Coles vs. TO

[Eagles_Legendz]

Originally posted by Art

If it does, I'll realize why it happened isn't that surprising considering how much further along Coles was at the same stage of development.

Averaging 150 more yards a year and 4 TDs less per year. You be the judge.

NoCal, Owens isn't afraid of contact. Never has been. He may whine but he isn't a primadona and he will run at people. His greatest asset has never been simply catching the ball. He drops a few, that is no mystery, but I wouldn't say he is afraid of contact.

[Art]

Originally posted by Eagles_Legendz

Averaging 150 more yards a year and 4 TDs less per year. You be the judge.

NoCal, Owens isn't afraid of contact. Never has been. He may whine but he isn't a primadona and he will run at people. His greatest asset has never been simply catching the ball. He drops a few, that is no mystery, but I wouldn't say he is afraid of contact.

You Philly kids are funny. Still trying to vault Owens ahead of Coles after four seasons despite fewer catches for fewer yards AND despite Owens living with single coverage next to Jerry Rice while Coles was the primary and for the most part, lone threat. Not only more catches for more yards, but, Coles also WAS a No. 1 receiver within his first four seasons where Owens couldn't become that until his fifth.

The most amusing aspect to all of this is that I picked Owens as better now because from years 5-8 he was three times in the elite level of receiver and once had a very good year and Coles hasn't entered the elite level of receiver to this point. Yet, the MERE HINT that Owens wasn't better from the start of his career sets you boys off into a tissy. It's really hysterical.

Coles was much further ahead at the same stage of development than Owens. Coles became a No. 1 threat on a team with little threat next to him and he solidified that the following year despite injury and playing in an offense that completed 53 percent of its passes. He out produced Owens while being the only threat where Owens was in a good offense playing next to a Hall of Fame receiver.

I love watching you boys simply refuse to admit the obvious. .

[GB81]

Just to get back to the original point of this poll for a second, I would assert that if this poll were held on the website/message board of any other NFL team, the results would have Owens winning by a large margin. Yet here, it's Coles.

Admitting that some teams have better players than the Redskins at certain positions doesn't make you a bad fan...even if you REALLY like the player. I promise...

[rdsknbill]

EL,

The one thing that stands out to me is that if the QB throwa a pick, in Owens mind, the play is over. I have never seen him come back to the ball and even make an attempt at a play.

Coles, on the other hand, will do everything in his power to avoid a change of posession. Strip the ball from the defender, knock the ball away if he does not have a shot at catching it etc.

Owens may be the "more talented" receiver, but I would take Coles over Owens every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

It's not always about the talent. A combination of integrity, character, AND talent makes a great player and team leader.

Something that Owens will never have.

[GB81]

I forgot to take into account "post-turnover performance" when I was assessing the receivers. Great point. Who has better penmanship...that might have to be the tiebreaker.

[RW31]

Harrison has been the best reciever in the league for a while now....

[Art]

Originally posted by GB81

Just to get back to the original point of this poll for a second, I would assert that if this poll were held on the website/message board of any other NFL team, the results would have Owens winning by a large margin. Yet here, it's Coles.

Admitting that some teams have better players than the Redskins at certain positions doesn't make you a bad fan...even if you REALLY like the player. I promise...

Answer a simple question. Who would you rather have on your team right now, Owens or Coles? Most people here and elsewhere would answer Coles because of the benefits of being a better teammate while still being a dangerous receiver capable of more. I think as much as it pains you, perhaps if you actually listened to anyone who picked Coles you'd discover that's pretty much what they are answering.

I picked Owens as being better at this point, but, I'd also rather have Coles on my team. Maybe you should consider weighing that in with your outrage to know whether you should be outraged at all.

[GB81]

I'd rather have Owens. I think he is a significantly better football player than Coles, due mainly to his physical skills. If I were a GM, and I could get either player for the same price for one year, I'd take Owens. (And since we are asking "Who's better?" and not "Who will be better in 4 years?" or "Who is a better value?", this is the most telling question.) Even taking into consideration Owen's eccentricities, I am shocked this is even a debate.

While I can understand the rationale for the "Owens is better but I'd rather have Coles" statement that so many here have employed, it does reek of straddling the fence. Randy Moss is a complete headcase who has significantly more problems than Owens (Owens never gets in trouble off the field) and I would kill to have him on this team.

[Art]

GB,

Which physical skills of Owens are better than Coles?

Speed is a physical skill and Coles has the advantage.

Quickness is a physical skill and Coles has the advantage.

Hands is a physical skill and Coles has the advantage.

Route running is a learned skill that requires physical skills and Coles has the advantage.

By physical skills do you merely mean height and weight? Owens is taller and presumably stronger. But, based on the totality of physical skills, you'd take Coles over Owens. Just as you'd take Coles over Harrison.

But, there's more than just physical skills to measure. Whatever trait a receiver has that allows him to enter the elite is possessed by Harrison and Owens and it goes beyond physical skills. Coles hasn't shown he has that trait and therefore Owens gets the nod.

But, most reasonable people would prefer Coles on their roster to Owens because he hasn't caused trouble on or off the field and he hasn't torn an organization apart as Owens just did -- twice really with Baltimore. If we were simply having a discussion about measurable physical skills, it would probably be 100 percent in favor of Coles. So, I'm surprised you'd take a guy with lesser overall physical skills while using physical skills as your basis.

[JeffSchmeff]

Art - just out of curiosity, how can you say with any certainty that Coles has the advantage in route running or hands over Owens?

LC has the advantage in straight line speed, but Owens is no slouch when it comes to running away from defenders either.

[Eagles_Legendz]

Originally posted by rdsknbill

EL,

The one thing that stands out to me is that if the QB throwa a pick, in Owens mind, the play is over. I have never seen him come back to the ball and even make an attempt at a play.

Coles, on the other hand, will do everything in his power to avoid a change of posession. Strip the ball from the defender, knock the ball away if he does not have a shot at catching it etc.

Owens may be the "more talented" receiver, but I would take Coles over Owens every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

It's not always about the talent. A combination of integrity, character, AND talent makes a great player and team leader.

Something that Owens will never have.

I'll go find the clip that a prominent poster on the Eagles main site has of Owens chasing down a play from behind and almost decleating a DB after an interception.

Art, averaging 5 more catches, 150 yards more, and 4 TDs less is hardly compelling evidence, despite your assertion that because you are Art, and you are God of the Redskins message board it is so. One can look at your argument either way. They can see it as you do, that Rice took on the first CB and thus gave Owens weaker coverage and therefore easier opportunities for receptions. Or, lad, you could look at is as I would choose to see it: Owens wasn't the focal point of the offense. Rice was. Rice is the best WR to ever play in the NFL, and naturally Steve Young would look to him far more often than he would Owens, especially if both had beaten defenders. This would actually take away the number of receptions Owens would have amassed. Once he became the clear focal point of the offense, you saw Owens numbers rise significantly. You claim it is because he 'matured', or 'improved', I think it is because he became the #1 target. And Art, I could care less who you voted for in this poll, I never once referenced it. I am only taking issue with you claiming that 5 receptions for 150 yards and 4 TDs less per year over the first four years of someone's career is an indication that they are clearly farther ahead. Since that is the only thing you hang your hat on, I suppose that if that assertion were proven untrue, you really would have no argument here at all.

[GB81]

Owens is a much more physical receiver, he is better at getting in position when the ball is in the air, he is significantly harder to bring down and he is a more dominating physical presence. In a straight 40, I bet Coles beats Owens. When it comes to football speed, the most important aspect is the ability to cut and to stop and start, and I think it can be argued that Owens exceeds Coles there, but I'd be lying if I said I knew that conclusively.

You continue to hedge that Owens is still better after you make 5 arguments about areas where Coles is better. Cover all your bases...

I think it's a widely accepted belief that Terrell Owens is a better receiver than Laveranues Coles...

[galentjm]

Originally posted by GB81

When it comes to football speed, the most important aspect is the ability to cut and to stop and start, and I think it can be argued that Owens exceeds Coles there, but I'd be lying if I said I knew that conclusively.

I agree with much of what you're saying here except the above statement. Being elusive and the ability to start and stop is how Coles makes his living. He's not an extremely physical receiver, and although he can make the catch over the middle, his strength is being shifty and using his speed after the catch. TO is no slouch when it comes to these characteristics, however I think that you can safely say that Coles has more sheer cutting ability than Owens.

[GB81]

Coles is very quick, and an excellent route runner. I guess my point was that I think Owens is a much more daunting prospect in the open field, and a much greater threat after the catch. Coles' quickness seems to be best demonstrated when running in a straight line, deep ins and slants and catching the ball on the run. Owens seems to excel in the open field, while also being a great deep threat, because of his ability to make a play on the ball. When Owens catches the ball at a dead stop, I think he is a much greater threat than Coles.

[TexasEagle]

Originally posted by Art

I love watching you boys simply refuse to admit the obvious. .

Refuse to admit the obvious?

You mean the obvious according to Art...:

The Redskins have the best talent in the division, in the conference, and in the NFL. Where the talent isn't OBVIOUSLY better, the potential is so off the charts then they're going to be better in the next 1-3 years thus making them inherently better than anyone that could even remotely be better at the moment.

None of their (the Skins) players can be ranked below any other player in the league because they all have untapped potential that is miles above any other player playing in the NFL.

None of the Skins problems are ever their fault. The Skins are just a victim of circumstance. Spurrier was God (too) up until his schemes were figured out (in the second game). Then he just became a bad coach and the bane of the Skins. The Skins weren't bad last year, they still had all the "talent" and "potential" in the world, it's just they're coaching sucked, right?

Originally posted by Art

Not only more catches for more yards, but, Coles also WAS a No. 1 receiver within his first four seasons where Owens couldn't become that until his fifth.

You keep harping on this like it means something. Do you think Coles would have come in and supplanted Jerry Rice back in 1996 to become an instant #1 or is the epitome not who you have to beat out to become the #1 (or any other circumstances surrounding becoming a #1 on a team) but how fast you become the #1? Because if that's the case, Charles Rogers became a #1 from day one the same with Anquan Boldin. So they're both better than Coles at this "stage of their development" right? I mean they became #1's - as rookies - before Coles managed to.

Wait, Charles Rogers got hurt after 5 games... so he couldn't be better than Coles, nor more developed... oh, but he became the #1 first though didn't he so that automatically makes him more developed, right? Oh, but Coles has more yards and more catches than the other two in his first four years - who cares if they were only rookies last season, he has the better stats! Oh, but Boldin destroyed Coles' rookie catches and yards, so he's at least at a higher "stage of his development" than Coles. Right? I mean he became the #1 first and has more catches and more yards in his rookie year than Coles had.

All that makes sense, right, Art? I mean they did become #1's in their first year in the league, and Boldin put up better rookie numbers. It took Coles at least two years to become the #1 for the Jets AND it took him three years to ecclipse 1000 yards. All about the stats afterall.

So, do you consider when a person becomes a #1 the dividing factor above everything else? Yes or no? It's pretty straight forward and simple.

Yeah, you said Owens is better, with the contingent that Coles is "more developed" at this stage (an assupmtion based off of two stats - catches and yards - in a four year block) which in turn would make Boldin more developed that both Coles and Owens. In fact no player is more developed than Boldin is since he has more catches and yards as a rookie than anyone else had (Holt, Harrison, Moss, etc)... that makes sense right, Art? He became the #1 faster, has more catches and more yards in this one year than any other receiver with more experience and more established careers, but that stuff doesn't matter, his stats are better for this one year so he's "more developed".

Of course the posters here would rather have Coles than Owens. Coles is already a Redskin and Owens is an Eagle. It's not a shock that posters here would "rather have Coles" and it provides no relevant credence to the argument. The two are not on the same level (by your own admission, Art) despite their various "stages of development" which is completely subjective to the criteria you choose to employ to make your argument.

If the question was asked on an Eagles board the results would be skewed for the exact same reasons. Owens is an Eagle and Coles is a Redskin. There's very little chance for objectivity (GB is right, there are those that can be objective, it's just pretty rare ). Wow, this is just mundane and approaching idiotic... I'm done with this one. I'll concede, Art, no need to reply.

Gotta love the offseason...

:cool:

[GB81]

Originally posted by TexasEagle

There's NO CHANCE for objectivity.

The only thing you said I disagree with... I think fans can be expected to be impartial about their team...at least to a degree.

[RW31]

Originally posted by GB81

The only thing you said I disagree with... I think fans can be expected to be impartial about their team...at least to a degree.

I am a cowboys fan, I hate both the eagles and the skins, and I would take Owens over Coles anyday, if he hadn't made it impossible to come here a few years back...

[ScoringSkins]

Coles is the better WR. Un-like Owens, Coles will, Block downfield and play for the team. Owens won't and he never will. The only part of team that Owens understands is 'me'. He may have the better stats out of the two, but Coles is a complete WR. The only other reciever that is better in the league is Marvin Harrison.

[Flowtrain]

Originally posted by Eagles_Legendz

Or, lad, you could look at is as I would choose to see it: Owens wasn't the focal point of the offense. Rice was.

It's a unique sitation when two WRs on the same team both have outstanding years with 1000+ yards. If one did choose to find importance in how Owens fared, let's take a look at his 3rd year in the league where it's been noted that Coles was superior because Owens only had 1097 yds and 14 TDs. That year, Rice, the best WR ever, had 1150 yds AND the 49ers ALSO relied heavily on the running game, leading the league in rushing with Hearst over 1500 yds. Under those circumstances, it's remarkable that Owens even eclipsed 1000 yd or 10+ TDs at all. A less important sidenote is the coexistence of JJ Stokes, the #10 overall draft pick who was given every benefit of the doubt to succeed over the 3rd round WR.

So, gauging Owens' numbers in a vacuum serves no real purpose. If one chooses to note that Coles played well to start his career, and that indicates future potential, there's nothing wrong with that. But to say that comparing those early years side by side is necessary because it's the only commonality turns a blind eye to the fact that the two players circumstances shared very little in common at all. There's nothing common about holding your breath, hoping that perhaps the greatest QB/WR tandem throws a crumb or two in your direction.

EL, you'll also notice that Coles' supporters are incredibly silent on that TD issue. For good reason. Owens has averaged 13 TDs over the last 4 years while Coles reels in about 6 a season. We heard about the Skins poor offensive system as an explanation, yet got no answer when it was pointed out that McCants miraculously matched Coles' total last season. And a look at 2002 shows a similar trend. Then, Wayne Chrebet caught 9 TDs to Coles' 5 TDs. What happened in that same system last year with a backup QB for half the season? Santana caught 10 TDs. Having a nose for the endzone isn't the only thing that makes a good WR, but it's one significant component. It's one that can't be swept under the rug unnoticed. If Coles is ever to be considered on Owens' elite level, rather than just an excellent WR, he'll not only need to string together a few consecutive seasons of 90+ catch, 1300+ yd seasons as Owens has done, he'll also need to establish himself as a legitimate red zone threat.

[RW31]

Originally posted by ScoringSkins

Coles is the better WR. Un-like Owens, Coles will, Block downfield and play for the team. Owens won't and he never will. The only part of team that Owens understands is 'me'. He may have the better stats out of the two, but Coles is a complete WR. The only other reciever that is better in the league is Marvin Harrison.

Honestly, you are being a homer. Coles is no where close to the top three, which includes TO. To is bigger, stronger, better in traffic, better in RAC, and has better instincts on the field. This is why TO is elite, Coles is very good...

[rdsknbill]

Flow,

You still harbouring sour grapes over the Coles thing? :no: :doh:

What is your feeling on the Lamont Jordan contract issue? Should you pay or release him. Will Bradway Eff this up again, kind of like thinking that Curtis Conway could replace Coles? :laugh:

[Art]

EL,

It goes beyond me simply saying it. It goes to having better performance at the same stage and more, despite TE's efforts to discount it, Coles became a No. 1 receiver on a team with no other threat. Meaning he drew the better coverage people and received MORE attention on the field than Owens at the same point in their development.

The very fact that Owens had Rice on the other side of him actually makes the difference between the two all the more vast. Owens drew easier coverages and lesser coverage people because Rice was there. This simply further distinguishes what Coles accomplished in comparison. Coles caught more balls for more yards despite being far and away the best receiver on his team where Owens couldn't match him despite having an aging, but still respected and dangerous Rice next to him.

Owens has a superior body and will generally catch more touchdowns than Coles will. Barry Sanders was often pulled from games so someone else could pound the ball in for touchdowns. Gerald Riggs once ran for 11 touchdowns while Byner carried the team in Washington.

The reason Owens is better than Coles is because after Rice began to decline and the team focused on him, Owens entered the elite level of receiver despite the focus of attention on him. Until Coles does the same, or, until Owens further declines and Coles is better over a period of years, Owens is going to be considered the better receiver.

None of that alters the fact that at the same period in their careers, Coles was better than Owens. TE calls for objectivity in a thread where I readily and repeatedly admit I voted for and view Owens as a more dangerous, better receiver right now than Coles, yet where despite every bit of evidence in favor of Coles as a better receiver at the same stage, he, like you and others refuse to acknowledge. When calling for objectivity one may wish to look inward first.

[RW31]

Originally posted by Art

EL,

It goes beyond me simply saying it. It goes to having better performance at the same stage and more, despite TE's efforts to discount it, Coles became a No. 1 receiver on a team with no other threat. Meaning he drew the better coverage people and received MORE attention on the field than Owens at the same point in their development.

The very fact that Owens had Rice on the other side of him actually makes the difference between the two all the more vast. Owens drew easier coverages and lesser coverage people because Rice was there. This simply further distinguishes what Coles accomplished in comparison. Coles caught more balls for more yards despite being far and away the best receiver on his team where Owens couldn't match him despite having an aging, but still respected and dangerous Rice next to him.

This is the Chicken or the Egg argument. You can say Owens faced the lesser coverage because of Rice, or you can say Owens didn't get many oppurtunities because Rice was the reciever that got you looks...

[Art]

Originally posted by GB81

Owens is a much more physical receiver, he is better at getting in position when the ball is in the air, he is significantly harder to bring down and he is a more dominating physical presence. In a straight 40, I bet Coles beats Owens. When it comes to football speed, the most important aspect is the ability to cut and to stop and start, and I think it can be argued that Owens exceeds Coles there, but I'd be lying if I said I knew that conclusively.

You continue to hedge that Owens is still better after you make 5 arguments about areas where Coles is better. Cover all your bases...

I think it's a widely accepted belief that Terrell Owens is a better receiver than Laveranues Coles...

GB,

I'm not covering my bases at all. I picked Owens and elaborated why. I merely wished you to elaborate why you picked Owens when your last message on the topic claimed he had better physical skills when you couldn't verify that.

What you've said in this reply is much more accurate and apt. Owens is a more physical receiver. He is better at getting in position when the ball is in the air. He is probably harder to bring down, though Coles as a former running back is no slouch and Coles did have more YAC yards than Owens a year ago.

As I've said for some time on Coles, he is in the mold of Harrison if he's to become a dominating, elite receiver. He has to rely upon exceptional quickness to get open. Owens can get open running a simple curl because his body is bigger. Coles really can't. Coles will never be a great slant or curl runner because he's small and can be more easily reached around and through.

His skill as a receiver is when there's space to move. Much of what Owens has is intangible. The world is filled with big, strong receivers. Hell, Michael Westbrook was perhaps the most dominating physical speciman at receiver ever. He never had the intangibles to be a consistently viable threat.

Owens does have a quality as a receiver above simply being taller and heavier that has allowed him to emerge -- at least until last year -- as one of the game's elite receivers. I'd still rather have Coles on my team.

[GB81]

Originally posted by Art

yet where despite every bit of evidence in favor of Coles as a better receiver at the same stage, he, like you and others refuse to acknowledge. When calling for objectivity one may wish to look inward first.

"Every bit of evidence"? Two statistics--receptions and yards. In yards per catch and TDs, Owens was better than Coles over that period (15.6 verus 15.2ypc, and 26TDs versus 13TDs). I would not say those are insignificant stats.