Who is better, Tomlinson or Moss?
LaDainian Tomlinson leads with a GOAT score of 84.7 against 84.7 for Randy Moss — a gap of 0.0 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Shareable comparison — send this exact matchup to anyone.
Quick answer
GOAT Rank currently scores LaDainian Tomlinson and Randy Moss level at 84.7. LaDainian Tomlinson leads on Honours, Statistics. Randy Moss leads on Longevity, Dominance.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Tomlinson wins: Honours, Statistics
Moss wins: Dominance, Longevity
Shareable URL · /compare/ladainian-tomlinson-vs-randy-moss
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Tomlinson leads in 3 of 5 weighted categories.
Cumulative output season by season — the shape of each career against the other.
| Ghost race · career day | 30 | 100 | 365 | 1000 | 1825 | 3650 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇺🇸 Tomlinson | 0 | 0 | 1,236 | 2,919 | 7,361 | 12,490 |
| 🇺🇸 Moss | 0 | 0 | 17 | 28 | 60 | 101 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | TomlinsonRetired | MossRetired |
|---|---|---|
| MVP awards | 1 | — |
| Rushing yards | 13,684 | — |
| Total touchdowns | 162 | — |
| Single-season TD record | 31 | 23 |
| Pro Bowls | 5 | 6 |
| Rushing titles | 2 | — |
| Receiving touchdowns | — | 156 |
| Receiving yards | — | 15,292 |
| Offensive Rookie of the Year | — | 1 |
| All-Pro selections | — | 4 |
| Dominance w25% | 82 | 83 |
| Peak w20% | 92 | 92 |
| Longevity w20% | 80 | 82 |
| Honours w20% | 80 | 78 |
| Statistics w15% | 92 | 90 |
LaDainian Tomlinson leads with a GOAT score of 84.7 against 84.7 for Randy Moss — a gap of 0.0 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Moss scores higher on dominance, longevity. Tomlinson leads on honours, statistics.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Tomlinson: 84.7, Moss: 84.7.
Make your case for Tomlinson vs Moss. The scoring is published in full — if you can point at the pillar or the weight you disagree with, we read it. Read the methodology paper.