Never heard of that. It's possible, they could easily dominate any kicker position.

Moss ran a 4.25 is 6'4'' has a 42+ inch vertical

http://youtube.com/watch?v=A6kMpJjsDg0&search=randy%20moss

he is what we would call a freak of nature

No, he wasn't trying to be a field goal kicker or punter. The reason they chose him was because he was big, and had speed.

Well I can't argue that he's not athletic. He runs fast and he jumps high, but that is only one kind of athletic. I'm almost at a loss for what were actually arguing now.  If your saying that if he played soccer then he would be their best player then you would be wrong.

He runs this fast, and jumps this high because that's what his position calls for. Soccer athletics and football athletics are two completely different things, especially considering positions. Randy Moss being able to run a 4.25 and 42 vertical could only do so little in soccer terms. Sure he can run fast, but if his timing and touch are off it won't matter much.  Sure he can jump high, but that won't mean squat if he doesn't know how to header. I realize that your saying if he played only soccer he would be able to do these things, but if he were a soccer player he probably wouldn't have 4.25 or 42 because that is less focused in the soccer game.

Famine also pointed something else out. There are positions in American football that only need very specialized talents. You could be just a big brute for some positions where as in soccer more overall talents are required.

Wow that came out long.

Hmm, that came out a little offensive. My point is that since football players talents are more specialized they are better at those specific positions. Most soccer players won't run under 4.8 but then again most football players don't have the all around talents a soccer player would have. Soccer players usually have to know more then one position to succeed so they will have skills in both defense and offense, lateral speed, and have to know all the other little subtle soccer details.

And then of course that leaves less time to realize potential like running a 40 or doing verticals, which football players do very well.

Let me put it this way, football players are masters of their trades while soccer players are more like Jack of all trades. There are always exceptions of course.

But points can be made about soccer players: Can they take a hit? Can they play one week in warm, humid, dry weather, and the next play in cold, sub-zero temperatures with wind chills and snow? Can they tackle a 250 or 300 lb. RB.? Do any of them have the "arm," not the leg, to catapult the ball downfield?

Points can be argued for which sport is more demanding and more athletic, but they both differ in the way they play, so I don't get the compare and contrast between the both of you?

Yeah well that was kinda of the point I was trying to make. It came out pro soccer, because surprise I love soccer.

 Can they take a hit http://youtube.com/watch?v=ViOD7C_nVrk some better than others.

Can they play in different temp zones, the Americans can.  South Americans used to heat, Northern European teams cold, it's to be expected because of their climate.

Can they tackle a 250-300lb RB, well hell can many humans do that? Then again a 6'2" soccer player could hit the weight room and have a chance. Arm strength??, like soccer it's technique not so much power that creates the distance.

Look I came out pro soccer again, sorry.  But yeah I understand what your saying and that's what I was trying to say in my third consecutive post(try and ignore obvious biased).

Edit: Damn copyright infringement won't allow video. Let's just say some guys legs break awkwardly and painfully.

Darn I have to go, but I believe I've weezed weezy all the weez out.