Neither will win a Superbowl in the remainder of their careers.
Larry, after retiring, will have comparable stats, but none of the all-time records.
Which one is more likely to get into the Hall of Fame?
The main point of contention, to me: Larry getting to the Superbowl on a bad team is more or less of an accomplishment than Moss riding a juggernaut to the all-time record.
Secondary point: Moss wasted 2 years of his prime in Oakland, which is a big minus towards his accomplishments.
Tertiary point: would Andre Johnson trump both if the only reason was that his career totals were higher than either?
I’m not sure what the debate is - if Larry Fitzgerald ends up with Randy Moss’s exact stats at the end of his career, and Randy Moss retires today, they’re both shoe-in Hall of Famers. Randy Moss is one of the greatest receivers ever, without even looking at any sort of all-time records. Their Super Bowl records have absolutely nothing to do with it.
It is now. And if they both retired with statistics similar to Moss’s, they are both unquestionably hall of fame players. They’d probably get in on the first ballot and they would both deserve it, although it’s hard to tell how those things will play out.
Fitzgerald has been in the league six years. Moss already has an all-time record that probably won’t be broken. Fitzgerald is unlikely to break any, other than maybe Torry Holt’s record for 1400-yard seasons.
It’s not even a question. Ask again in three years.
Why? The question would be the exact same: “Assuming Fitzgerald finishes with Moss’s exact numbers, would either of them make it to the HOF?” Three years from now the only thing that changes is that Moss’s numbers will be a bit higher.
