Borges is back.... and at it again! [merged]

[PatsSteve1]

I've lived less than 25 miles from Oakland for a little over 3 years. There were newspaper stories out here all the time about Moss taking 1/2 the plays off. The whole team didn't quit. I didn't think there was anything wrong with Borgass's article today. Moss is controversial and until he shows other wise there will be skepticism. I'm looking at it with an open mind, but to ignore what he's been at times is just dumb.

 

[Ahriman]

Re: Borges is back.... and at it again!

It wasnt that bad of an article. I read it in the Globe this morning. He could have been negative and worse but he wasnt.

It wasn't bad in any shape or form. I realize people have all of these predispositions when it comes to Borges, but there isn't any denying his ability as a reporter (when he puts his agenda aside). This is quality work - a football article that seemed to possess the same sort of thoroughness that's found in his boxing pieces.

If only he'd continue report/write in this manner, he'd be tops in the town. Alas, I'm sure we'll all be presented with a giant turd sandwich at some point this week.

 

[Ahriman]

Re: Borges on Moss: Divided they stand

The two guys whose offensive practices were called "junior high" level practives by Pasquarelli around draft time. At one practive he attended there was sometimes 5 minutes between PLAYS in a totally disorganized mess. And this was in training camp, it's hardly surprising Moss didn't give a sh!t.

Oh, I am in full agreement on their poor football acumen. It was just good to see some contemporary opinions of Moss the player, instead of ones from college coaches and childhood friends.

 

[Brady'sButtBoy]

Here's my beef with Borges coming back at all-

The pages of my favorite sports section have shined every bit as well, maybe even better than they did when Borges was here. Now, he returns and the whole Borges this, Borges that crap starts and the innocent fun of reading my Globe Sports is tarnished like it was regularly before Borges was suspended. The dude can turn phrase, no doubt about it. But he can't resist being part of the show himself - and I have no doubt he started up with a piece like this one on Moss to draw everyone's eye to the fact that RON BORGES had returned. I wish he'd just go away and work for De LaHoya permanently, we don't need him to enjoy the Pats. Mike Reiss had established better access to the players/coaches long before Borges was booted for stealing another person's work. In Borges' absence Reiss and company gave not one cause for any reader to say, "boy, we need Borges back here to get the real story." The draft coverage was free and easy without being rah rah or skeptical, not likely the way it would have gone with Borges around. The Globe has made a mistake bringing him back at all.

As for the Moss piece - OK, big surprise, some folks like Moss, some don't. Most of the animosity came from one place - Oakland coaches, another surprise. Where was the line that said something like - out of the 15 personnel people, coaches, players, I talked to, X said they like the Moss move and Y said they didn't. Borges might have had a many more positive replies and left them out - we don't know because he didn't think adding a factual reference would be beneficial to all of us pie-the-sky-ding dongs that Borges apparently takes great pleasure in skewering for being so foolish as to try to see the plus side to the moves made by the team we love.

 

[Rob0729]

I thought it was a pretty fair piece. He gave both sides of the arguement. The fact of the matter is there are legitimate concerns about Moss that have been glossed over by a lot of writers.

Yes, he had a decent year in 2005, but not a great year for an elite WR. In 2005, he was 20th in receiving yards in the league, in the 40s in number of receptions, and 13th in TDs. Those are decent #1 WR numbers, but do not indicate that he hasn't lost a step from being one of the one to three best WRs in the league. Kerry Collins put up basically the same numbers in 2004 without him (he got about 300 less yards, 1 more TDs, and 8 more INTs in one less start in 2004 than 2005) so he also didn't raise the level of the offense all that much. If we get the 2005 version of Moss, I will happy. But the 2005 season is far from the type of season you would expect from an elite WR.

I think that a WR can lose a step due to injuries by age 30. I think if Moss has lost a step, it is due to injuries over the last three seasons rather than age. There were rumblings in Minnesotta at the time he was getting traded that his foot injury could have an affect for the rest of his career.

There is a risk that Moss will not work out. If there wasn't we wouldn't have gotten him for only a fourth rounder and only signed him to an one year deal. When was the last time the Pats didn't plan for the future with their deals? I don't buy it was for cap reasons because te Pats are still a decent amount under the cap this year and next year even with Stallworth's and Washington's deals and there is no almost way the Pats are going to honor both those deals next year. They could have easily given Moss a deal like Stallworth or Washington where they could easily walk away if it didn't pan out. Belichick and Pioli obviously knows there are risks with Moss. If they thought he was still guaranteed to be an elite WR, no way they only give him a one year deal and risk him walking away or getting him less than motivated by franchising him.

What gets usually me about Borges is when he takes backhanded slaps at Belichick or just takes the negative side and refuses to see the positives about the Pats. In this article, all he did was not just follow the party lines and say that Moss is a superstar waiting to regain his crown after not being motivated for three years. He did give that as one possible outcome this upcoming season, but he did explore the possibility that he might fall short of many people's outcomes and be a low risk failure for the Pats.

I wish more writers including Borges wrote articles like this where they throughly explores both sides of the arguement. Yes, there are a number of people who have been quoted who have potential agendas (Walsh and Shell for getting fired and Lombardi because he has a long standing relationship with Belichick), but I think since people quoted on both sides have potential agendas it evens it out.

 

[RayClay]

Don't forget this, Ron.

http://www.refworks.com/

 

[Seneschal2]

Re: Borges is back.... and at it again!

I don't know why the Globe continues to have this guy write about Patriots football when his hatred fro BB is well documented.

Even "columnist" need to have an unbiased reputation in order to make them credible.

So, he's back and so is the little guy expressing his feelings toward Borges.

It seems like the thread starter, yourself, and others, all have an agenda vs Borges. So much so, you can't even set aside your ill feelings for a moment and comment on the article? Past is past...let it go...give credit where credit is earned.

Now for my comments:

Ranks with the best Pats-related articles written this off-season. Exactly what I'd hope to read about a controversial figure who will attempt to be part of the well documented -- 'players who fit/team chemistry' philosophy of the Pats. The most telling quote for me was from Bill Kuharich, the Kansas City Chiefs vice president of player personnel:

"I don't think he's lost a step, the last two years in Oakland, he looked like he didn't want to play. He didn't compete for the ball. He didn't run backside routes.

"There were a lot of things he didn't do, but you were still fearful he'd run by you. I don't think his skills have declined. He just refused to maximize them in Oakland. The only question I have is, does Randy want to be the Randy he was in Minnesota?

"I wouldn't be shocked if he led the league in receiving this year, but in saying that, it will require a 180-degree turn. It's not, 'can he still run or can he still catch?' It's 'does he still want to?' You watch him in pregame and he's still pretty scary."

---

Does Randy want to be the Randy he was? I think he does -- and will (to a degree). He won't be expected to be Brady's go-to but his role in this offense will be still be invaluable. Not only will he stretch the field without having to run one route, but if he and Brady have their timing down inside the RZ -- we ought to see lots of TDs, simply because that area of the field matches the strengths of both players. And I'm not worried if Moss' preferred routes aren't in the center of the field -- we probably won't want him running those routes anyway with all of the other receivers available to do so -- LOL.

Weis used to design the offense to fit the strengths of the players, and I don't see the Pats straying away from that wisdom. Belichick has said, "We're a gameplan team." With Moss now on board, even my creative juices are flowing. Belichick & Co. can hardly wait...

 

[patsacolachick]

Here's my beef with Borges coming back at all-

The pages of my favorite sports section have shined every bit as well, maybe even better than they did when Borges was here. Now, he returns and the whole Borges this, Borges that crap starts and the innocent fun of reading my Globe Sports is tarnished like it was regularly before Borges was suspended. The dude can turn phrase, no doubt about it. But he can't resist being part of the show himself - and I have no doubt he started up with a piece like this one on Moss to draw everyone's eye to the fact that RON BORGES had returned. I wish he'd just go away and work for De LaHoya permanently, we don't need him to enjoy the Pats. Mike Reiss had established better access to the players/coaches long before Borges was booted for stealing another person's work. In Borges' absence Reiss and company gave not one cause for any reader to say, "boy, we need Borges back here to get the real story." The draft coverage was free and easy without being rah rah or skeptical, not likely the way it would have gone with Borges around. The Globe has made a mistake bringing him back at all.

As for the Moss piece - OK, big surprise, some folks like Moss, some don't. Most of the animosity came from one place - Oakland coaches, another surprise. Where was the line that said something like - out of the 15 personnel people, coaches, players, I talked to, X said they like the Moss move and Y said they didn't. Borges might have had a many more positive replies and left them out - we don't know because he didn't think adding a factual reference would be beneficial to all of us pie-the-sky-ding dongs that Borges apparently takes great pleasure in skewering for being so foolish as to try to see the plus side to the moves made by the team we love.

That is a great post, really sums it up well. Borges has made it to where even when he writes a fair piece, which to me this was, it will be tainted just having his byline attached to it. He tried to become the shock-jock equivalent of a reporter, and now no one can get past that when he writes balanced articles. It's his own fault, and the Globe suffers for it.

 

[Rob0729]

As for the Moss piece - OK, big surprise, some folks like Moss, some don't. Most of the animosity came from one place - Oakland coaches, another surprise. Where was the line that said something like - out of the 15 personnel people, coaches, players, I talked to, X said they like the Moss move and Y said they didn't. Borges might have had a many more positive replies and left them out - we don't know because he didn't think adding a factual reference would be beneficial to all of us pie-the-sky-ding dongs that Borges apparently takes great pleasure in skewering for being so foolish as to try to see the plus side to the moves made by the team we love.

I think you are a little off base there. All of the quotes both good and bad were people who were associated with Moss during his Oakland days. One of Moss' biggest supporters in the piece was Mike Lombardi who worked with Belichick back in the Cleveland days and is fairly close with him. I think you can find agendas on both sides.

I still think this piece was pretty even handed and fair.