This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
IMO...this looks worse on Moss than it does for the Packers.Their requests...given his performance and attitude in Oakland are quite reasonable and what many, including me, expected out of him if he came there. He seemed to throw a bit of a fit over it and that was that.
Which should tell you that Green Bay really didn't want him that bad. And I don't blame them.
I think Moss is more or less correct here regarding the Packers, not sure about what Favre wanted. I think the Packers were willing to take a shot at Moss under the right circumstances, but they didn't really want him in the sense of being willing to woo him or pursue him as a prized target.
Probably not, they were just going through the motions for Brett.
Its been discussed here that the Patriots would have been very good without Moss. With Moss, they set records. I think GB would have had a similar potentially explosive offense if they had brought Moss in. Moss, Jennings, Driver ( in the slot? uncoverable ) would have been as dynamic a cast as any.Moss is the one player at wide out that impacts how a defense plays. He impacted the JAX and SD schemes such that even without accumulating stats, he was a huge part of the success. The D has to roll coverage and single up on other threats. If you have other threats, as GB does, they can kill you. IMO, it was a risk averse approach, where the GM was more concerned with looking foolish if things turn badly than making a bold stroke that could have vaulted the team from good to great.
You have a bad memory; Moss had a bad attitude and sucked as a Raider. His talents were being questioned. As a Packer fan I am glad they didn't sign him. He is good when he wants to be. This year gave Jennings a chance to develop and he has a bright future. I do not think GB would have beaten the NYG with Moss and I don't believe their season would have been better; although he would have received all the credit for the turn around like he is in NE. The key addition in NE was Wes Welker.
Oh, please. Take away Moss from the Patriots this year, and Welker doesn't come close to putting the numbers he put up with Moss. Welker is able to get open underneath all day because of how much attention Moss draws on every single play.
I agree 100% with everything you stated here but to me this topic has been beat to death and there's no sense going back anymore.
Wow, gotta love hindsight huh? Nobody knew this was going to turn out this way. With the way Moss carried on in Oakland nobody knew he would grow up and actually use his God given talent for scoring touchdowns. Lets not forget there is a lot of history between Randy Moss and the Packers when he was with Minny, so the Packer brass had good reason to step carefully. Winning tends to keep malcontents like Moss and TO quiet. Who knows how it would have played out if NE hadn't had the season they have. I don't blame the Packers whatsoever. Our WR's turned out just fine without the baggage.
I also get frustrated when the Monday Morning QBs laugh at Oakland for only getting a 4th-round pick in return for him. This is a guy who had a reputation for quitting, pouting, playing "when he wants to" and tearing apart locker rooms. Hindsight really is a beautiful thing. If everyone had that benefit, lots of teams would have offered their 1st-round pick for him the way this season played out. But the reality is teams were NOT beating down Oakland's door for an aging malcontent who was thought to have lost more than a step.
Yeah, he looks really foolish for wanting to be treated like a man.....and then moving on to make the Super Bowl....
What exactly did I write in that paragraph that showed hindsight coming into play? I just never saw the down side of bringing him in. At the price he came at cutting him would have been easy and losing a 4th round pick isn't exactly the end of the world. The Raiders taking a gamble on Jamarcus Russell, now that's a risk. If that guy bombs out then he hurts your franchise for years and years.Randy has had his bad moments, but I blame some of that on the surroundings he was in. The stuff that went on in Minnesota reminds me a lot of the garbage that is going on in Cinci right now. Cris Carter and Randy Moss did stuff to Culpepper that CJ & TJ are doing to Palmer and that goes on because the coaches don't have control of their locker rooms. The Raiders organization is just in shambles and it probably won't get better until the crazy old man lets go.
I'm sure you were all for the Charles Woodson signing and didn't mind the baggage that he was bringing from Oakland though. Moss would have been less of a risk to bring in than Charles, he cost less, he plays at a position that the Packers were deeper in, and he didn't just come off a broken leg. Signing any player is a risk, but what you hope to do is minimize the down side and maximize the upside and Moss is the perfect example of this.
Not just good but excellent posting!!! Many argue that Moss would have been great with Favre's tendency to just throw the ball up. I think if the Packer's had acquired Moss there is a higher probability of them having a worse record than there was with Moss making a difference in the NFC championship game. With Moss it is more likely that Favre reverts to his old gun slinger ways and plays less disciplined. A big reason the Packers turned it around is because McCarthy has been successful in keeping Favre somewhat under control, much like Mike Holmgren was able to do. Look at both the Dallas and Giants game. Both games Favre reverted to his old gunslinger mentality. Another reason for the Packer's success this year was the great team chemistry they had throughout the year. Bringing in Moss would have certainly disrupted that.
Woodson was needed since the Packers did not have a good CB on the other side of Harris. Ahmad Carroll proved he was horrible and the Packers needed to get an upgrade. Yes it was a bit of a risk but not that Woodson would quit on the team or be an attitude like Moss had been previuosly.Packers had depth at WR so Moss was not a huge need.
Respect is commanded, not demanded..You want to be treated like a man? Act like one..
For the record, I was dead against the Woodson signing..Hindsight is saying the Packers were foolish for not bringing him in. Would you be posting this if he would have had a average to bad year? I didn't see this posted before the season started, if it were it might have a little more merit. The Pats took a gamble on him and it worked out. Doesn't mean it would have worked out the same in GB. Now we'll see how much he really means to the Pats at FA time.
Oh, please take away Welker and who fills that roll. The signing of Welker was a key the an undefeated season. I don't know how you can say a guy with 112 receptions only had them because of Moss. Look at who made the tough clutch catches.
Well, given the chance to act like one ( this year ), he did. What the Packers did: Take speculation as truth and base their treatment of Moss on his reputation ( earned or otherwise ). What the Patriots did: Ignore reputation and let the man prove himself to the organization.
Again, hindsight. Given he didn't act like a grown up in his two previous gigs, what makes ya think he would in his third?
You said, "The key addition in NE was Wes Welker," which implies that he was a more important addition than Randy Moss, which is a ludicrous implication. Most of the good WRs (T. Brown, Branch, etc.) the Patriots have had over the years could have done what Welker did this year, but they have either been traded, released or gotten old. Given the frequency with which the Patriots threw the ball this year, and with Tom Brady as your QB, there are a dozen other possession WRs who could have put up the numbers that Welker did. Welker didn't even finish in the top 10 in receiving yards or touchdown catches, so let's not act like he was some all-world WR. He is no more than the 4th most important player on the Patriots offense AT BEST, behind Brady, Moss, and Matt Light. And you could argue that several other of the offensive lineman are more important, as well as Maroney, given the lack of healthy depth behind him. Take Welker out, and Jabar Gaffney could step in and produce well as the number 2 guy.
You seem to misunderstand hindsight. He had a bad rep. Thats a given.
While I think the Moss signing and level of play opened up the rest of the Pats offense, I don't think there are but 2 or 3 other players in the league better suited to the role that Welker played in this offense. He wasn't really the quintesential #2 WR, but more the prototype #3 slot receiver, catching most everything over the middle, in traffic. I think Gaffney could have easily replaced Stallworth in this offense with little or no dropoff, but I don't think he'd do nearly as well crossing in front of the LBs and getting drilled as Welker did. Think back to Troy Brown circa 2001, and thats what Welker is to this offense. He may not have led the team in TDs or yards, but ( without checking ) I'd bet he led the team in 1st downs. He kept drives alive, which doesn't always show in the stats. He was extremely instrumental in the Patriots ability to get to 18-0.
That's an understatement.Moss "didn't act like a grown up" under 2 circumstances:
Not saying he looks foolish...but why even bring up that part of the story if you are Moss? Is he not happy he is at the SB? Is he not happy that he is playing for the Pats? He had to try and throw the Packers organization under the bus because, gasp, they had the nerve to question his work ethic?And so many people are acting as if they all thought it would have been great for GB.
I actually questioned how much they gave to Woodson. Thought they overpaid on him. And I was wrong.Oh...and they tried to minimize the downside when talking about him being on his best behavior...and that seemed to bother Moss. Kind of the point of why I think some of this looks bad for Moss moreso than the Packers.
I got blasted on this board for suggesting it would be a good move. And I got blasted again during the season for suggesting that the Packers had a chance to get Moss...but that TT blew it. So while some out here may be suffering from "hindsight is 20-20" syndrome, you're barking up the wrong tree.As to why he mentions it now, who knows? Maybe he was asked the question, and he gave an honest response?
From the original articleHis own words in interviews describing his own attitude is not first hand knowledge?Hmmm....Road Warriors said:
You better behave. You've been a problem before, and we want you to prove to us you're not a problem now. Take a pay cut, because we don't trust you. Seems to me that the Pack had their decision made before the interview. Based on this, what exactly did the Pack pick up firsthand ( in the interview ) of what they would get from Moss?
Based on his actions....why would they not think he was a problem before? Even the Pats protected against such things (or do you think the 1 year deal was for his benefit?)His own words in the past gave them what they needed to know about his attitude...that is firsthand knowledge of how he treated things in the past...that is what I was getting at.
Probably for the same reason Little Lord Favreleroy speaks about retirement all the time -- the media asked him the question........
So, again, the decision was made on 2nd hand reports of his actions, without the Pack FO involved, without full context. Reports of past behavior <> firsthand knowledge. I understand what you're getting at. I just think you, like many, had a view of Moss and were going to treat him a certain way based on that. When he went to the Pats FO, they talked to him about his committment to winning, his views of football, and guaged him based on what they saw and heard, right then and there. No preconcieved notions of past behavior as a measuring stick.And based on how they dealt with him, he readily agreed to a mutually benificial deal ( or, a deal that was effectively beneficial to the Pats )
Come on. These are his words. That hardly tells us for sure what was said verbatim. Of course the Packer's weren't going to give him 9 mill a year, so hence a paycut. He also got a 6 million dollar paycut with the Pats. He didn't bring that up did he? I'm sure they talked to him about the problems he's had in Minnesota and Oakland and wanted to make sure that was all behind him. Is that so bad? You think the Pats didn't talk to him about any of that stuff? I'm betting it was brought up.From the original articleHis own words in interviews describing his own attitude is not first hand knowledge?Hmmm....Road Warriors said:
You better behave. You've been a problem before, and we want you to prove to us you're not a problem now. Take a pay cut, because we don't trust you. Seems to me that the Pack had their decision made before the interview. Based on this, what exactly did the Pack pick up firsthand ( in the interview ) of what they would get from Moss?
Was wondering when you would show up and take your daily Packer shots. Aren't you tired of the jealousy eating you alive yet? Let it go man..
Because you got to sit in on all the meetings right?
Is there some part of what I've stated that you don't think happened? I wasn't there, but this is how its been reported ( which, according to some is just like first hand knowledge ) Look, its ok to prejudge. Its OK to make your choices based on risk assessment of the past. But its also OK for Moss to prefer to deal with the organization that chose not to prejudge.Because you got to sit in on all the meetings right?
All reports from both Moss and the NE FO was that the interview between Kraft and Moss was nearly solely focused on football. Moss convinced the top man in NE that he was committed to winning. I'm not sure I believe the "offered to take a pay cut" spin, but because the first conversation was based around football and winning, not behavior and money, he was much more amenable to the deal that the Pats offered. Now, I'll admit my take on the dealings with the Pats regarding the paycut and signing is speculation and somewhat based on hindsight. It probably didn't hurt that the team leader also agreed to a restructure to help get the deal done.
Yes...because talking about retirement is the same thing as bashing an organization...
