than he actually is. All wideouts are replacable. Even players like Jerry Rice and Randy Moss weren't/aren't the be-all end-all for their franchise.</div> No I don't see your point. Moss just broke a record, he is not replaceable, not if you want to have the same level of dominance at least. LT's rely on the QB and how quickly they can get the ball out of their hands. If they have RB's taking some pass rush pressure off them, or great receivers around them, this will also assist them. DE's get help from their peers on the defensive line, or catching a team in passing situations since they're down by many points. Moss easily deserves to be on such a list, he's been producing empirically for years and was a key component that led to NE's dominance. He transcends the position. This is also becoming quite an offensively oriented league.
Moss was terrible in Oakland not too long ago. But give him Tom Brady, and boom he breaks a record. Imagine what Chad Johnson or Marvin Harrison might have done if they landed with NE this season instead of Moss.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jacoby_Ellsbury @ Jul 24 2008, 10:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Moss was terrible in Oakland not too long ago. But give him Tom Brady, and boom he breaks a record. Imagine what Chad Johnson or Marvin Harrison if they landed with NE this season instead of Moss.</div> How the hell are Harrison and Chad better than Moss? What have they done that blows Moss away in any form? Moss is the best receiver in the game. Brady looked good in 2006? Brady played badly in the post-season with Moss and all his receivers. In fact, Brady threw 23 TDs to one guy, then 8 to the next guy in the regular season, he wasn't exactly spreading TDs around. Brady has only had great stats with great recievers, hasn't he? Moss has dominated with a variety of Qbs for years. He has better stats with a washed up RC and Jeff George, than Harrison or Chad ever did playing with Palmer and Manning. This is kind of disgraceful to me.Who did Moss have in Oakland? What you're saying makes no sense, because it applies to everyone. If you have garbage around you, you will get jack out of people. Football is a team sport, and you're not going to be catching 23 TDs with Andrew Walter. However, history has shown us that Moss can flourish empirically with average QBs. Your "formula" (QBs, LTs, DEs) is archaic. The fact remains that Wideouts and RBs have MVP caliber seasons, and to exclude the likes of Barry Sanders or Moss for some forgettable LT on your list would be horrific.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jul 24 2008, 11:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>How the hell are Harrison and Chad better than Moss? What have they done that blows Moss away in any form? Moss is the best receiver in the game.</div> I never said Harrison and Chad are necessarily better than Moss, its that any #1 wideout can put up incredible numbers when paired with the best QB in the game. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Brady looked good in 2005? Brady played badly in the post-season with Moss and all his receivers. In fact, Brady threw 23 TDs to one guy, then 8 to the next guy in the regular season, he wasn't exactly spreading TDs around.</div> Because Tom Brady knows that Wes Welker is much more effective when you use screen plays or short distances passes to him, and let him mix it up. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Brady has only had great stats with great recievers, hasn't he? Moss has dominated with a variety of Qbs for years. He has better stats with a washed up RC and Jeff George, than Harrison or Chad ever did playing with Palmer and Manning. This is kind of disgraceful to me.Who did Moss have in Oakland?</div> The Patriots have done nothing but win since 2001. If Moss is as great as you're implying than it shouldn't matter who the QB was in Oakland, Moss still should have gotten his 90 receptions and 1200+ yards. Marvin Harrison in 2003 I believe had a 143 reception season, and he's extremely productive seasons every year he's been healthy. So you can't say he hasn't put up the numbers. Winning has a stake in this too. If you get eye-popping numbers on a 6 win team, who's going to care? The best players on the best teams win. So to me it doesn't even matter what Chad did with Palmer, every year except for 2005 that team has been garbage. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>What you're saying makes no sense, because it applies to everyone. If you have garbage around you, you will get jack out of people. Your "formula" (QBs, LTs, DEs) is archaic.</div> Look at the teams that have the very best QBs and LTs. Then look at the teams like Kansas City with Larry Johnson or Houston with Andre Johnson. Top-notch players at RB and WR respectively, but their teams suck every year. Why? Because they don't have a QB or LT.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jacoby_Ellsbury @ Jul 24 2008, 10:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jul 24 2008, 11:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>How the hell are Harrison and Chad better than Moss? What have they done that blows Moss away in any form? Moss is the best receiver in the game.</div> I never said Harrison and Chad are necessarily better than Moss, its that any #1 wideout can put up incredible numbers when paired with the best QB in the game. </div> No WR has ever had 23 TDs in a season, combined with the fact that he is also a better redzone target than Harry/Chad, there was no need for that statement. Not every WR stretches defenses like RM either. JE, it seemed like you were not that grateful for Moss when you made those comments. Further, Manning had quite a similar, arguably better season, without needing a 20 TD receiver. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Because Tom Brady knows that Wes Welker is much more effective when you use screen plays or short distances passes to him, and let him mix it up.</div> Manning feeds the ball to Harrison yet he hasn't ever cracked 15 (Chad has a ways to go too). Moss is a beast in the redzone; Moss has always been a TD grabbing freak in spite of some of the Regular Joes giving him the ball; he and Brady accentuate each other. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The Patriots have done nothing but win since 2001. If Moss is as great as you're implying than it shouldn't matter who the QB was in Oakland, Moss still should have gotten his 90 receptions and 1200+ yards. Marvin Harrison in 2003 I believe had a 143 reception season, and he's extremely productive seasons every year he's been healthy. So you can't say he hasn't put up the numbers. Winning has a stake in this too. If you get eye-popping numbers on a 6 win team, who's going to care? The best players on the best teams win. So to me it doesn't even matter what Chad did with Palmer, every year except for 2005 that team has been garbage.</div> Oh sure Harrison is great, but even excluding Moss' season with the Pats, Moss has had the more impressive tangible career. Give him an average Qb like in 1998, or 2000, and you'll get amazing production (and think about how he made Culpepper). Further, Receptions are overrated, it is really Yards and TDs that should concern you. Hell, Moss had a great season with the Raiders in 2005 until he got injured. When the Patriots won those Superbowls, their defense was what led them to the title along with an offense that didn't make mistakes. Brady had a historic 2007-2008 season, but only when his Wideout broke the record for Receivers. They're both linked in their recent accomplishments. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Look at the teams that have the very best QBs and LTs. Then look at the teams like Kansas City with Larry Johnson or Houston with Andre Johnson. Top-notch players at RB and WR respectively, but their teams suck every year. Why? Because they don't have a QB or LT.</div> You have to analyze LTs, Des, Wrs, RBs, on a case-by-case basis. Peyton lost his LT last season but got sacked at nearly the same rate as the year before. In his rookie season, he only got sacked 22 times, whereas the year before the Colts had 50+ sacks against them. The Qb is a MAJOR factor in that department. And what about the Cleveland Browns this past season? QBs are the kings of the league, other than that, how do you know LTs and DEs are ALWAYS more important? You made an amorphous reference, in my opinion, when you said that RBs/etc. don't win games. Moss, LT, etc. have been on various winning teams. Moss made the careers of various Minny RBs (Onterio Smith, Mewelde Moore, Mo Williams) and Minny was frequently a top 3 rushing team during his tenure (another example: Barry Sanders clearly helped Herman Moore). In fact, Moss is better than a significant percentage of QBs too.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jacoby_Ellsbury @ Jul 24 2008, 10:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Moss was terrible in Oakland not too long ago. But give him Tom Brady, and boom he breaks a record. Imagine what Chad Johnson or Marvin Harrison might have done if they landed with NE this season instead of Moss.</div> Moss was terrible in Oakland because the QB situation in Oakland was terrible. Moss was also unmotivated. Harrison is playing with IMO the best QB in the league. At worst, 2nd best. Not sure the numbers change, if at all. Chad Johnson is playing with a pretty good QB himself. What we saw this year was what Moss can do when he is motivated. And a motivated Moss is the best WR in the game, one of the best ever, and easily an indispensable type player..... the problem, of course, has always been Moss' motivation. (And, FWIW, Harrison spent a bulk of this year injured..... he couldn't have put up those numbers anyway)
This argument is stupid. Every position on the field is interrelated and success always hinges on multiple players performing their role well. Trying to separate the QB or the WR from the equation doesn't really make sense, because both have the same dependancy. The differences arise in degrees of dependancy and that's where I think this author was trying to go (although he failed, IMO). An indispensable player would be someone who requires less from his surrounding teammates while still playing at a high level. Its difficult to separate Brady and Moss because both have benefited immensely from the partnership. That's personally why I thought Peyton should've been at the top of the list. There's no disputing how much he's held up that team over the past decade, through a crappy O-line, injuries, etc.
