PDA

View Full Version : Victor Cruz is the smaller, faster incarnation of Terrell Owens



NYG 5
06-15-2012, 07:41 PM
Same kind of build
Makes the big YAC plays
Makes the acrobatic cattch, but not the most consistent hands
Not the fastest, but has an amazing burst of speed and still has great top speed
Makes the clutch catches

Thoughts?

slipknottin
06-15-2012, 07:45 PM
I dont see it.

TO is a big physical player, at 6'3 225 pounds he outmuscled defenders.

Cruz is much smaller at 5'11.5 and ~200 pounds, he doesnt win by being physically stronger than anyone. He wins with ball skills, and his lateral explosion and vertical jumping.

I dont think Cruz has the downfield speed that TO has either. Cruz really, is rather average vertically.

Giants10Joe
06-15-2012, 08:03 PM
I dont see it.

TO is a big physical player, at 6'3 225 pounds he outmuscled defenders.

Cruz is much smaller at 5'11.5 and ~200 pounds, he doesnt win by being physically stronger than anyone. He wins with ball skills, and his lateral explosion and vertical jumping.

I dont think Cruz has the downfield speed that TO has either. Cruz really, is rather average vertically.

Plus, when you think of T.O., you think "locker room cancer." Fair or not, that's his defining characteristic in most people's minds. Cruz is not like that at all (as of now at least).

NWKEffectElement
06-15-2012, 08:05 PM
If you ask me he reminds me of a faster Hinds Ward.

Neverend
06-15-2012, 08:19 PM
The only major similarity between the two I see is that they both have very powerful and explosive lower bodies

lawl
06-15-2012, 08:56 PM
TO was faster than Cruz is

NYGinIN
06-15-2012, 09:38 PM
thankfully they each have drastically different personalities

Roswell777
06-15-2012, 09:43 PM
I don't see it either. He reminds me of a less physical S. Smith of Carolina.

THE_New_York_Giants
06-15-2012, 10:01 PM
Hakeem Nicks is TO's clone as far as playing style is concerned with less drops.

FBomb
06-15-2012, 10:23 PM
https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTbrpJKJeaMsSNrGSEZYHfQ3NhVg4tMJ UcvrStJsCiYQi5o4byCmg

BigBlue1971
06-15-2012, 10:26 PM
If you ask me he reminds me of a faster Hinds Ward.</P>


</P>


+1.</P>


Cruz is more elusive.</P>

Flip Empty
06-15-2012, 10:35 PM
I don't see it either. He reminds me of a less physical S. Smith of Carolina.
Yeah that's who I compare him to. He possesses that same home-run ability.

Dorothy
06-15-2012, 11:30 PM
Please don't mention TO in the same thread as Cruz and Nicks. they have character. TO never did.

miken609
06-16-2012, 12:03 AM
I dont see it.

TO is a big physical player, at 6'3 225 pounds he outmuscled defenders.

Cruz is much smaller at 5'11.5 and ~200 pounds, he doesnt win by being physically stronger than anyone. He wins with ball skills, and his lateral explosion and vertical jumping.

I dont think Cruz has the downfield speed that TO has either. Cruz really, is rather average vertically.

Plus, when you think of T.O., you think "locker room cancer." Fair or not, that's his defining characteristic in most people's minds. Cruz is not like that at all (as of now at least).
lol

Flip Empty
06-16-2012, 01:23 AM
Please don't mention TO in the same thread as Cruz and Nicks. they have character. TO never did.
TO is also one of the best receivers to ever play the game though. It's his skills Cruz is being compared to, not his personality.

miked1958
06-16-2012, 01:50 AM
I dont see it.

TO is a big physical player, at 6'3 225 pounds he outmuscled defenders.

Cruz is much smaller at 5'11.5 and ~200 pounds, he doesnt win by being physically stronger than anyone. He wins with ball skills, and his lateral explosion and vertical jumping.

I dont think Cruz has the downfield speed that TO has either. Cruz really, is rather average vertically.I agree with you

gmen46
06-16-2012, 05:34 AM
Please don't mention TO in the same thread as Cruz and Nicks. they have character. TO never did.
TO is also one of the best receivers to ever play the game though. It's his skills Cruz is being compared to, not his personality.

If that were true, ask yourself this--

any time TO, or Terrell Owens, is mentioned over the past 7 years (at least), can you HONESTLY--you have to be honest here--say that you think of only TO the wide receiver, without thinking of TO the cry baby?

If you are honest with yourself, you will admit you cannot do it.

The two--the once-superb wide receiver and the prima donna persona--are inseparable. They are two sides of the same coin. One is Yin to the Yang.

Nobody can even think his name, Jedi-style, without thinking of his persona.

As such, there is no such thing as "its his skills being compared, not his personality".

And, as such, any Giants fan who even asks the question of any kind of comparison between Owens and Cruz should have his mouth washed out with soap.

And maybe lose thread-starting priviedges until, say start of training camp.

Jon6777
06-16-2012, 08:35 AM
Please don't mention TO in the same thread as Cruz and Nicks. they have character. TO never did.
TO is also one of the best receivers to ever play the game though. It's his skills Cruz is being compared to, not his personality.

If that were true, ask yourself this--

any time TO, or Terrell Owens, is mentioned over the past 7 years (at least), can you HONESTLY--you have to be honest here--say that you think of only TO the wide receiver, without thinking of TO the cry baby?

If you are honest with yourself, you will admit you cannot do it.

The two--the once-superb wide receiver and the prima donna persona--are inseparable. They are two sides of the same coin. One is Yin to the Yang.

Nobody can even think his name, Jedi-style, without thinking of his persona.

As such, there is no such thing as "its his skills being compared, not his personality".

And, as such, any Giants fan who even asks the question of any kind of comparison between Owens and Cruz should have his mouth washed out with soap.

And maybe lose thread-starting priviedges until, say start of training camp.

I still crack up every time I see the "that's my quarterback" speech.

GMENAGAIN
06-16-2012, 08:48 AM
I see no resemblance whatsoever between the two players

Captain Chaos
06-16-2012, 09:42 AM
Lets just call who he is: Victor Cruz, let others compare themselves to him.

Flip Empty
06-16-2012, 09:55 AM
Please don't mention TO in the same thread as Cruz and Nicks. they have character. TO never did.
TO is also one of the best receivers to ever play the game though. It's his skills Cruz is being compared to, not his personality.

As such, there is no such thing as "its his skills being compared, not his personality".
What a silly thing to debate. The OP made no mention of his persona so obviously he's comparing skill-sets

"Same kind of build
Makes the big YAC plays
Makes the acrobatic cattch, but not the most consistent hands
Not the fastest, but has an amazing burst of speed and still has great top speed
Makes the clutch catches"

And yes I'm completely fine with separating skill from persona.

BlueSanta
06-16-2012, 09:57 AM
For those old enough to remember Andre Rison, that is who Cruz reminds me of(on the field only.)

GMENAGAIN
06-16-2012, 10:44 AM
For those old enough to remember Andre Rison, that is who Cruz reminds me of(on the field only.)
</P>


Andre "Bad Moon" Rison . . . . </P>

gmen46
06-16-2012, 12:39 PM
Please don't mention TO in the same thread as Cruz and Nicks. they have character. TO never did.
TO is also one of the best receivers to ever play the game though. It's his skills Cruz is being compared to, not his personality.

As such, there is no such thing as "its his skills being compared, not his personality".
What a silly thing to debate. The OP made no mention of his persona so obviously he's comparing skill-sets

"Same kind of build
Makes the big YAC plays
Makes the acrobatic cattch, but not the most consistent hands
Not the fastest, but has an amazing burst of speed and still has great top speed
Makes the clutch catches"

And yes I'm completely fine with separating skill from persona.

I notice you didn't answer my question, which sort of makes my point.

And, no, Cruz' frame/build is nowhere like TO's.

And while it's true at the beginning of the season--his first NFL targets--Cruz dropped a few, by the end of the season that was pretty much a thing of the past. It remains to be seen if that will haunt him throughout his career.

TO's entire career has consisted of many drops each year.

Flip Empty
06-16-2012, 01:10 PM
Please don't mention TO in the same thread as Cruz and Nicks. they have character. TO never did.
TO is also one of the best receivers to ever play the game though. It's his skills Cruz is being compared to, not his personality.

As such, there is no such thing as "its his skills being compared, not his personality".
What a silly thing to debate. The OP made no mention of his persona so obviously he's comparing skill-sets

"Same kind of build
Makes the big YAC plays
Makes the acrobatic cattch, but not the most consistent hands
Not the fastest, but has an amazing burst of speed and still has great top speed
Makes the clutch catches"

And yes I'm completely fine with separating skill from persona.

I notice you didn't answer my question, which sort of makes my point.

And, no, Cruz' frame/build is nowhere like TO's.

And while it's true at the beginning of the season--his first NFL targets--Cruz dropped a few, by the end of the season that was pretty much a thing of the past. It remains to be seen if that will haunt him throughout his career.

TO's entire career has consisted of many drops each year.
Ah, sorry. I suppose it's a bit of both. I was a massive fan of TO for his on-field exploits, so I do find it pretty easy to think of him that way than as the serial bridge-burner he became.
I still like the guy.

And yeah, I don't agree at all with the OP's comparison. I'm not sure why you thought I did.

JMFP2
06-16-2012, 02:08 PM
I dont see it. TO is a big physical player, at 6'3 225 pounds he outmuscled defenders. Cruz is much smaller at 5'11.5 and ~200 pounds, he doesnt win by being physically stronger than anyone. He wins with ball skills, and his lateral explosion and vertical jumping. I dont think Cruz has the downfield speed that TO has either. Cruz really, is rather average vertically.

Plus, when you think of T.O., you think "locker room cancer." Fair or not, that's his defining characteristic in most people's minds. Cruz is not like that at all (as of now at least).
</P>


+1</P>


However, physically, I agree with OP that Cruz is very gifted. No, he's not as big, but as he proved against Asomoghe in that first Philly game, he's a powerful player when the ball is in the air. And, he has the same tremendous body control that TO had.</P>

B&RWarrior
06-16-2012, 02:31 PM
2 totally different receivers, bad comparison.

Typical of this board. Still drunk off the arrogance that comes with a SB victory many posters have started making comparisons between current Giants and future HOFers, or even worse putting there favorite Giants ahead of all-time greats.

A strong cup of joe should bring you all to your senses. In this respect you can think of me as Blue Mountain Java. And with a return to sobriety you dreamers out there should come to the realization that:


Eli is not better than Marino, Elway, Montana, Steve Young

JPP is not better than Strahan...yet

Cruz in no way shape or form resembles TO.

sc_markt
06-16-2012, 04:43 PM
Same kind of build
Makes the big YAC plays
Makes the acrobatic cattch, but not the most consistent hands
Not the fastest, but has an amazing burst of speed and still has great top speed
Makes the clutch catches

Thoughts?

I would have said:
"Victor Cruz is the smaller, faster smarter incarnation of Terrell Owens"

NYG 5
06-16-2012, 10:10 PM
ok, what if I said he's like a bigger, faster Ike Hilliard?

Rat_bastich
06-16-2012, 10:16 PM
At least he isn't JJ Stokes.

RichGiants81
06-16-2012, 11:28 PM
I dont see it.

TO is a big physical player, at 6'3 225 pounds he outmuscled defenders.

Cruz is much smaller at 5'11.5 and ~200 pounds, he doesnt win by being physically stronger than anyone. He wins with ball skills, and his lateral explosion and vertical jumping

I dont think Cruz has the downfield speed that TO has either. Cruz really, is rather average vertically.

You are talkin outa your dirt button again on this one
, now cruz only has average vertical skills? You serious dude? Stop making stuff up on here to sound smart. That catch he made over nhamdi in the end zone was pretty average actually....

slipknottin
06-17-2012, 10:54 AM
Vertical speed meaning downfield speed.

Not vertical as in jumping

hungrrrry
06-18-2012, 08:10 AM
I have already said before how he reminds me of Terry Glenn

embeshAtYa
06-18-2012, 10:15 AM
what a slap to the face of Cruz

nygpolishpunk
06-18-2012, 03:57 PM
First, they're very different types of receivers physically.

And second, TO didn't start becoming a nuisance to the NFL until his 7th or 8th year in the league. He behaved himself in this young years.

Morehead State
06-18-2012, 04:02 PM
When I think of Victor Cruz I see Steve Smith (Carolina of course) especially the way he fights for the ball in a crowd.

jakegibbs
06-18-2012, 04:25 PM
I don't see it either. He reminds me of a less physical S. Smith of Carolina.

+1 hit the nail on the head so to speak.

jomo
06-18-2012, 04:29 PM
I dont see it. TO is a big physical player, at 6'3 225 pounds he outmuscled defenders. Cruz is much smaller at 5'11.5 and ~200 pounds, he doesnt win by being physically stronger than anyone. He wins with ball skills, and his lateral explosion and vertical jumping. I dont think Cruz has the downfield speed that TO has either. Cruz really, is rather average vertically.This is pretty much how I see it with one addition. TO had a bad tendency to zone out on plays resulting in far too many drops.

gmen46
06-18-2012, 05:33 PM
2 totally different receivers, bad comparison.

Typical of this board. Still drunk off the arrogance that comes with a SB victory many posters have started making comparisons between current Giants and future HOFers, or even worse putting there favorite Giants ahead of all-time greats.

A strong cup of joe should bring you all to your senses. In this respect you can think of me as Blue Mountain Java. And with a return to sobriety you dreamers out there should come to the realization that:


Eli is not better than Marino, Elway, Montana, Steve Young

JPP is not better than Strahan...yet

Cruz in no way shape or form resembles TO.

Blue Mountain, huh? I'd say more like Chock Full O' NUTS (I kid the B&R, I kid, haha).

I do agree with your Cruz/TO assessment, but believe your QB and DE assessments are debatable, at best.

Always tricky comparing a player midway through his career vs other players' complete career, of course, but comparing Eli at mid point in his career to Elway and Young at THEIR midpoints, I say there are very strong arguments to make showing Eli to be more effective--and therefore "better" at his job--than Elway and Young were at the same point.

Elway had been to 3 Super Bowls after 8 years, sure, but his teams lost all 3, to 3 different teams and all 3 were convincing losses not just barely with a last minute FG or a last minute turnover.

Elway was arguably a great QB and was certainly the most important and best player in Broncos franchise history, and deserving of the HOF to be sure, but to declare him so superior to Eli--even half way through Eli's career--is an unnecessary not to mention inaccurate elevation of Elway and a dishonest evaluation of Eli

Young was back - up on Tampa Bay, then behind Montana for his first 6-7 years, so comparing his first 8 years to those of Eli is a bit meaningless. However, while the rest of his 15 year career (ie his next 8 years) he was good, his only truly outstanding years were '94 when his numbers were not only top notch but he also led the Niners to their 5th Super Bowl win, and "98 his penultimate season.

Apparently good enough for Young to enter the HOF, but in my opinion not so stunningly "great" that I'd put him over Eli--even comparing Eli's unfinished career to Young's total career, frankly.

And, while comparing a 2 year career (JPP) to a 15 year career (Strahan) is of course silly, and acknowledging that you did include the word "yet" in your JPP/Strahan comment indicating you do think very highly of JPP, I must say that I wouldn't even go down that road at this time.

After only 2 seasons JPP is so far ahead of where Strahan was individually-- and on a FAR more talented DL than was Strahan at the time--that I don't think anyone can with any credibility project where JPP will end up by his career's end.

Even so, I will say this: JPP is the first defensive player the Giants have had in the last 20+ years that can be CREDIBLY mentioned in the same sentence with LT in terms of impact on the game in general and on an opponents' game plan in particular.

As much as I loved Strahan, throughout his career--and I share everyone else's love and respect for the guy and what he means AND meant to the Giants--I am confident in JPP's ability to ultimately overshadow anything Michael did during his career.

(Crap, I went down the road I said I wouldn't, didn't I?)

burier
06-19-2012, 01:19 PM
TO...Not so much but I can see where you're going.

Truth is all big time YAC recievers have issues with drops the attributes go hand and hand.

To me Victor Cruz reminds me of Steve Smith...(The real one)

thomsoad
06-19-2012, 05:15 PM
Same kind of build
Makes the big YAC plays
Makes the acrobatic cattch, but not the most consistent hands
Not the fastest, but has an amazing burst of speed and still has great top speed
Makes the clutch catches

Thoughts?

Sorry man...your pretty far off base on this one. They are closer to being polar opposites.

Ntegrase96
06-20-2012, 09:07 AM
what a slap to the face of Cruz

I don't think comparing Cruz to arguably the second greatest WR of all time is a slap in the face.

miked1958
06-20-2012, 11:09 AM
If you ask me he reminds me of a faster Hinds Ward.I agree with you.. More of a Hines Ward type then Owens. Also some others come to mind before I would think of him and Owens in same sentence

gmen0820
06-20-2012, 11:14 AM
http://images.nike.com/is/image/DotCom/PDP_P/Nike-Player-Knows-(NFL-Giants---Victor-Cruz)-Mens-T-Shirt-543912_495_A.jpg?wid=500&hei=375&fmt=jpeg&

This shirt is ****ing sick. (Random, but I didn't feel like making a thread for it)

miked1958
06-20-2012, 11:15 AM
what a slap to the face of Cruz

I don't think comparing Cruz to arguably the second greatest WR of all time is a slap in the face.
Lol.. I am one of the biggest Giants Homers on this Board, but for a fellow giants fan to say its a slap in the face to be compared to Owens (unless he meant to put it in Red) is just ridiculous. If he means all of TOs off the field antics and locker room Cancer always causing turmoil then yes I agree with him. But to compare just the on the field play, then Cruz doesn't hold a candle to Owens yet.

miked1958
06-20-2012, 11:26 AM
I don't know how old the poster that said that is.. (a slap in the face.... Lol) but I was around to watch Owens at SF and Dallas and even at times in Philly. He was absolutely UNSTOPPABLE. He was a Man among Boys. He did it game in and game out no matter what type of coverage they put on him. I would hate when the giants played SF or Dallas when TO was in his heyday..

I love Cruz.. And he is a Gamechanger no doubt. But he has a lot of years and TDs and long long long way to go to be compared to TOs career...

burier
06-20-2012, 12:43 PM
what a slap to the face of Cruz

I don't think comparing Cruz to arguably the second greatest WR of all time is a slap in the face.


LOL!!!

burier
06-20-2012, 12:43 PM
what a slap to the face of Cruz

I don't think comparing Cruz to arguably the second greatest WR of all time is a slap in the face.


LOL!!!

Ntegrase96
06-21-2012, 12:51 AM
2nd in Receiving yards, 2nd in TDs for a WR (4th overall), 6th in receptions. Headcase or not the guy could flat out ball. And it's not like he faded away in big games either.

Something funny burier?

burier
06-21-2012, 04:30 PM
2nd in Receiving yards, 2nd in TDs for a WR (4th overall), 6th in receptions. Headcase or not the guy could flat out ball. And it's not like he faded away in big games either.

Something funny burier?


You're statement is funny. TO was a beast no question.

But lets not get it twisted. The second best WR ever doesn't get shipped out of dodge 3 seperate times IN HIS PRIME.

To put it in perspective....The Giants had to work around LTs rehab/suspension schedule and never even considered shipping him anywhere.


People argue that Randy Moss is/was better and he can only run 1 route.

Ntegrase96
06-21-2012, 07:30 PM
I don't think being a locker room cancer should factor into his ranking as a WR.

Besides, the fact that Owen went to three different teams during his prime doesn't just hurt his case, it also helps it. He went to three different teams and made them all better during his tenure there.

I don't necessarily feel like he's the number 2 receiver after Rice, but the numbers are remarkable.

Sure you could argue Moss was better, or perhaps another receier... but that's why I said "arguably".

He's certainly in the discussion and has better stats to back it up than almost anyone.

Morehead State
06-21-2012, 09:57 PM
I don't think being a locker room cancer should factor into his ranking as a WR. Besides, the fact that Owen went to three different teams during his prime doesn't just hurt his case, it also helps it. He went to three different teams and made them all better during his tenure there. I don't necessarily feel like he's the number 2 receiver after Rice, but the numbers are remarkable. Sure you could argue Moss was better, or perhaps another receier... but that's why I said "arguably". He's certainly in the discussion and has better stats to back it up than almost anyone.</P>


T.O. was flat our great. And was great for a very long time. His personality got him in trouble but he was a sensational WR. Definately top 5 All-Time.</P>

rick5292
06-21-2012, 10:46 PM
I don't think being a locker room cancer should factor into his ranking as a WR. Besides, the fact that Owen went to three different teams during his prime doesn't just hurt his case, it also helps it. He went to three different teams and made them all better during his tenure there. I don't necessarily feel like he's the number 2 receiver after Rice, but the numbers are remarkable. Sure you could argue Moss was better, or perhaps another receier... but that's why I said "arguably". He's certainly in the discussion and has better stats to back it up than almost anyone.</p>


T.O. was flat our great. And was great for a very long time. His personality got him in trouble but he was a sensational WR. Definately top 5 All-Time.</p>

I would say that T.O is a top 10 WR, but not a top 5 WR.

1. Jerry Rice
2. Randy Moss
3. Marvin Harrison
4. Tim Brown
5. Cris Carter
6. Don Hutson
7. Lynn Swann
8. Isaac Bruce
9. Terrell Owens
10. James Lofton

Just an opinion. I know that there are others who could be in the top 10

gmen46
06-21-2012, 10:54 PM
I don't think being a locker room cancer should factor into his ranking as a WR.

Besides, the fact that Owen went to three different teams during his prime doesn't just hurt his case, it also helps it. He went to three different teams and made them all better during his tenure there.

I don't necessarily feel like he's the number 2 receiver after Rice, but the numbers are remarkable.

Sure you could argue Moss was better, or perhaps another receier... but that's why I said "arguably".

He's certainly in the discussion and has better stats to back it up than almost anyone.

With respect (and I do have much respect of your opinions on this board, in general) I want to point out a rebuttal:

While most in this thread--and elsewhere, no doubt--agree with your premise of separating on field from off field issues regarding players, I don't agree in most instances.

Sure, 1 or 2 instances of minor off-field behavior is not enough to offset a player's achievements, no argument.

But when a player's bizarre, CONSTANT, selfish behavior negatively affects his contribution to the team --as it ultimately did to Niners, Eagles, and Cowboys--the credit he gets for making his teams "all better during his tenure there"--losses its luster.

He played for 5 teams during his 15 year career. And 4 of those teams were over a period of his last 7 years.

BTW--the notion that Owens "made the (Eagles) better during his tenure there" is pure myth. His first year, 2004, the Eagles made it to the NFCC game, yes. But they had done that in 2001, 2002, 2003 WITHOUT him. And in fact they WON the 2004 Championship game WITHOUT him for the last 2 regular season games and all post season games prior to the Super Bowl.

They went on to LOSE the Super Bowl WITH him. How can that possibly be considered "making the team better"?

More importantly, several of his team changes were predicated by his current team desiring to be rid of him, not because he was some Holy Grail of Free Agency.

--he was TRADED by SF,

--he was SUSPENDED for half a season for "conduct detrimental to the team" before he was RELEASED by the Eagles

--he was RELEASED by the Cowboys

--he was signed for only 1 year with the Bills, and was not re signed by them even though his stats were only slightly below his career standard

--he was not retained after 1 year by the Bengals, even though he had nearly 1000 yards and 9 TDs with them

Why do I think any of this is significant to evaluating Owens' career?

Because when 2 teams that are serious contenders at the time of acquiring Owens--Dallas, Philadelphia--and when 2 teams that are perennial losers SCREAMING for #1 WRs all refuse to keep Owens beyond 1,2, 3 years, EVEN THOUGH HE PUT UP GOOD-TO-GREAT STATS, that tells me that there is much more to a player's value to the team than stats.

And that validates in MY mind at least that a player's total character and his on-field performance are intrinsically entwined--that teams' coaches and front office do NOT necessarily keep the 2 separate in their minds, unlike the argument you and others on this board would make about Owens.

It is for this reason that the comparison of Cruz to Owens is an insult to Cruz, regardless of Owens numbers.

Rat_bastich
06-21-2012, 10:56 PM
I don't think being a locker room cancer should factor into his ranking as a WR. Besides, the fact that Owen went to three different teams during his prime doesn't just hurt his case, it also helps it. He went to three different teams and made them all better during his tenure there. I don't necessarily feel like he's the number 2 receiver after Rice, but the numbers are remarkable. Sure you could argue Moss was better, or perhaps another receier... but that's why I said "arguably". He's certainly in the discussion and has better stats to back it up than almost anyone.</P>


T.O. was flat our great.* And was great for a very long time.* His personality got him in trouble but he was a sensational WR.* Definately top 5 All-Time.</P>


Just like Randy Moss and Andre Rison. If all could've kept their heads straight and stayed on the same teams who knows what they could've accomplished. I am not sure if TO is the second greatest but he is definitely top 5.

Morehead State
06-21-2012, 11:10 PM
I don't think being a locker room cancer should factor into his ranking as a WR. Besides, the fact that Owen went to three different teams during his prime doesn't just hurt his case, it also helps it. He went to three different teams and made them all better during his tenure there. I don't necessarily feel like he's the number 2 receiver after Rice, but the numbers are remarkable. Sure you could argue Moss was better, or perhaps another receier... but that's why I said "arguably". He's certainly in the discussion and has better stats to back it up than almost anyone. With respect (and I do have much respect of your opinions on this board, in general) I want to point out a rebuttal: While most in this thread--and elsewhere, no doubt--agree with your premise of separating on field from off field issues regarding players, I don't agree in most instances. Sure, 1 or 2 instances of minor off-field behavior is not enough to offset a player's achievements, no argument. But when a player's bizarre, CONSTANT, selfish behavior negatively affects his contribution to the team --as it ultimately did to Niners, Eagles, and Cowboys--the credit he gets for making his teams "all better during his tenure there"--losses its luster. He played for 5 teams during his 15 year career. And 4 of those teams were over a period of his last 7 years. BTW--the notion that Owens "made the (Eagles) better during his tenure there" is pure myth. His first year, 2004, the Eagles made it to the NFCC game, yes. But they had done that in 2001, 2002, 2003 WITHOUT him. And in fact they WON the 2004 Championship game WITHOUT him for the last 2 regular season games and all post season games prior to the Super Bowl. They went on to LOSE the Super Bowl WITH him. How can that possibly be considered "making the team better"? More importantly, several of his team changes were predicated by his current team desiring to be rid of him, not because he was some Holy Grail of Free Agency. --he was TRADED by SF, --he was SUSPENDED for half a season for "conduct detrimental to the team" before he was RELEASED by the Eagles --he was RELEASED by the Cowboys --he was signed for only 1 year with the Bills, and was not re signed by them even though his stats were only slightly below his career standard --he was not retained after 1 year by the Bengals, even though he had nearly 1000 yards and 9 TDs with them Why do I think any of this is significant to evaluating Owens' career? Because when 2 teams that are serious contenders at the time of acquiring Owens--Dallas, Philadelphia--and when 2 teams that are perennial losers SCREAMING for #1 WRs all refuse to keep Owens beyond 1,2, 3 years, EVEN THOUGH HE PUT UP GOOD-TO-GREAT STATS, that tells me that there is much more to a player's value to the team than stats. And that validates in MY mind at least that a player's total character and his on-field performance are intrinsically entwined--that teams' coaches and front office do NOT necessarily keep the 2 separate in their minds, unlike the argument you and others on this board would make about Owens. It is for this reason that the comparison of Cruz to Owens is an insult to Cruz, regardless of Owens numbers.</P>


All this is true. He was a pain in the ***. But on the field, a great football player.And unlike Moss, T.O. always played his *** off. I doubt very seriously that the OP was suggesting anything about Cruz attitude being T.O.-like.</P>


But to compare Cruz to T.O. on the field is a great compliment. Not sure I agree, but a great compliment none-the-less.</P>

gmen46
06-22-2012, 12:26 AM
I don't think being a locker room cancer should factor into his ranking as a WR. Besides, the fact that Owen went to three different teams during his prime doesn't just hurt his case, it also helps it. He went to three different teams and made them all better during his tenure there. I don't necessarily feel like he's the number 2 receiver after Rice, but the numbers are remarkable. Sure you could argue Moss was better, or perhaps another receier... but that's why I said "arguably". He's certainly in the discussion and has better stats to back it up than almost anyone. With respect (and I do have much respect of your opinions on this board, in general) I want to point out a rebuttal: While most in this thread--and elsewhere, no doubt--agree with your premise of separating on field from off field issues regarding players, I don't agree in most instances. Sure, 1 or 2 instances of minor off-field behavior is not enough to offset a player's achievements, no argument. But when a player's bizarre, CONSTANT, selfish behavior negatively affects his contribution to the team --as it ultimately did to Niners, Eagles, and Cowboys--the credit he gets for making his teams "all better during his tenure there"--losses its luster. He played for 5 teams during his 15 year career. And 4 of those teams were over a period of his last 7 years. BTW--the notion that Owens "made the (Eagles) better during his tenure there" is pure myth. His first year, 2004, the Eagles made it to the NFCC game, yes. But they had done that in 2001, 2002, 2003 WITHOUT him. And in fact they WON the 2004 Championship game WITHOUT him for the last 2 regular season games and all post season games prior to the Super Bowl. They went on to LOSE the Super Bowl WITH him. How can that possibly be considered "making the team better"? More importantly, several of his team changes were predicated by his current team desiring to be rid of him, not because he was some Holy Grail of Free Agency. --he was TRADED by SF, --he was SUSPENDED for half a season for "conduct detrimental to the team" before he was RELEASED by the Eagles --he was RELEASED by the Cowboys --he was signed for only 1 year with the Bills, and was not re signed by them even though his stats were only slightly below his career standard --he was not retained after 1 year by the Bengals, even though he had nearly 1000 yards and 9 TDs with them Why do I think any of this is significant to evaluating Owens' career? Because when 2 teams that are serious contenders at the time of acquiring Owens--Dallas, Philadelphia--and when 2 teams that are perennial losers SCREAMING for #1 WRs all refuse to keep Owens beyond 1,2, 3 years, EVEN THOUGH HE PUT UP GOOD-TO-GREAT STATS, that tells me that there is much more to a player's value to the team than stats. And that validates in MY mind at least that a player's total character and his on-field performance are intrinsically entwined--that teams' coaches and front office do NOT necessarily keep the 2 separate in their minds, unlike the argument you and others on this board would make about Owens. It is for this reason that the comparison of Cruz to Owens is an insult to Cruz, regardless of Owens numbers.</P>


All this is true.* He was a pain in the ***.* But on the field, a great football player.**And unlike Moss, T.O. always played his *** off.** I doubt very seriously that the OP was suggesting anything about Cruz attitude being T.O.-like.</P>


But to compare Cruz to T.O. on the field is a great compliment.* Not sure I agree, but a great compliment none-the-less.</P>

I can't argue with anything you say here.

I will say, however, you are being WAY too easy on Owens by saying he was just a pain in the ***. That's like dismissing him as just being annoying.

He was much more than annoying.

As part of his ranting criticism of Jeff Garcia while with Niners, he implied rather clearly that Garcia was gay (not that there's anything wrong with that!--apologies to Larry David)., when there was absolutely no hint or no evidence of that. And when pressed afterwards by media he never backed off or apologized to Garcia.

And throwing McNabb loudly under the bus for the Super Bowl loss was the absolute lowest and most outrageous thing a team mate can do to another. Regardless of McNabb's role in that loss, regardless of what other Eagles players thought, any player worth his salt does NOT do that. And of course, his words ultimately diminished Owens in the eyes of ALL players, coaches, owners/GMs, and most fans far far more than it hurt McNabb's rep.

All his yards and TDs (and highly defined muscles that so thrill Harooni and the like) do not excuse or offset the Owens the man.

I just don't agree a man can be separated from his works.

You are what you do--in ALL areas of your life.

Obviously, many do not agree with me. So it goes.

Morehead State
06-22-2012, 12:34 AM
I don't think being a locker room cancer should factor into his ranking as a WR. Besides, the fact that Owen went to three different teams during his prime doesn't just hurt his case, it also helps it. He went to three different teams and made them all better during his tenure there. I don't necessarily feel like he's the number 2 receiver after Rice, but the numbers are remarkable. Sure you could argue Moss was better, or perhaps another receier... but that's why I said "arguably". He's certainly in the discussion and has better stats to back it up than almost anyone. With respect (and I do have much respect of your opinions on this board, in general) I want to point out a rebuttal: While most in this thread--and elsewhere, no doubt--agree with your premise of separating on field from off field issues regarding players, I don't agree in most instances. Sure, 1 or 2 instances of minor off-field behavior is not enough to offset a player's achievements, no argument. But when a player's bizarre, CONSTANT, selfish behavior negatively affects his contribution to the team --as it ultimately did to Niners, Eagles, and Cowboys--the credit he gets for making his teams "all better during his tenure there"--losses its luster. He played for 5 teams during his 15 year career. And 4 of those teams were over a period of his last 7 years. BTW--the notion that Owens "made the (Eagles) better during his tenure there" is pure myth. His first year, 2004, the Eagles made it to the NFCC game, yes. But they had done that in 2001, 2002, 2003 WITHOUT him. And in fact they WON the 2004 Championship game WITHOUT him for the last 2 regular season games and all post season games prior to the Super Bowl. They went on to LOSE the Super Bowl WITH him. How can that possibly be considered "making the team better"? More importantly, several of his team changes were predicated by his current team desiring to be rid of him, not because he was some Holy Grail of Free Agency. --he was TRADED by SF, --he was SUSPENDED for half a season for "conduct detrimental to the team" before he was RELEASED by the Eagles --he was RELEASED by the Cowboys --he was signed for only 1 year with the Bills, and was not re signed by them even though his stats were only slightly below his career standard --he was not retained after 1 year by the Bengals, even though he had nearly 1000 yards and 9 TDs with them Why do I think any of this is significant to evaluating Owens' career? Because when 2 teams that are serious contenders at the time of acquiring Owens--Dallas, Philadelphia--and when 2 teams that are perennial losers SCREAMING for #1 WRs all refuse to keep Owens beyond 1,2, 3 years, EVEN THOUGH HE PUT UP GOOD-TO-GREAT STATS, that tells me that there is much more to a player's value to the team than stats. And that validates in MY mind at least that a player's total character and his on-field performance are intrinsically entwined--that teams' coaches and front office do NOT necessarily keep the 2 separate in their minds, unlike the argument you and others on this board would make about Owens. It is for this reason that the comparison of Cruz to Owens is an insult to Cruz, regardless of Owens numbers.</P>


All this is true. He was a pain in the ***. But on the field, a great football player.And unlike Moss, T.O. always played his *** off. I doubt very seriously that the OP was suggesting anything about Cruz attitude being T.O.-like.</P>


But to compare Cruz to T.O. on the field is a great compliment. Not sure I agree, but a great compliment none-the-less.</P>


I can't argue with anything you say here. I will say, however, you are being WAY too easy on Owens by saying he was just a pain in the ***. That's like dismissing him as just being annoying. He was much more than annoying. As part of his ranting criticism of Jeff Garcia while with Niners, he implied rather clearly that Garcia was gay (not that there's anything wrong with that!--apologies to Larry David)., when there was absolutely no hint or no evidence of that. And when pressed afterwards by media he never backed off or apologized to Garcia. And throwing McNabb loudly under the bus for the Super Bowl loss was the absolute lowest and most outrageous thing a team mate can do to another. Regardless of McNabb's role in that loss, regardless of what other Eagles players thought, any player worth his salt does NOT do that. And of course, his words ultimately diminished Owens in the eyes of ALL players, coaches, owners/GMs, and most fans far far more than it hurt McNabb's rep. All his yards and TDs (and highly defined muscles that so thrill Harooni and the like) do not excuse or offset the Owens the man. I just don't agree a man can be separated from his works. You are what you do--in ALL areas of your life. Obviously, many do not agree with me. So it goes.</P>


But getting back to the original point, its not a "slap in the face" to compare Cruz to Owens as a football player.</P>


Kid was great.</P>

gmen46
06-22-2012, 03:49 AM
I don't think being a locker room cancer should factor into his ranking as a WR. Besides, the fact that Owen went to three different teams during his prime doesn't just hurt his case, it also helps it. He went to three different teams and made them all better during his tenure there. I don't necessarily feel like he's the number 2 receiver after Rice, but the numbers are remarkable. Sure you could argue Moss was better, or perhaps another receier... but that's why I said "arguably". He's certainly in the discussion and has better stats to back it up than almost anyone. With respect (and I do have much respect of your opinions on this board, in general) I want to point out a rebuttal: While most in this thread--and elsewhere, no doubt--agree with your premise of separating on field from off field issues regarding players, I don't agree in most instances. Sure, 1 or 2 instances of minor off-field behavior is not enough to offset a player's achievements, no argument. But when a player's bizarre, CONSTANT, selfish behavior negatively affects his contribution to the team --as it ultimately did to Niners, Eagles, and Cowboys--the credit he gets for making his teams "all better during his tenure there"--losses its luster. He played for 5 teams during his 15 year career. And 4 of those teams were over a period of his last 7 years. BTW--the notion that Owens "made the (Eagles) better during his tenure there" is pure myth. His first year, 2004, the Eagles made it to the NFCC game, yes. But they had done that in 2001, 2002, 2003 WITHOUT him. And in fact they WON the 2004 Championship game WITHOUT him for the last 2 regular season games and all post season games prior to the Super Bowl. They went on to LOSE the Super Bowl WITH him. How can that possibly be considered "making the team better"? More importantly, several of his team changes were predicated by his current team desiring to be rid of him, not because he was some Holy Grail of Free Agency. --he was TRADED by SF, --he was SUSPENDED for half a season for "conduct detrimental to the team" before he was RELEASED by the Eagles --he was RELEASED by the Cowboys --he was signed for only 1 year with the Bills, and was not re signed by them even though his stats were only slightly below his career standard --he was not retained after 1 year by the Bengals, even though he had nearly 1000 yards and 9 TDs with them Why do I think any of this is significant to evaluating Owens' career? Because when 2 teams that are serious contenders at the time of acquiring Owens--Dallas, Philadelphia--and when 2 teams that are perennial losers SCREAMING for #1 WRs all refuse to keep Owens beyond 1,2, 3 years, EVEN THOUGH HE PUT UP GOOD-TO-GREAT STATS, that tells me that there is much more to a player's value to the team than stats. And that validates in MY mind at least that a player's total character and his on-field performance are intrinsically entwined--that teams' coaches and front office do NOT necessarily keep the 2 separate in their minds, unlike the argument you and others on this board would make about Owens. It is for this reason that the comparison of Cruz to Owens is an insult to Cruz, regardless of Owens numbers.</P>


All this is true.* He was a pain in the ***.* But on the field, a great football player.**And unlike Moss, T.O. always played his *** off.** I doubt very seriously that the OP was suggesting anything about Cruz attitude being T.O.-like.</P>


But to compare Cruz to T.O. on the field is a great compliment.* Not sure I agree, but a great compliment none-the-less.</P>


I can't argue with anything you say here. I will say, however, you are being WAY too easy on Owens by saying he was just a pain in the ***. That's like dismissing him as just being annoying. He was much more than annoying. As part of his ranting criticism of Jeff Garcia while with Niners, he implied rather clearly that Garcia was gay (not that there's anything wrong with that!--apologies to Larry David)., when there was absolutely no hint or no evidence of that. And when pressed afterwards by media he never backed off or apologized to Garcia. And throwing McNabb loudly under the bus for the Super Bowl loss was the absolute lowest and most outrageous thing a team mate can do to another. Regardless of McNabb's role in that loss, regardless of what other Eagles players thought, any player worth his salt does NOT do that. And of course, his words ultimately diminished Owens in the eyes of ALL players, coaches, owners/GMs, and most fans far far more than it hurt McNabb's rep. All his yards and TDs (and highly defined muscles that so thrill Harooni and the like) do not excuse or offset the Owens the man. I just don't agree a man can be separated from his works. You are what you do--in ALL areas of your life. Obviously, many do not agree with me. So it goes.</P>


But getting back to the original point,* its not a "slap in the face" to compare Cruz to Owens as a football player.</P>


Kid was great.</P>

Ok ok. A back-handed compliment, then?

Ntegrase96
06-22-2012, 09:36 AM
I don't think being a locker room cancer should factor into his ranking as a WR.

Besides, the fact that Owen went to three different teams during his prime doesn't just hurt his case, it also helps it. He went to three different teams and made them all better during his tenure there.

I don't necessarily feel like he's the number 2 receiver after Rice, but the numbers are remarkable.

Sure you could argue Moss was better, or perhaps another receier... but that's why I said "arguably".

He's certainly in the discussion and has better stats to back it up than almost anyone.

With respect (and I do have much respect of your opinions on this board, in general) I want to point out a rebuttal:

While most in this thread--and elsewhere, no doubt--agree with your premise of separating on field from off field issues regarding players, I don't agree in most instances.

Sure, 1 or 2 instances of minor off-field behavior is not enough to offset a player's achievements, no argument.

But when a player's bizarre, CONSTANT, selfish behavior negatively affects his contribution to the team --as it ultimately did to Niners, Eagles, and Cowboys--the credit he gets for making his teams "all better during his tenure there"--losses its luster.

He played for 5 teams during his 15 year career. And 4 of those teams were over a period of his last 7 years.

BTW--the notion that Owens "made the (Eagles) better during his tenure there" is pure myth. His first year, 2004, the Eagles made it to the NFCC game, yes. But they had done that in 2001, 2002, 2003 WITHOUT him. And in fact they WON the 2004 Championship game WITHOUT him for the last 2 regular season games and all post season games prior to the Super Bowl.

They went on to LOSE the Super Bowl WITH him. How can that possibly be considered "making the team better"?

More importantly, several of his team changes were predicated by his current team desiring to be rid of him, not because he was some Holy Grail of Free Agency.

--he was TRADED by SF,

--he was SUSPENDED for half a season for "conduct detrimental to the team" before he was RELEASED by the Eagles

--he was RELEASED by the Cowboys

--he was signed for only 1 year with the Bills, and was not re signed by them even though his stats were only slightly below his career standard

--he was not retained after 1 year by the Bengals, even though he had nearly 1000 yards and 9 TDs with them

Why do I think any of this is significant to evaluating Owens' career?

Because when 2 teams that are serious contenders at the time of acquiring Owens--Dallas, Philadelphia--and when 2 teams that are perennial losers SCREAMING for #1 WRs all refuse to keep Owens beyond 1,2, 3 years, EVEN THOUGH HE PUT UP GOOD-TO-GREAT STATS, that tells me that there is much more to a player's value to the team than stats.

And that validates in MY mind at least that a player's total character and his on-field performance are intrinsically entwined--that teams' coaches and front office do NOT necessarily keep the 2 separate in their minds, unlike the argument you and others on this board would make about Owens.

It is for this reason that the comparison of Cruz to Owens is an insult to Cruz, regardless of Owens numbers.

You make some pretty good points.

I just don't think it's all that important to factor in his locker room issues when his presence on the field was one of the greatest of all time.

If personality factors were so important, Michael Irvin should very well be considered the 2nd best receiver of all time. Unlike T.O., Irvin was a positive locker room influence who, most Cowboys of the early 90s will tell you, was the most important player on a team that one 3 superbowls. However, you won't hear Irvin's name in any top 10 lists, maybe not even top 20.

I'm not saying Irvin should be top 10 or 20-- the point I'm trying to make here is that production is all anyone looks at, and I think it should be that way as well.

... Kind of a round-about way to explain where I'm coming from, so I hope this makes sense.

GMENAGAIN
06-22-2012, 09:41 AM
I don't think being a locker room cancer should factor into his ranking as a WR. Besides, the fact that Owen went to three different teams during his prime doesn't just hurt his case, it also helps it. He went to three different teams and made them all better during his tenure there. I don't necessarily feel like he's the number 2 receiver after Rice, but the numbers are remarkable. Sure you could argue Moss was better, or perhaps another receier... but that's why I said "arguably". He's certainly in the discussion and has better stats to back it up than almost anyone. With respect (and I do have much respect of your opinions on this board, in general) I want to point out a rebuttal: While most in this thread--and elsewhere, no doubt--agree with your premise of separating on field from off field issues regarding players, I don't agree in most instances. Sure, 1 or 2 instances of minor off-field behavior is not enough to offset a player's achievements, no argument. But when a player's bizarre, CONSTANT, selfish behavior negatively affects his contribution to the team --as it ultimately did to Niners, Eagles, and Cowboys--the credit he gets for making his teams "all better during his tenure there"--losses its luster. He played for 5 teams during his 15 year career. And 4 of those teams were over a period of his last 7 years. BTW--the notion that Owens "made the (Eagles) better during his tenure there" is pure myth. His first year, 2004, the Eagles made it to the NFCC game, yes. But they had done that in 2001, 2002, 2003 WITHOUT him. And in fact they WON the 2004 Championship game WITHOUT him for the last 2 regular season games and all post season games prior to the Super Bowl. They went on to LOSE the Super Bowl WITH him. How can that possibly be considered "making the team better"? More importantly, several of his team changes were predicated by his current team desiring to be rid of him, not because he was some Holy Grail of Free Agency. --he was TRADED by SF, --he was SUSPENDED for half a season for "conduct detrimental to the team" before he was RELEASED by the Eagles --he was RELEASED by the Cowboys --he was signed for only 1 year with the Bills, and was not re signed by them even though his stats were only slightly below his career standard --he was not retained after 1 year by the Bengals, even though he had nearly 1000 yards and 9 TDs with them Why do I think any of this is significant to evaluating Owens' career? Because when 2 teams that are serious contenders at the time of acquiring Owens--Dallas, Philadelphia--and when 2 teams that are perennial losers SCREAMING for #1 WRs all refuse to keep Owens beyond 1,2, 3 years, EVEN THOUGH HE PUT UP GOOD-TO-GREAT STATS, that tells me that there is much more to a player's value to the team than stats. And that validates in MY mind at least that a player's total character and his on-field performance are intrinsically entwined--that teams' coaches and front office do NOT necessarily keep the 2 separate in their minds, unlike the argument you and others on this board would make about Owens. It is for this reason that the comparison of Cruz to Owens is an insult to Cruz, regardless of Owens numbers.

You make some pretty good points.

I just don't think it's all that important to factor in his locker room issues when his presence on the field was one of the greatest of all time.

If personality factors were so important, Michael Irvin should very well be considered the 2nd best receiver of all time. Unlike T.O., Irvin was a positive locker room influence who, most Cowboys of the early 90s will tell you, was the most important player on a team that one 3 superbowls. However, you won't hear Irvin's name in any top 10 lists, maybe not even top 20.

I'm not saying Irvin should be top 10 or 20-- the point I'm trying to make here is that production is all anyone looks at, and I think it should be that way as well.

... Kind of a round-about way to explain where I'm coming from, so I hope this makes sense.
</P>


Didn't Irvin stab a teammate in the neck with a scissors because Irvin thought that he should be able to cut in front everyone else waiting in line for a haircut??</P>


</P>

Ntegrase96
06-22-2012, 11:20 AM
I don't think being a locker room cancer should factor into his ranking as a WR. Besides, the fact that Owen went to three different teams during his prime doesn't just hurt his case, it also helps it. He went to three different teams and made them all better during his tenure there. I don't necessarily feel like he's the number 2 receiver after Rice, but the numbers are remarkable. Sure you could argue Moss was better, or perhaps another receier... but that's why I said "arguably". He's certainly in the discussion and has better stats to back it up than almost anyone. With respect (and I do have much respect of your opinions on this board, in general) I want to point out a rebuttal: While most in this thread--and elsewhere, no doubt--agree with your premise of separating on field from off field issues regarding players, I don't agree in most instances. Sure, 1 or 2 instances of minor off-field behavior is not enough to offset a player's achievements, no argument. But when a player's bizarre, CONSTANT, selfish behavior negatively affects his contribution to the team --as it ultimately did to Niners, Eagles, and Cowboys--the credit he gets for making his teams "all better during his tenure there"--losses its luster. He played for 5 teams during his 15 year career. And 4 of those teams were over a period of his last 7 years. BTW--the notion that Owens "made the (Eagles) better during his tenure there" is pure myth. His first year, 2004, the Eagles made it to the NFCC game, yes. But they had done that in 2001, 2002, 2003 WITHOUT him. And in fact they WON the 2004 Championship game WITHOUT him for the last 2 regular season games and all post season games prior to the Super Bowl. They went on to LOSE the Super Bowl WITH him. How can that possibly be considered "making the team better"? More importantly, several of his team changes were predicated by his current team desiring to be rid of him, not because he was some Holy Grail of Free Agency. --he was TRADED by SF, --he was SUSPENDED for half a season for "conduct detrimental to the team" before he was RELEASED by the Eagles --he was RELEASED by the Cowboys --he was signed for only 1 year with the Bills, and was not re signed by them even though his stats were only slightly below his career standard --he was not retained after 1 year by the Bengals, even though he had nearly 1000 yards and 9 TDs with them Why do I think any of this is significant to evaluating Owens' career? Because when 2 teams that are serious contenders at the time of acquiring Owens--Dallas, Philadelphia--and when 2 teams that are perennial losers SCREAMING for #1 WRs all refuse to keep Owens beyond 1,2, 3 years, EVEN THOUGH HE PUT UP GOOD-TO-GREAT STATS, that tells me that there is much more to a player's value to the team than stats. And that validates in MY mind at least that a player's total character and his on-field performance are intrinsically entwined--that teams' coaches and front office do NOT necessarily keep the 2 separate in their minds, unlike the argument you and others on this board would make about Owens. It is for this reason that the comparison of Cruz to Owens is an insult to Cruz, regardless of Owens numbers.

You make some pretty good points.

I just don't think it's all that important to factor in his locker room issues when his presence on the field was one of the greatest of all time.

If personality factors were so important, Michael Irvin should very well be considered the 2nd best receiver of all time. Unlike T.O., Irvin was a positive locker room influence who, most Cowboys of the early 90s will tell you, was the most important player on a team that one 3 superbowls. However, you won't hear Irvin's name in any top 10 lists, maybe not even top 20.

I'm not saying Irvin should be top 10 or 20-- the point I'm trying to make here is that production is all anyone looks at, and I think it should be that way as well.

... Kind of a round-about way to explain where I'm coming from, so I hope this makes sense.
</P>


Didn't Irvin stab a teammate in the neck with a scissors because Irvin thought that he should be able to cut in front everyone else waiting in line for a haircut??</P>


*</P>

haha yeah. I didn't say he was an outstanding citizen. But he was instrumental in so many ways to the success of the Cowboys in the early 90s, and only half that was on the field.

burier
06-22-2012, 11:33 AM
No one is going to argue about TOs game. He was a great player.

But how great. Clearly not great enough for his game to outweigh his antics in the minds of every single team he played for.

I predict that TO may one day reach the HOF but he won't go in on the first ballot.

He'll have to wait by way of the fact that his play is forever in the shadow of his off the field nonsense.

If you asked any GM if they had the opportunity to have the 2nd best WR EVER in his prime would they do everything in their power to keep him. They'd all say HELL YES even if the guy was a "pain in the ***"

But no one ever kept TO. Every team he played for couldn't wait to get rid of him.

This is evidence in support of my position that he is not the second best WR ever despite his impressive career stats.

Ntegrase96
06-22-2012, 01:26 PM
No one is going to argue about TOs game. He was a great player.

But how great. Clearly not great enough for his game to outweigh his antics in the minds of every single team he played for.

I predict that TO may one day reach the HOF but he won't go in on the first ballot.

He'll have to wait by way of the fact that his play is forever in the shadow of his off the field nonsense.

If you asked any GM if they had the opportunity to have the 2nd best WR EVER in his prime would they do everything in their power to keep him. They'd all say HELL YES even if the guy was a "pain in the ***"

But no one ever kept TO. Every team he played for couldn't wait to get rid of him.

This is evidence in support of my position that he is not the second best WR ever despite his impressive career stats.

It's a fair opinion. However, my stance is this...

1. When he was in his prime, teams were still calling him. He began to decline in 2008, which is why Dallas released him. He just wasn't worth the headache at that point.

2. I don't think the WR position is a valuable enough one to put up with T.O.'s nonsense, which is why some teams let him go.

You're right in the sense that he wasn't worth putting up with, but I don't think that was because he wasn't great... just the WR position isn't a prime position like QB or a monster pass rusher.

Overall I get what you're saying. I just view it a little differently.

WRs don't get rewarded for being ultimate team players, or being 'clutch'-- they are recognized by the numbers they put up and their abilities on the field.

At least that's the way I've always viewed it.

SoFnRidiculous
05-13-2014, 01:07 AM
I can't argue with anything you say here.

I will say, however, you are being WAY too easy on Owens by saying he was just a pain in the ***. That's like dismissing him as just being annoying.

He was much more than annoying.

As part of his ranting criticism of Jeff Garcia while with Niners, he implied rather clearly that Garcia was gay (not that there's anything wrong with that!--apologies to Larry David)., when there was absolutely no hint or no evidence of that. And when pressed afterwards by media he never backed off or apologized to Garcia.


This is complete BS. For starters, what you are referring to took place in the summer of 2004, when Owens and Garcia were no longer teammates. Furthermore, what you are referring to was a question specifically asked of him by a Playboy interviewer, not something Owens brought up on his own. The question was, "do you think Jeff Garcia is gay." Owens responded, "like my boy tells me - if it looks like a rat, smells like a rat, by golly, it's a rat."

The reason Owens was asked this question is there had been rumors about Garcia being gay for years. The "hint or evidence" for that was the fact that he talks with a stereotypically gay voice/lisp and played for the 49ers. Freak'n Steve Young had gay rumors thanks to being single in his 30s and playing for an SF team. Garcia actually sounded gay, and was the 49ers' QB...and was single in his 30s as well.

Moreover, the very next day, Owens clarified in a press conference that he didn't know whether Garcia was gay or not, and he emphasized that it was just a loose, relaxed interview and he was just shooting the breeze.



And throwing McNabb loudly under the bus for the Super Bowl loss was the absolute lowest and most outrageous thing a team mate can do to another. Regardless of McNabb's role in that loss, regardless of what other Eagles players thought, any player worth his salt does NOT do that. And of course, his words ultimately diminished Owens in the eyes of ALL players, coaches, owners/GMs, and most fans far far more than it hurt McNabb's rep.


Well, if that's the case, where was the outrage when Hank Fraley, Freddie Mitchell, and John Runyan all did it? Owens never said, "McNabb got tired in the Super Bowl." He said, "I wasn't the guy who got tired in the Super Bowl" when he was talking to Len Pasquarelli about his physical conditioning coming back from the broken leg. The reason people assumed Owens was referring to McNabb with that comment is the other 3 had already thrown McNabb under the bus, saying he looked like he was going to puke in the huddle towards the end of the game. Owens merely piled on in a joking manner.

SoFnRidiculous
05-13-2014, 01:10 AM
No one is going to argue about TOs game. He was a great player.

But how great. Clearly not great enough for his game to outweigh his antics in the minds of every single team he played for.

I predict that TO may one day reach the HOF but he won't go in on the first ballot.

He'll have to wait by way of the fact that his play is forever in the shadow of his off the field nonsense.

If you asked any GM if they had the opportunity to have the 2nd best WR EVER in his prime would they do everything in their power to keep him. They'd all say HELL YES even if the guy was a "pain in the ***"

But no one ever kept TO. Every team he played for couldn't wait to get rid of him.

This is evidence in support of my position that he is not the second best WR ever despite his impressive career stats.

I wouldn't say he's the second greatest receiver ever but this is BS. He was on the 49ers for 8 years, and he left on his own terms (or would have if not for the paperwork mishap). He was only traded because his unrestricted free agency void fell through at the deadline in 2004.

The 49ers were already cleaning house that off-season.

The revisionist historians will have you believe that Owens was dumped from SF for his "antics." He wasn't. The GM at the time, Terry Donahue, didn't like Owens (and the feeling was mutual), but he also didn't get along with a number of other 49ers veterans, including Derrick Deese. Deese and Donahue traded insults after Deese's release.

Donahue is now blackballed from the NFL and is known as a complete scumbag. Owens is actually generally well-liked and respected in most NFL circles. He wouldn't have gotten so many "chances" if he wasn't.

Rudyy
05-13-2014, 01:10 AM
Same kind of build
Makes the big YAC plays
Makes the acrobatic cattch, but not the most consistent hands
Not the fastest, but has an amazing burst of speed and still has great top speed
Makes the clutch catches

Thoughts?
Uh hell no

DandyDon
05-13-2014, 01:42 AM
I see no resemblance whatsoever between the two players

Me neither. Plus one is crazy and one is not.

Imgrate
05-13-2014, 07:02 AM
Why was a thread from 2012 bumped up

WayBackFan
05-13-2014, 08:18 AM
TO was way better than Cruz. A game breaker.

giantscolombia
05-13-2014, 08:38 AM
No...

Redeyejedi
05-13-2014, 08:45 AM
I dont see it.

TO is a big physical player, at 6'3 225 pounds he outmuscled defenders.

Cruz is much smaller at 5'11.5 and ~200 pounds, he doesnt win by being physically stronger than anyone. He wins with ball skills, and his lateral explosion and vertical jumping.

I dont think Cruz has the downfield speed that TO has either. Cruz really, is rather average vertically.I wonder if he will be as effective in this system. Gilbride really took advantage of his talent

GameTime
05-13-2014, 08:57 AM
he reminds me of Victor Cruz...

/thread

jomo
05-13-2014, 09:01 AM
Same kind of build
Makes the big YAC plays
Makes the acrobatic cattch, but not the most consistent hands
Not the fastest, but has an amazing burst of speed and still has great top speed
Makes the clutch catches

Thoughts?I don't see it that way other than they are both capable of big plays.
TO is much bigger and more physical.
TO drops ALOT of passes, Cuz drop one once in a while in comparison.
Cruz' mainstay is his darting precision routes primarlily from the slot..
TO is built for the outside where his physicality can be optomized.

Aufidius
05-13-2014, 01:27 PM
Cruz isn't like TO at all. He is more like a less physical Steve Smith from Carolina (now Baltimore).

TO was an absolute beast on the field, top 5 WR to ever play the game. He is a 1st ballot HoF. Off field antics aside, he was a great football player.

Other players threw McNabb under the bus for his exhaustion in SB. TO who had a great game that day while playing a badly injured ankle only stated "I'm not the one that got tired." He never pointed a finger at McNabb. Years later when McNabb was a Washington Redskin, Mike Shanahan pulled him out of a game in the 4th quarter and the reasoning he gave later at the press conference was because McNabb lacked the cardiovascular fitness to run the offense at that point.

PRGiant
05-13-2014, 01:35 PM
Out of the graveyard...

GoDeep80
05-13-2014, 01:44 PM
Out of the graveyard...

The Nerd in me

http://i57.tinypic.com/2ez5xqb.png

B&RWarrior
05-13-2014, 01:50 PM
2 totally different receivers, bad comparison.

Typical of this board. Still drunk off the arrogance that comes with a SB victory many posters have started making comparisons between current Giants and future HOFers, or even worse putting there favorite Giants ahead of all-time greats.

A strong cup of joe should bring you all to your senses. In this respect you can think of me as Blue Mountain Java. And with a return to sobriety you dreamers out there should come to the realization that:


Eli is not better than Marino, Elway, Montana, Steve Young

JPP is not better than Strahan...yet

Cruz in no way shape or form resembles TO.

This was such a good response I had to repost it.

Geebanga718
05-13-2014, 01:54 PM
VC selling his old Jordans on Ebay?

gibril28wilson
05-13-2014, 01:55 PM
I wouldn't say he's the second greatest receiver ever but this is BS. He was on the 49ers for 8 years, and he left on his own terms (or would have if not for the paperwork mishap). He was only traded because his unrestricted free agency void fell through at the deadline in 2004.

The 49ers were already cleaning house that off-season.

The revisionist historians will have you believe that Owens was dumped from SF for his "antics." He wasn't. The GM at the time, Terry Donahue, didn't like Owens (and the feeling was mutual), but he also didn't get along with a number of other 49ers veterans, including Derrick Deese. Deese and Donahue traded insults after Deese's release.

Donahue is now blackballed from the NFL and is known as a complete scumbag. Owens is actually generally well-liked and respected in most NFL circles. He wouldn't have gotten so many "chances" if he wasn't.

well if its any consultation Jerry Rice hated Owens too, and i forgot who the GM at the time was but he chose TO over Rice. I think Owens was a beast and he was a great player. never really wanted him on the Giants, but HATED that he was on the Eagles and the Cowboys. The guy was a bit of a loose cannon but as you stated he got egged on a lot and every little thing he said was put under a microscope. Great player nonetheless

TCHOF
05-13-2014, 02:40 PM
Victor Cruz is more like the smaller, faster, more-athletic and smaller-assed Kevin Boothe.

Rudyy
05-13-2014, 02:41 PM
Victor Cruz is half man, half amazing.

TCHOF
05-13-2014, 02:42 PM
I wouldn't say he's the second greatest receiver ever but this is BS. He was on the 49ers for 8 years, and he left on his own terms (or would have if not for the paperwork mishap). He was only traded because his unrestricted free agency void fell through at the deadline in 2004.

The 49ers were already cleaning house that off-season.

The revisionist historians will have you believe that Owens was dumped from SF for his "antics." He wasn't. The GM at the time, Terry Donahue, didn't like Owens (and the feeling was mutual), but he also didn't get along with a number of other 49ers veterans, including Derrick Deese. Deese and Donahue traded insults after Deese's release.

Donahue is now blackballed from the NFL and is known as a complete scumbag. Owens is actually generally well-liked and respected in most NFL circles. He wouldn't have gotten so many "chances" if he wasn't.


"Owens is actually generally well-liked and respected in most NFL circles" . . . . lol

SoFnRidiculous
05-13-2014, 06:51 PM
well if its any consultation Jerry Rice hated Owens too, and i forgot who the GM at the time was but he chose TO over Rice. I think Owens was a beast and he was a great player. never really wanted him on the Giants, but HATED that he was on the Eagles and the Cowboys. The guy was a bit of a loose cannon but as you stated he got egged on a lot and every little thing he said was put under a microscope. Great player nonetheless

Not sure where you're getting that from, but no. Jerry Rice has no problem whatsoever with Owens.

"Rice: You know, I think T.O. is right up there.

What he was able to accomplish on the football field—over 1,000 yards nine times, 15,000 (career) yards or more. And the thing about this guy, I wanted to go to battle with him. If I went into an alley, I wanted him to be next to me because I knew he was going to come out swinging.

He's always going to give one hundred percent and he was very productive on the football field."

Nobody chose Owens over Rice. Rice refused to take a pay cut after the 2000 season and some guy named Bill Walsh, that GM you don't remember, released him.

SoFnRidiculous
05-13-2014, 06:55 PM
"Owens is actually generally well-liked and respected in most NFL circles" . . . . lol

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1584791-terrell-owens-a-great-teammate-players-and-coaches-defend-his-character

Also not included in that article are all the praise former coaches have given him that the media conveniently overlooks. John Harbaugh, Andy Reid, George Stewart, and Pete Carroll all vouch for him.

SoFnRidiculous
05-13-2014, 06:57 PM
Another myth is that Owens was a particularly "physical" receiver. That's one of those things that results from people tacking on the word "physical" any time a receiver is big. Owens was big, yes, but he was a finesse receiver. A great one, but finesse nonetheless. His game was based on speed, length, and elusiveness, not physicality. There's a reason his favorite sport is basketball, not football. Physical receivers are guys like Hines Ward, Muhsin Muhammad, and Michael Irvin.

slipknottin
05-13-2014, 07:07 PM
Another myth is that Owens was a particularly "physical" receiver. That's one of those things that results from people tacking on the word "physical" any time a receiver is big. Owens was big, yes, but he was a finesse receiver. A great one, but finesse nonetheless. His game was based on speed, length, and elusiveness, not physicality. There's a reason his favorite sport is basketball, not football. Physical receivers are guys like Hines Ward, Muhsin Muhammad, and Michael Irvin.

Um. Did you actually even watch him play? Or do you just read bleacherreport?

Owens used his strength to get open, he beat guys physically, once he got the ball in his hands he ran through DBs.

Mookskingdom
05-13-2014, 07:19 PM
He ain't jacked like that lol Cruz is a breed of his own.. hes the smoothest runner I've ever seen, he looks like he's gliding out there

jomo
05-13-2014, 07:39 PM
Victor Cruz is half man, half amazing.I thought you would have said he's all man and totally amazing??

DSP
05-13-2014, 08:11 PM
I havent seen victor cry at a press conference because people criticized Eli.

SoFnRidiculous
05-15-2014, 04:34 PM
Um. Did you actually even watch him play? Or do you just read bleacherreport?

Owens used his strength to get open, he beat guys physically, once he got the ball in his hands he ran through DBs.

Watched him all the time. He wasn't physical. He was called for a grand total of 2 offensive pass interferences in his entire 15 year career, and one of those 2 calls was so ridiculous (refs were targeting him at that point in his career) that Al Michaels remarked, "what the heck was THAT?" If he was really that physical, he would have been called for offensive pass interference far more often. That's just the reality of the situation.

He also never was a great blocker, though every now and then he'd show nice hustle and get out and screen. But I don't think I ever saw him put a DB on the ground on a block in his entire career, despite his big size advantage. Even Randy Moss has clips of him knocking linebackers to the ground on crackbacks.

After the catch, he was about making people miss and/or running away from them, not running over anyone. If he was surrounded, he went softly to the ground or stepped out of bounds. Every once in a blue moon you'd see guys fail to bring him down when they had him in their grasp, but that's just the result of a size mismatch, not physicality. Steve Atwater bounced right off Jerry Rice in Super Bowl XXIV, but I don't see people talking about how Rice was "so physical." Rice was definitely more physical than Owens, though, based on his blocking.

Again, if Owens was so physically inclined, why did he openly admit to not really liking football and his favorite sport being basketball? Wouldn't a guy who loves physical contact prefer the most physical sport in the United States or a generally finesse game like basketball?

DSP
05-15-2014, 04:41 PM
Owens was a physical specimen and could have been a very physically bruising WR but a lot of guys dont want to be because of the chance of injury.

BParcells777
05-15-2014, 05:14 PM
What nonsense is this......and the moon is a smaller version of the Earth because both circle the sun LOL

NYG 5
05-15-2014, 07:12 PM
when did i ever say he ran people over? i said he had YAC ability.

http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/943thepoint.com/files/2012/01/victor-cruz.jpg
http://mit.zenfs.com/209/2011/09/RunyanAndOwens.jpg

and owens dropped tons of passes and victor doesn't? HA HA HA

Mookskingdom
05-15-2014, 07:18 PM
when did i ever say he ran people over? i said he had YAC ability.

http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/943thepoint.com/files/2012/01/victor-cruz.jpg
http://mit.zenfs.com/209/2011/09/RunyanAndOwens.jpg

and owens dropped tons of passes and victor doesn't? HA HA HA

Cruz actually cut down on his drop rate significantly last season

jaxnygmen
05-15-2014, 09:07 PM
When Owens was in his prime he did not drop as many balls. He obviously was taller and bigger giving him an advantage of high balls and out muscling DB's.

B&RWarrior
05-15-2014, 10:57 PM
When Owens was in his prime he did not drop as many balls. He obviously was taller and bigger giving him an advantage of high balls and out muscling DB's.

He always dropped balls.

The comparison is a fail for a multitude of reasons. TO is just a higher caliber WR than Cruz and its not even close. This is only a legitimate debate on the GMB.