Brady defends Moss...

[Deus Irae]

I never realized you were so lacking in comprehension, wow. You clearly didn't read the post I linked to. Another poster described the 4 plays that were thrown Moss' way, of which you accused him of lacking effort on, and I agree with that poster and believe he explained it sufficiently well. Rather than repeat it in similar words, I linked to what is already there for you to read.

Actually, I read Metaphor's post multiple times. I respect him as a poster, but disagree with his conclusion.

However, note his opening line:

I'll give you a plausible scenario, though we have no idea what the actual situation was.

Note the conclusion he drew from a scenario where he admits "we have no idea....". It's important, because his opening sentence sets up his entire post as an opinion.

This makes much more sense than Moss giving up on the route. Why did he seem surprised when the ball was thrown outside if he was just dogging it? Why did he go after the DB trying to prevent the interception if he doesn't care?

He's assuming a 100% failure rate would automatically be the alternative in the bolded part, which he should know better than to have done. It was an obvious mistake in his analysis.

The media, whose only goal is ratings, is not evidence of anything. For you to continue to argue that it is, shows your lack of ability to think for yourself.

Panthers players are not "the media". For you to continue to ignore that as evidence, shows your inability to get off of Moss' jock.

Again I do not need evidence in a specific case to prove the NORM. Moss normally gives good effort, as evidenced by his HOF career. If you want to argue an instance when he did not, the onus is 100% on you. What is YOUR "Effort-o-meter"? The 'patently absurd' eyeball test? The weak and easily influenced human memory?

1.) Obviously, if you demand evidence of others who are making a relevant claim, you need to provide evidence in return when you make a relevant claim. The key, of course, being relevant.

2.) The level of effort from other players is not relevant to the discussion of the level of effort from Moss, unless your claim is that their effort had an impact on Moss' effort, which is not a claim you've made.

3.) My "Effort-o-meter" is not in question at the moment. You made the claim that Moss gave "sufficient effort that it should not be questioned.". That is clearly not something I'm willing to take as fact. I'm asking you, therefore, how you can make this claim when you've stated to others that the use of Moss' body language is not a valid measure.

4.) You've not answered the question of why opposing players look at film, and you've not explained how Gamble would not be able to evaluate Moss' effort level but you can.

 

[mb6592]

The media, whose only goal is ratings, is not evidence of anything. For you to continue to argue that it is, shows your lack of ability to think for yourself.

That is a classic straw man argument:

A straw man argument is a rhetorical device that is meant to easily prove that one’s position or argument is superior to an opposing argument. However, the straw man argument is regarded as a logical fallacy, because at its core, the person using the device misrepresents the other person's argument.
or
"Straw man" is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched.

You have continued to knock the messengers without addressing their messages. Then in response to my (rhetorical) question: Would Brady ever have to make those quote in regards to Welker or have had to make them in reference to Brown? You came up with this doozy: "Would Brady ever have been ASKED those questions about Welker or Brown" - having not realized the irony contained in your answer.

Now, lets try this again. Here are the quotes you need to reconcile.

“He didn’t play as hard as he could,” ex-Pats safety and NBC analyst Rodney Harrison said on “Football Night in America.”

"He was frustrated in himself and the situation, and it's something you've got to fight through," Brady said. "You have those days where it's not all great, but you keep lining up and you've got to keep fighting."

"We knew he'd shut it down." "He'd just give up a lot; slow down; he's not going deep; not trying to run a route. You can tell (by) his body language," said Panthers cornerback Chris Gamble. "I know everyone who plays against him, they can sense that. Once you get into him in the beginning of the game, he shuts it down a little bit."

Peter King: “You've seen Tom Brady and Bill Belichick staunchly defend Randy Moss in the last 36 hours, and so you're thinking, ‘Well, maybe the media's being too hard on Moss for laying down against Carolina.’ Not true. There's a reason Brady, desperate for another target at receiver other than Wes Welker, threw four of his 32 passes for Moss on Sunday, and went 2.5 quarters without throwing a pass Moss' way after Moss fumbled on the first play of the second quarter. It's because Moss checked out of this game, giving only marginal effort. But the reason you won't ever hear Belichick or Brady even remotely chide Moss is because they know -- as Denny Green knew a decade ago and Mike Tice knew after him -- that Moss will check out totally if you challenge him mentally. He's soft. And Brady and Belichick are trying to get whatever they can out of this classic prima donna as they try to save their season. Sitting on him doesn't accomplish that.”

"For me, I was very shocked," Rice said today during a guest spot on SportsCenter. "The thing about Randy Moss -- we know that he takes a few plays off, but just watching him during that game, he didn't have any effort at all. You want your best play maker to be playing his best around this time and it was unfortunate to see what he did yesterday."

Cris Carter: "Well for one, you can not watch that without it having an effect on you. If you're a football enthusiast, if you're a Patriots fan, for me as someone who teaches wide receivers, how to be wide receivers and how to run routes and what type of effort to give and stuff it would take, it was pathetic. I was shocked because I know it's in him, but I thought he had matured to the point where I wasn't going to see it anymore."

"If you're a quarterback, you throw picks, you throw bad balls. If you're a receiver, you drop balls. If you're a running back, you fumble balls. You know, it's just part of the process," Brady said. "It's about making the next one a good one and not making the next one a bad one because you're a little bit down in the dumps."

Don't you think it's time for you to go to sleep?

 

[emoney_33]

Actually, I read Metaphor's post multiple times. I respect him as a poster, but disagree with his conclusion.

However, note his opening line:



Note the conclusion he drew from a scenario where he admits "we have no idea....". It's important, because his opening sentence sets up his entire post as an opinion.

The set up was for the interception play, not the other 3 plays. And obviously this is all opinion on the message board, despite your incessant statements that others are just wrong and you are right.

He's assuming a 100% failure rate would automatically be the alternative in the bolded part, which he should know better than to have done. It was an obvious mistake in his analysis.

I think the bolded statement is a pretty clear-cut fair statement that Moss would not try to prevent the interception if he didn't CARE.

Panthers players are not "the media". For you to continue to ignore that as evidence, shows your inability to get off of Moss' jock.

Moss has been abusing opposing DBs for years. Gamble played one game against him in a losing effort where they constantly double teamed Moss ALL GAME. Playing against Moss does NOT make him a master in determining Moss' level of effort. For you to continue to demand it is shows your ignorance and determination to twist anything and everything to fit your argument.

1.) Obviously, if you demand evidence of others who are making a relevant claim, you need to provide evidence in return when you make a relevant claim. The key, of course, being relevant.

If you want to create a hypothesis that goes against the normal or known condition, then it is you that should prove it. My incessant requests to prove things only stem back to your ignorance earlier of demanding I prove what you believed to be an assumption.

2.) The level of effort from other players is not relevant to the discussion of the level of effort from Moss, unless your claim is that their effort had an impact on Moss' effort, which is not a claim you've made.

Just about everything in life is relative. If Moss' effort was equivalent to every other player on the field, then his precise level of effort is meaningless to judge him based upon.

3.) My "Effort-o-meter" is not in question at the moment. You made the claim that Moss gave "sufficient effort that it should not be questioned.". That is clearly not something I'm willing to take as fact. I'm asking you, therefore, how you can make this claim when you've stated to others that the use of Moss' body language is not a valid measure.

How is it that you still cannot understand simple ideas? My evidence is that throughout Moss' career he has put up HOF numbers and is in the running for best WR to ever play the game. This absolutely cannot be achieved without sufficient effort on gamedays as the norm. Since it is NORMAL for Moss to put forth effort, then it is not my claim of normalcy that needs to be proved. It is the claim that something abnormal, or out of the ordinary occurred that should be proven. For instance if I claimed the earth was flat, and you reminded me that it was round, would I be then right to demand you prove to me and go get me the research that it is round? The idiocy displayed in this type of logic from you is astounding.

4.) You've not answered the question of why opposing players look at film, and you've not explained how Gamble would not be able to evaluate Moss' effort level but you can.

Following your lead I should just say RED HERRING and avoid your entire post, but I won't. I never once said I am in a position to properly evaluate Moss' effort level. I am drawing logical conclusions, while you are attempting at using isolated plays to decipher body language. Now if you want to go ahead and do some research and study film on Moss and offer examples of him giving effort in your eyes vs. not, then fine be my guest.

Now continue on with your deflecting.

 

[emoney_33]

You have continued to knock the messengers without addressing their messages. Then in response to my (rhetorical) question: Would Brady ever have to make those quote in regards to Welker or have had to make them in reference to Brown? You came up with this doozy: "Would Brady ever have been ASKED those questions about Welker or Brown" - having not realized the irony contained in your answer.

You aren't too bright are you? You are attempting to claim that Brady's quotes prove Moss' effort was lacking because you believe that's the only reason he made those quotes. I correctly pointed out to you that he's only had to make those types of statements because of the QUESTIONS asked. You think it's ironic because you believe that the media ASKING those questions once again proves Moss lacked effort. I again correctly point out to you that the media only gives a damn about the ratings, and will take a popular topic like that and run with it no matter how much they even personally believe it. Therefore the media asking those questions does NOT actually prove what you want it to. Now go root for the Jets please.

Now, lets try this again. Here are the quotes you need to reconcile.

I answered this already.

mb, you are a troll so I offer you less of my attention than Deus who I believe to actually be a Patriots fan.

 

[Deus Irae]

The set up was for the interception play, not the other 3 plays. And obviously this is all opinion on the message board, despite your incessant statements that others are just wrong and you are right.

I know what play it was for. It's the one I was referring to to highlight some issues with the post. That's pretty basic stuff here. And, if it's "all opinion on the message board", perhaps you could stop claiming that those who think Moss didn't give it his best are just wrong and you are right.

Pot/Kettle.

I think the bolded statement is a pretty clear-cut fair statement that Moss would not try to prevent the interception if he didn't CARE.

Again, you have to assume a 100% failure rate for that assertion to be correct. Nobody that I've seen has made that claim. I certainly haven't.

Moss has been abusing opposing DBs for years. Gamble played one game against him in a losing effort where they constantly double teamed Moss ALL GAME. Playing against Moss does NOT make him a master in determining Moss' level of effort. For you to continue to demand it is shows your ignorance and determination to twist anything and everything to fit your argument.

I never claimed it made him "a master in determining Moss' level of effort". You keep tossing up straw men and red herrings because your argument sucks ass. The man playing against Moss was in a better position to evaluate Moss' effort level than you were.

If you want to create a hypothesis that goes against the normal or known condition, then it is you that should prove it. My incessant requests to prove things only stem back to your ignorance earlier of demanding I prove what you believed to be an assumption.

Your requests have all been about straw men and red herrings. And, for the record, any hypothesis, be it against, or with, the "normal or known condition", should be a "prove it" situation.

Just about everything in life is relative. If Moss' effort was equivalent to every other player on the field, then his precise level of effort is meaningless to judge him based upon.

That's a load of garbage. If all 53 players suck ass, that doesn't mean you can't point out that player #13 sucked ass. That would be the same if all 53 players gave maximum effort for the entire game: it would still be acceptable, and meaningful, to note that #42 gave maximum effort.

How is it that you still cannot understand simple ideas? My evidence is that throughout Moss' career he has put up HOF numbers and is in the running for best WR to ever play the game. This absolutely cannot be achieved without sufficient effort on gamedays as the norm. Since it is NORMAL for Moss to put forth effort, then it is not my claim of normalcy that needs to be proved.

Evidence of the past is not dispositive proof of the present. Mr. "beyond doubt" should know that. Furthermore, "sufficient effort on gamedays as the norm" is not the question here. "sufficient effort in this past game against the Panthers" is the question.

Also, your decision to ignore Moss' past with the Raiders when you make this claim of "normal" undercuts your assertions. It is, in fact, "normal" for Moss to sometimes give less than 100% effort when he's in a position not of his liking.

It is the claim that something abnormal, or out of the ordinary occurred that should be proven. For instance if I claimed the earth was flat, and you reminded me that it was round, would I be then right to demand you prove to me and go get me the research that it is round? The idiocy displayed in this type of logic from you is astounding.

Obviously, you don't grasp the notion of how this all works. If you make a claim, "Normal" is irrelevant. It was once normal to think any number of things that have been discredited.

Following your lead I should just say RED HERRING and avoid your entire post, but I won't. I never once said I am in a position to properly evaluate Moss' effort level. I am drawing logical conclusions, while you are attempting at using isolated plays to decipher body language. Now if you want to go ahead and do some research and study film on Moss and offer examples of him giving effort in your eyes vs. not, then fine be my guest.

Now continue on with your deflecting.

No, following my lead, you should stop bringing up things that are irrelevant to the discussion. Tom Brady's effort level is irrelevant to the discussion unless you're asserting that it had an impact on Moss' effort level. Since you've not done that, tossing it out is just a means of distracting from the issue at hand.

You're not drawing logical conclusions. What you're doing, frankly, is abusing the very notion of logic.

As for the RESEARCH AND STUDY FILM ON MOSS.....

What the hell do you think Gamble did?

 

[mb6592]

You aren't too bright are you? You are attempting to claim that Brady's quotes prove Moss' effort was lacking because you believe that's the only reason he made those quotes. I correctly pointed out to you that he's only had to make those types of statements because of the QUESTIONS asked. You think it's ironic because you believe that the media ASKING those questions once again proves Moss lacked effort. I again correctly point out to you that the media only gives a damn about the ratings, and will take a popular topic like that and run with it no matter how much they even personally believe it. Therefore the media asking those questions does NOT actually prove what you want it to. Now go root for the Jets please.



I answered this already.

mb, you are a troll so I offer you less of my attention than Deus who I believe to actually be a Patriots fan.

WTF is wrong with you? Brady HAD to answer that way? He HAD to say, "you have those days where it's not all great, but you keep lining up and you've got to keep fighting"? He couldn't have said (if it were true - which it wasn't) "Moss is a fighter who's always scratching for every inch out there or Moss doesn't have an ounce of quit in him and it shows every play"?

Then he HAD to say, "If you're a quarterback, you throw picks, you throw bad balls. If you're a receiver, you drop balls. If you're a running back, you fumble balls. You know, it's just part of the process. It's about making the next one a good one and not making the next one a bad one because you're a little bit down in the dumps." He couldn't have said, "Moss never lets a bad play or situation affect his play on the field, he's the consumate pro or Moss has shown time and time again that he never gets down in the dumps because of a fumble or a dropped ball"?

I said go to sleep - now I mean it.

 

[emoney_33]

I never claimed it made him "a master in determining Moss' level of effort". You keep tossing up straw men and red herrings because your argument sucks ass. The man playing against Moss was in a better position to evaluate Moss' effort level than you were.

Which still means jack ****. If you have $.10 and I have $.05, you have more money than me but we are both still equally broke!

Your requests have all been about straw men and red herrings. And, for the record, any hypothesis, be it against, or with, the "normal or known condition", should be a "prove it" situation.

Yet you refuse to prove ANY of your ridiculous hypotheses. I'm saying I do not believe your hypothesis is correct, yet you continue to ask me to disprove YOUR hypothesis.

That's a load of garbage. If all 53 players suck ass, that doesn't mean you can't point out that player #13 sucked ass. That would be the same if all 53 players gave maximum effort for the entire game: it would still be acceptable, and meaningful, to note that #42 gave maximum effort.

This is actually a load of garbage. if all 53 players suck ass, then it is unfair to ONLY single one out for sucking ass.

Evidence of the past is not dispositive proof of the present. Mr. "beyond doubt" should know that. Furthermore, "sufficient effort on gamedays as the norm" is not the question here. "sufficient effort in this past game against the Panthers" is the question.

You are FUBAR.

Obviously, you don't grasp the notion of how this all works. If you make a claim, "Normal" is irrelevant. It was once normal to think any number of things that have been discredited.

They were discredited by being disproven, they weren't "discredited unless they can be proven". You can't grasp simple logic here, and it's quite annoying having to explain something a 5-year old could understand. It is the nay-sayers hypothesis that Moss did not try against Carolina. I do not believe that hypothesis to be fact, and like any hypothesis it is YOUR job to prove it.

No, following my lead, you should stop bringing up things that are irrelevant to the discussion. Tom Brady's effort level is irrelevant to the discussion unless you're asserting that it had an impact on Moss' effort level. Since you've not done that, tossing it out is just a means of distracting from the issue at hand.

Brady did not give sufficient effort against Carolina. That's just the way it is, that is what happened. Just because you want to ignore it doesn't change anything.

As for the RESEARCH AND STUDY FILM ON MOSS.....

What the hell do you think Gamble did?

RED HERRING!!! So the almighty Deus can't come up with any examples, therefore he just assume Gamble found examples. Nice job Deus, you really know how to argue your case

 

[mb6592]

mb, you are a troll so I offer you less of my attention than Deus who I believe to actually be a Patriots fan.

Really? Amazing how subjective life is. I've been asking myself why, in God's name, has Deus wasted so much time with you as you continue your pathetic attempts to get a date with Moss. I talked to Moss, he doesn't think of you that way.

 

[emoney_33]

WTF is wrong with you? Brady HAD to answer that way? He HAD to say, "you have those days where it's not all great, but you keep lining up and you've got to keep fighting"? He couldn't have said (if it were true - which it wasn't) "Moss is a fighter who's always scratching for every inch out there or Moss doesn't have an ounce of quit in him and it shows every play"?

The he HAD to say, "If you're a quarterback, you throw picks, you throw bad balls. If you're a receiver, you drop balls. If you're a running back, you fumble balls. You know, it's just part of the process. It's about making the next one a good one and not making the next one a bad one because you're a little bit down in the dumps." He couldn't have said, "Moss never lets a bad play or situation affect his play on the field, he's the consumate pro or Moss has shown time and time again that he never gets down in the dumps because of a fumble or a dropped ball"?

I said go to sleep - now I mean it.

You still grasping for those straws there? Giving an example of what he COULD have said doesn't prove that what he said means what you want it to mean. Keep it up though, define straw man again or something to make yourself seem like you have any valid point.

 

[mb6592]

You still grasping for those straws there? Giving an example of what he COULD have said doesn't prove that what he said means what you want it to mean. Keep it up though, define straw man again or something to make yourself seem like you have any valid point.

Are you f...... kidding me? Are you under the impression that it went down like this?

media: "Why was Moss down in the dumps?"

Brady: "....It's about making the next one a good one and not making the next one a bad one because you're a little bit down in the dumps...."

Well, news flash Einstein it didn't. Here's a copy of the post game transcript:

Q: On the other side, Randy Moss had a difficult day – a pick going to him and then a fumble. I saw you talk to him. What did you say to him?

TB: "Yeah, I mean, it’s frustrating as a player when you’re – you know, he was frustrated in himself and the situation and it’s just something you’ve got to fight through. He keeps fighting through it and you have those days where it’s not all great, but you keep lining up and you keep going up. You’ve just got to keep fighting. I think that’s the message I always try to convey to everybody. I mean, if you’re a quarterback, you throw picks, you throw bad balls. If you’re a receiver, you drop balls. If you’re a running back, you fumble balls. You know, it’s just part of the process and it’s about making the next one a good one and not making the next one another bad one because you’re a little bit down in the dumps"

What is your theory as to why Brady chose these words? Was it because Moss was not letting his frustrations affect his play? Was it because Brady was completely satisfied with the way Moss was handling his adversity? Was it because Moss' great character was again shining through for all his teammates to see?

You're purposefully aggravating everyone with your willful blindness to the reality of the situation and you have the balls to call out other posters?

Let's try to handle this another way. If I confessed that I was, in fact, Moss and I admit to you that I was frustrated Sunday and it affected my effort would you stop arguing like a tard?

 

[emoney_33]

Are you f...... kidding me? Are you under the impression that it went down like this?

media: "Why was Moss down in the dumps?"

Brady: "....It's about making the next one a good one and not making the next one a bad one because you're a little bit down in the dumps...."

Well, news flash Einstein it didn't. Here's a copy of the post game transcript:

Q: On the other side, Randy Moss had a difficult day – a pick going to him and then a fumble. I saw you talk to him. What did you say to him?

TB: "Yeah, I mean, it’s frustrating as a player when you’re – you know, he was frustrated in himself and the situation and it’s just something you’ve got to fight through. He keeps fighting through it and you have those days where it’s not all great, but you keep lining up and you keep going up. You’ve just got to keep fighting. I think that’s the message I always try to convey to everybody. I mean, if you’re a quarterback, you throw picks, you throw bad balls. If you’re a receiver, you drop balls. If you’re a running back, you fumble balls. You know, it’s just part of the process and it’s about making the next one a good one and not making the next one another bad one because you’re a little bit down in the dumps"

What is your theory as to why Brady chose these words? Was it because Moss was not letting his frustrations affect his play? Was it because Brady was completely satisfied with the way Moss was handling his adversity? Was it because Moss' great character was again shining through for all his teammates to see?

You're purposefully aggravating everyone with your willful blindness to the reality of the situation and you have the balls to call other posters out?

ignorance is bliss. Brady talking to Moss because he's upset/frustrated after a bad play, interception or fumble does not mean Moss dogged it for the day. It's hard for YOU to grasp because you refuse to believe Moss is a hard worker and good teammate, even though his teammates voted him captain 2 years in a row.

How you take Brady's comment and twist it to mean Moss DIDN'T fight through it, even when Brady flat out says he did is beyond me.

 

[mb6592]

ignorance is bliss. Brady talking to Moss because he's upset/frustrated after a bad play, interception or fumble does not mean Moss dogged it for the day. It's hard for YOU to grasp because you refuse to believe Moss is a hard worker and good teammate, even though his teammates voted him captain 2 years in a row.

How you take Brady's comment and twist it to mean Moss DIDN'T fight through it, even when Brady flat out says he did is beyond me.

OK, you convinced me. I hate you.

Final point you ignoramus: BRADY stated, that he (BRADY) had to tell Moss -on the field- (make) the next one a good one...do not make the next one another bad one because you’re a little bit down in the dumps"

The fact that it came to that, coupled with our own viewing of his play - and the onslaught of negative commentary by (excluding his teammates and his parents) everyone but you has led many posters to question Moss' effort and attitude this past Sunday.

 

[basement zombie]

 

[Deus Irae]

Which still means jack ****. If you have $.10 and I have $.05, you have more money than me but we are both still equally broke!

No, we're not. I'm $.05 less broke than you are.

Yet you refuse to prove ANY of your ridiculous hypotheses. I'm saying I do not believe your hypothesis is correct, yet you continue to ask me to disprove YOUR hypothesis.

I offered relevant evidence, as did others. You keep ignoring that.

This is actually a load of garbage. if all 53 players suck ass, then it is unfair to ONLY single one out for sucking ass.

1.) It's not "unfair"

2.) Life's not fair

3.) Sucking ass is sucking ass, no matter how many do it.

You are FUBAR.

Great response. You could have just admitted you were wrong on this and moved on, but you chose another way. How nice for you.

They were discredited by being disproven, they weren't "discredited unless they can be proven". You can't grasp simple logic here, and it's quite annoying having to explain something a 5-year old could understand. It is the nay-sayers hypothesis that Moss did not try against Carolina. I do not believe that hypothesis to be fact, and like any hypothesis it is YOUR job to prove it.

People knew that apples fell down towards the ground. Newton postulated his position on gravity. That would be THE NORM in regards to that apple. He still had to prove it.

Brady did not give sufficient effort against Carolina. That's just the way it is, that is what happened. Just because you want to ignore it doesn't change anything.

Ahh, more of the red herring.

 

[Deus Irae]

RED HERRING!!! So the almighty Deus can't come up with any examples, therefore he just assume Gamble found examples. Nice job Deus, you really know how to argue your case

Let's go through the posts on this one....

4.) You've not answered the question of why opposing players look at film, and you've not explained how Gamble would not be able to evaluate Moss' effort level but you can.

Following your lead I should just say RED HERRING and avoid your entire post, but I won't. I never once said I am in a position to properly evaluate Moss' effort level. I am drawing logical conclusions, while you are attempting at using isolated plays to decipher body language. Now if you want to go ahead and do some research and study film on Moss and offer examples of him giving effort in your eyes vs. not, then fine be my guest.

Now continue on with your deflecting.

No, following my lead, you should stop bringing up things that are irrelevant to the discussion. Tom Brady's effort level is irrelevant to the discussion unless you're asserting that it had an impact on Moss' effort level. Since you've not done that, tossing it out is just a means of distracting from the issue at hand.

You're not drawing logical conclusions. What you're doing, frankly, is abusing the very notion of logic.

As for the RESEARCH AND STUDY FILM ON MOSS.....

What the hell do you think Gamble did?

RED HERRING!!! So the almighty Deus can't come up with any examples, therefore he just assume Gamble found examples. Nice job Deus, you really know how to argue your case

Frankly, I think they speak for themselves, given Gamble's comments, along with those of his teammate. Let's note them again:

And if you asked the Panthers what their game plan was, it's simple. They helped whoever was covering Moss early in the game with a safety. Then, once he was frustrated, they no longer needed to. Because by then, it was Game Over for No. 81.

"We knew he was going to shut it down," Panthers cornerback Chris Gamble told me after the game. "That's what we wanted to do him. That's what we did. ... He'd just give up a lot ... Slow down, he's not going deep, not trying to run a route. You can tell, his body language."

Gamble continued ... "I know everyone who plays against him, they can sense that. Once you get into him in the beginning of the game, he shuts it down a little bit."

"You get physical with him, and I don't want to say he quits, but he kind of doesn't run the routes the way they're supposed to be run," safety Chris Harris told me. "If you get a jam on him, he'll just ease up. He had the one catch, and he fumbled. ... We stayed on top of him. We were not gonna let him catch a deep pass. That's his game. If he can't get it going, he gets out of sync."

Gamble said that Moss was lazy with his route, telegraphed an out-cut, and that allowed him to break on and pick it off. And not soon later, the Panthers knew they had him for good.

Gamble said, "We know from watching film on Moss, once you get him out of the game early, he's gonna shut it down."

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/extra_points/2009/12/panthers_say_mo.html

 

[DaedalusX]

Note: I have to separate this into two posts because my original response was too long. Have fun with this one.

This ought to be good.

You've been arguing in this entire thread that BB's persona is the exact same with his players as when he's addressing the media.

Wrong. In fact, moronically inaccurate. Let me go further: only a drooling idiot would make the leap from "Belichick defending Moss in the media indicates he isn't likely to rip him apart behind the scenes" to "he will act the exact same way". Your logic is incredibly sloppy.

That's actually been the central theme of your argument - that BB isn't going to "tear down" Moss because he vehemently defended him in the press.

This is accurate. That he will treat him the exact same as in the presser is not. That you have such a schizoid pairing of thoughts in sequence is impressive.

Can't wait to see how you argue semantics on this one.

I have yet to argue semantics here.

If that's your version of "answering the question directly" then your version of side-stepping probably sees you throwing your computer against the wall.

*yawn*

Don't be jealous that this is the only place where I plagiarize your work. I couldn't very well cause my professors to have a mild coronary at the sheer stupidity and ridiculousness of "my" papers. By the way, since I know you care so much, I got a 94 on my exam.

Let me guess, everyone failed but the teacher "treated everyone equally", so after he reviewed your failures, he padded your score 50 points? Either that or your professor is even more intellectually lazy than you are.

That's only because I'm trying to sort through your idiotic logic.

So, basically, your posting is terrible because you think mine is terrible? And you readily admit your own logic is horrible, schizoid and sloppy. Well, I won't contest a point you accidentally concede.

The fact that you aren't even sure of what you're saying is hilarious.

It would be, if I was in fact unsure of what I'm saying.

Sure I have.

No, you haven't.

You might have missed it since you're probably in your office playing a tape recorder of yourself talking and masturbating to the sound of your own voice while Janice holds the calls from your mother who wants to know if you're ever going to give her a grandchild, but it was there.

That's a rather bizarre mental image. Why do you want to think of me masturbating? Let's try to keep this on topic, pervert.

My position is that BB and Brady and anyone else should damn well support Moss in the media to get him firmly on the bandwagon with the team.

Uh huh...

My position is that BB should then refrain from cutting Moss slack behind closed doors in the team meeting and let him know that his performance (along with the performance of a Sammy Morris, Tom Brady, and pretty much the entire O-Line) needs to improve.

No, your position has been that he will absolutely, without a doubt not cut him slack - not that he should. What you think he should do has never been presented as your argument, until now.

I've backed up my position to show that BB never really throws anybody under the bus to the press,

You never made this point or defended it, but I'll let that slide. What I won't is that you're wrong. One example: he threw the O-line under the bus for poor run blocking when the press attacked Maroney. The beauty of you making absolute statements is that it only takes one counterexample to demonstrate you don't know what you're talking about.

which is why it shouldn't come as a suprise that he's defending Moss.

Actually, given that you can count the times he has ever defended a single player this publicly or forcefully on one hand, it is quite surprising if the metric is past behavior. However, that's your metric. I still don't think it's surprisingly, but because it's the reasonable thing to do, not because of his "history" of any such thing.

I've backed up my position on BB's lack of cutting anybody slack by pointing out a potentially horrible situation which included the death of a family member of another former superstar that was on the team.

You've pulled an appeal to emotion three times now. And this time in the same post claiming you scored an A on your logic final. Yea, you definitely got graded on a curve.

The same superstar was then deactivated for a quarter for taking the extra day (whether he called in to request it or not) to mourn the loss.

A death in the family doesn't give him carte blanche to disregard Belichick's orders as his coach. If Moss did the same thing, he'd deserve to get deactivated or sent home too. Oh, wait...

And I've also backed up my position on the fact that BB won't show Moss any more slack than the rest of the team by pointing out exactly what he said to Moss when he first arrived in New England.

You're pulling out a feel-good quote from two years ago that is meaningless in the current situation. Bill has already shown Moss preferential treatment by defending him in the press and by calling him one of their best players. The degree doesn't matter, so behind-the-scenes knowledge isn't needed to further dissolve the weak support you're attempting to build here.

Your position includes stating that BB will NOT point out Moss' bad play in the film room and have backed it up by pointing out how he talked about Moss to the press.

No, I said that he should not and I think probably will not, not that he absolutely will not. In fact, I specifically stated that if he doesn't, he's the wrong coach for Randy. But please continue failing at basic reading comprehension; the taste of America's failed education system is so sweet.

This is a point which you have since not been able to "recall". Perhaps some Alzheimer's medication is in order for you?

Alzheimer's? I'm running circles around you, kid. Maybe you just need some Adderall to help you focus. Or to stop eating lead paint. Whichever.

Oh, how the ROFLcopters are flying with that one! What a knee slapper! You must be a huge hit at Brandsmart USA's yearly Christmas parties. And no, I'll do you one better. I'll guarun-damn-tee it.

You try way too hard.

Weak attempt at a point. Two years ago or not, BB isn't the type to go back on his word,

Everyone is the type to go back on their word after several years. Things change, people change.

"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" - John Maynard Keynes

especially when that word comes to his policy about how he's going to handle any one player or the team.

Patently false.

Another weak attempt at a point. Adapting to the situation in front of him on the field and adapting to the situation in front of him with a player that, pretty clearly, gave up on plays during a game are two different things.

So you're arguing that Belichick is only able to adapt to football strategy and tactics, not to personnel issues? Or that he's only willing to adapt to the former? Either way, man, that doesn't sound like the hallmark of a HoF coach.

Add in the fact that Moss is a team captain and a supposed leader, and your attempt at a point becomes even more ridiculous.

And just how does undermining the emotional state of one of your captains, leaders and best players -- who the entire team looks up to and regularly, vigorously come out in support of -- support any purpose other than sticking strictly to some arbitrary and heavy-handed personnel policy? If anything it goes to reinforce my point. If Belichick wants Randy to lead, he cannot undermine his support in the lockerroom.

Sigh. Timing is everything with your argument in this one, as you can't even remember inferring that I was a moron

Be kind, you've given me so many opportunities to infer and state that you're a moron that I must have lost track.

for thinking that BB would actually back Moss up in the press and then confront him about his play behind closed doors.

Wait wait, let's not move those goal posts, ball boy. I never said Belichick wouldn't approach Moss 1 on 1, I said he shouldn't do it in front of the team.

I responded by asking you if you think that Brady is moronic for doing the same thing.

Given that after Randy's phone call to express his hurt, Brady has switched to consoling Moss on the sideline, I wouldn't say he has done what you're claiming Belichick should do.

By the way, Brady has been asked these questions about Moss before this past Sunday. But I guess that pointing that out would be inconvenient to your argument, wouldn't it?

Actually it really goes to support my argument. It shows is that Moss is a great player, and one that needs to be given explicit public support to in the face of withering press, and that there's a pattern of this. Belichick rarely praises individual players after a performance or in general, so the same applies to his actions.

BB also let a starting safety named Lawyer Milloy go because he thought other guys could step up and replace him. That was the 2003 season.

Randy is not replaceable on this team, currently. You shouldn't have even trekked down this intellectually bankrupt road.

BB then let a starting defensive end named Richard Seymour go because he wanted to get a pick for him and thought other guys could step up and replace him. That was the 2009 season.

Moss is far, far more critical to this team than Seymour.

 

[IcyPatriot]

Amazing discussions here lately ... some getting it and some missing by a mile. Some trying to figure it out and some to bitter to even try.

It is easy to see that Moss is a tremendously talented player who suffers from a type of depression. He has learned to work around that - but that is easier said than done. Shutting yourself off from the world is one type of defensive mechanisms utilized. You can't rationalize any of this - there is not a rational answer to it. One event ... even a subliminal or minor event can send you downward even if you fight your hardest to keep it from happening.

He will survive it because the lows are balanced out by extreme highs which is how Moss remains productive for a season but not for all 16 games. He is a good guy - not a bad guy - as people in his home area well know. That he doesn't always fight through adversity does not make him a bad guy as a few here and several in the media have suggested. Fighting through adversity happens - it just does not happen immediately or on demand.

On top of all that he is suffering through injury, when was the last time you seen him jump like he has in the past?

Moss gives us a lot ... it's good enough for his teammates and his coaches. He's not going to be perfect or fit into a neat box ... he never has and he never will. I'm sure Belichick knew all this when he signed him and extended him. I'm also sure he has a teammate or two who also suffers ... he'll work it out like he always has in a HOF kind of way.

 

[DaedalusX]

Your "that was then, this is now" argument is weak.

No, it isn't. Belichick cut two upper-middle players for the good of the team. He did not cut an elite player of Moss' caliber that he himself has called one of the best players he has ever coached.

BB has, pretty clearly, shown that he carries the same method in executing his job over a period of years... much less months.

He has shown his ideas evolve. In fact, he repeatedly states that he's always striving to improve and that he can always do better. You're actually disrespecting him by arguing he doesn't change.

And they are only different in the position that they play, name, height, weight, and number. Other than that, both were (in the case of Seymour) and are (in the case of Moss) superstars on the team, one of the best (if not THE best in Seymour) guys on the field when their unit is in, and team leaders/captains.

This team will be in the playoffs without Seymour. It will not be in the playoffs without Moss. Your argument and the equivalency you're attempting to draw are wrong.

How he dealt with Seymour should, without a shadow of a doubt, give some sort of hint of how he's going to deal with Moss.

I don't recall Belichick and Brady and Bruschi and Rodney and Faulk and Reiss, etc ever coming out in Seymour's defense as strongly as they are for Moss. In fact, the only person who has REALLY sounded off about Seymour leaving has been.. AD. Hmmm.

Are you really having that much trouble understanding this? Surely you aren't this obtuse.

There is nothing to understand. Your argument is shoddy, your logic is sloppy, you can't read and your internet ego has been bruised. I'm laughing. It's really fun to watch.

Oh yeah. I should have remembered who I was talking to. The guy that needs everything set in stone for him to know what he needs to do.

You don't get very far in life by not having a plan, or by being really sloppy with your written arguments.

What I am looking for is clear, undeniable evidence (you can find this on Google if you'd like) that Bill Belichick has given any one player a free pass in the film room a week after that player, along with others, did not have a good game.

I don't have to. That wasn't the point I was making. In fact, you even asking for this supposed evidence demonstrates you never grasped the argument at all.

You have yet to offer up anything relevant that has even remotely backed up your point that BB will give Moss a free pass for the Panthers game because he is not in a good mental state.

Well, that's true. Because I never said will, I said I think he will because he should and, if not, he's not the right coach for Moss.

Instead, you've substituted your opportunity to offer up this evidence with repeatedly trying make it look like I'm the one in this debate that has no offered up anything to back up his own point.

I'm not having to try very hard to show that, for the record.

Powerful debate tactic if you're an idiot. Unfortunately, it isn't going to work in this case.

You're the one who's gone back on his word about not not continuing this argument. And that wasn't even two years ago, it was like... two pages ago!

And this is how I assume you look right now...

I'm a far snappier dresser.

 

[emoney_33]

No, we're not. I'm $.05 less broke than you are.

I am now convinced you are either a stubborn ******* or a moron. But I'll change it to: my screen has 1 viewable pixel and yours has 10. Neither of us can begin to make out with a 2 megapixel picture is, even though you are in a better position than I am.

I offered relevant evidence, as did others. You keep ignoring that.

No you have not, but you keep touting bull**** as evidence.

1.) It's not "unfair"

2.) Life's not fair

3.) Sucking ass is sucking ass, no matter how many do it.

You're an idiot if you decide to pick on 1 person out of 53 who were all equally bad. You suck ass as a poster.

People knew that apples fell down towards the ground. Newton postulated his position on gravity. That would be THE NORM in regards to that apple. He still had to prove it.

Uhm no, wow you are terrible with logic. The NORM was the earth is flat, no one had to go fall off the earth to prove that. It had to be proven that the earth was round. That's a much better analogy. Your apple analogy would only make sense if the claim was that on a certain day apples DIDN'T fall down towards the ground.

Ahh, more of the red herring.

It is not a red herring at all. I am just noting that I watched the game and it is obvious that Brady wasn't giving full effort. But again, run away from things that back you into a corner with your idiotic logic.

 

[DaedalusX]

Yes, because Seymour isn't Randy he's going to get deactivated for missing practice time over the death of a close relative while Moss will get glossed over for quitting in a game. It all makes sense to me now.

It does, actually.

So now you're backing off on your original stance in favor of arguing semantics. Exellent job.

I have backed off nothing. That you're having to learn college-level English as we go is your own problem.

I thought I made it pretty clear in my edit description of why I failed to respond to the "scintillating" logical fallacy debate. I come here for football, not to talk about critical thinking and logical fallacies. It should come as no suprise that I no longer felt like debating it after having gone through four months of having it drilled into my head.

So, basically you're intellectually lazy and picked a fight you couldn't win. Gotcha.

Well look who's talking. You, more than anyone, should not be criticizing me for re-entering this debate (and subsequently wiping the floor with your "points") especially when you posted this in your third reponse to the thread...

Why? I'm criticizing you for being a weak-willed hypocrite. I'm not the one who said I would get the last post and leave like a 5 year old.

...strike 3.

I don't recall posting a bunch of links tit-for-tat with you. In fact, I quite specifically have refused, except for the Wikipedia link that demonstrated your extraordinarily tenuous grasp on logic.