NFLN Belichick on Moss trade in a few min.

[Ring 6]

I sat there thinking the whole argument made no sense because they werent arguing the real dynamics of the decision. They argument Mike Lombardi's prediction that they were changing the offense (Belichick did not say that, he said something like 'the offense, Randy, where he's at all those things' meaning 'i'm not answering') and we want 'route runners'.
I can argue its the stupidest move ever and BB should be stripped of personell control if I pretend its the same Moss of 07-09 or I could argue it was smart if I accept the Moss we get in 2010 barely resembles that one.
That's why this argument is impossible to have, because one side thinks Moss is what he was from 07-09, and the other side is looking at the disinterested guy who wanted out.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Truth is somewhere in the middle. Of course in a vacuum you're better with a HOF receiver than without him. But not the Pats in this particular circumstance. And no, I do not believe the season's over b/c Moss is gone. Moss was that last piece in the puzzle in 07... now, if the Pats go all the way or even deep in the playoffs, it would be more like 01-04 -- everybody playing their roles and executing, not getting 80% from a ton of fantasy football picks, getting 100% from a talent level that's sustainable. The Moss/NE relationship shows that 1) the huge talent level is not a guarantee of success and that 2) sometimes you can give up on the talent, when it is clear that you will not benefit from that talent. Moss isn't bigger than the team; I respect that.

But uh, yeah, Moss with a good attitude (not, one should note, an option) would be much better than no Moss. Moss getting progressively more problematic, as the team itself is actually moving toward a good post-season run? Now that would give me heartburn.

Here's a question for the CBA/capologists: what does the ongoing concern about contract price say about the likelihood that the NFL goes uncapped in the future?

If I'm the Pats, don't I just finish out this year with a big, fat, one-year extension, with the promise of a big deal when the cap comes off (after the lockout is somehow resolved?)

Doesn't this basically point toward a belief on the Pats' part that we really are looking at a cap beyond '10?

Or am I just ign'ant?

There won't be a new CBA without a cap. Even the NFLPA doesn't ascribe to that blather. That was just Gene playing his once in a lifetime boogy man card in hopes the union could hang onto the freakin' windfall they landed as a result of negotiating a CBA with an ownership group that was too caught up in their own divisiveness over the have and have nots relationship. They are now united in at least knowing how badly they screwed that negotiation up and the long term ramification to both sides have them as united as they have historically been.

The Pats are always a step ahead of the curve. They knew they could retain Moss if he panned out because they knew the owners would opt out in 2008. They also realize having a top tier (compensation wise) WR won't pay the kind of dividends they require in 2011 and beyond, let alone one entering his personal back nine. You don't spend the big bucks on your skill players except the QB if you're lucky enough to have one worth it. You spend the big bucks as needed in the trenches (again if you're lucky enough to draft or develop or identify and acquire guys worthy of them).

 

[patsfan13]

I sat there thinking the whole argument made no sense because they werent arguing the real dynamics of the decision. They argument Mike Lombardi's prediction that they were changing the offense (Belichick did not say that, he said something like 'the offense, Randy, where he's at all those things' meaning 'i'm not answering') and we want 'route runners'.
I can argue its the stupidest move ever and BB should be stripped of personell control if I pretend its the same Moss of 07-09 or I could argue it was smart if I accept the Moss we get in 2010 barely resembles that one.
That's why this argument is impossible to have, because one side thinks Moss is what he was from 07-09, and the other side is looking at the disinterested guy who wanted out.

Andy IMO Lombardi was saying exactly what he was told by BB "off the record". BB trusted Lombardi to get the info out in a way that wouldn't involve BB directly.

PFiVa thanks for the tip on the spot.

 

[Ring 6]

There won't be a new CBA without a cap. Even the NFLPA doesn't ascribe to that blather. That was just Gene playing his once in a lifetime boogy man card in hopes the union could hang onto the freakin' windfall they landed as a result of negotiating a CBA with an ownership group that was too caught up in their own divisiveness over the have and have nots relationship. They are now united in at least knowing how badly they screwed that negotiation up and the long term ramification to both sides have them as united as they have historically been.

The Pats are always a step ahead of the curve. They knew they could retain Moss if he panned out because they knew the owners would opt out in 2008. They also realize having a top tier (compensation wise) WR won't pay the kind of dividends they require in 2011 and beyond, let alone one entering his personal back nine. You don't spend the big bucks on your skill players except the QB if you're lucky enough to have one worth it. You spend the big bucks as needed in the trenches (again if you're lucky enough to draft or develop or identify and acquire guys worthy of them).

It would appear, with 39 players on the team with cap numbers under 2million, and 32 under 1 mill, and just 7 over 3mill (one is Light who is in his last year) and 8 picks in the first 4 rounds next year, that we would have to be in abot the best cap shape in the league going into next year?
It would seem that BB is setting this team up to have its young talent, and a boatload of cap room to fill in the gaps. None of that has anything to do with trading Moss, because his contract was up, but its a pretty interesting topic

 

[SuperPatsFan]

Andy IMO Lombardi was saying exactly what he was told by BB "off the record". BB trusted Lombardi to get the info out in a way that wouldn't involve BB directly.

There's some merit to these remarks.

I can see Belichick revealing "the truth" off the record to someone with whom he has a close, long-standing relationship, such as Lombardi, and leaving it to Lombardi to distribute the information.

 

[Ring 6]

Andy IMO Lombardi was saying exactly what he was told by BB "off the record". BB trusted Lombardi to get the info out in a way that wouldn't involve BB directly.

PFiVa thanks for the tip on the spot.

Well thats complete conjecture.
BB doesnt not say things because he doesnt want them coming from him, he doesnt say things because they are no ones business, in his opinion.
Why would he do an interview and then leak a strategic idea?

Besides, its stupid.
You don't dump Randy Moss and replace him with a 'route runner' unless there is a problem with Moss. We havent replaced him. I would have to believe we are a better offense with Julian Edelman than Randy Moss AND that Moss has no value in any part of our offense, after being the centerpiece of it for 3 years. If BB believes that he should be fired today.

Thats the only thing that makes sense in this, Moss wasn't or wasnt going to be the same player. I dont know how we dismiss that he is producing 45% of average since he got here this season without concluding whoever makes the gameplans became a moron or Moss tanked it.

 

[Ring 6]

There's some merit to these remarks.

I can see Belichick revealing "the truth" off the record to someone with whom he has a close, long-standing relationship, such as Lombardi, and leaving it to Lombardi to distribute the information.

But that would leave the conclusion that Belichick is a moron, because he would rather have Julian Edelman on the field than Randy Moss, when Moss is fully committment to the team.

 

[patsfan13]

What if...if Moss's being limited in the routes he was running ie 3 patterns was limiting the ROUTE COMBINATIONS the TEAM wanted to use? See Brady's QB rating to Moss and to the rest of the untalented guys.

We are going to a 2 TE base with Welker and Tate. This is what the team feels gives the best chance to win.

If you look at the 'interview' Eisen did with Lombadi, it sounded to me as if Lombardi knew exactly what the factors were in the Moss trade.

Speculation? Yes it is, but it makes sense from a football POV. The offensive production and time of possession (keeping the young d off the field) will tell the story.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

This is the BEST NFLN Gameday I have EVER seen... It's scary how smart Faulk can be when he puts his SB agenda aside. TO is befuddled by why a Tom Brady gets his contract after all Randy did for this team and Randy didn't... WR's are for the most part just another breed... It's refreshing to hear a couple of other players and even a failed coach frankly explain their situation and reality to one of them...They are their own worst enemies because of their I my me unaccountable egos. Ditto CB's (who are often failed WR's) in many instances... Poor TO is a victim of perception and he takes little or NO responsibility for that perception with a straight face...oblivious to the destruction he has always left in his wake. On the wake of his big stats game last week he is already gassing up the bus in Cincy...and he just doesn't get it.

You could see Faulk and Sapp just waiting for those two hand jobbing idiots to stop blathering about themselves and their underapprecaited position so they could unload a dose of football reality on them...

 

[Ring 6]

What if...if Moss's being limited in the routes he was running ie 3 patterns was limiting the ROUTE COMBINATIONS the TEAM wanted to use? See Brady's QB rating to Moss and to the rest of the untalented guys.

We are going to a 2 TE base with Welker and Tate. This is what the team feels gives the best chance to win.

If you look at the 'interview' Eisen did with Lombadi, it sounded to me as if Lombardi knew exactly what the factors were in the Moss trade.

Speculation? Yes it is, but it makes sense from a football POV. The offensive production and time of possession (keeping the young d off the field) will tell the story.

Moss has been a top 5 WR since he has been here.
All of a sudden we dont want that production because we want to run routes for a 2yr player?
How does Moss drawing double coverage hurt the other players getting open? You are saying having Grnkowski on the field gets Welker open better than Moss?

I understand the concepts that are being invented to explain away that Moss is gone because Moss didnt want to go out on the football field and give 100% and BB said he wouldn't put up with it, but none of them make any sense at all.

Think about it. You are trying to say we are harder to defend with out Randy Moss and Randy Moss was giving it everything he had, but was basically useless.

 

[patsfan13]

Moss has been a top 5 WR since he has been here.
All of a sudden we dont want that production because we want to run routes for a 2yr player?
How does Moss drawing double coverage hurt the other players getting open? You are saying having Grnkowski on the field gets Welker open better than Moss?

I understand the concepts that are being invented to explain away that Moss is gone because Moss didnt want to go out on the football field and give 100% and BB said he wouldn't put up with it, but none of them make any sense at all.

Think about it. You are trying to say we are harder to defend with out Randy Moss and Randy Moss was giving it everything he had, but was basically useless.

The O has changed from a 3-4 WR base in 2007 to a 2TE set now.

When training camp started who knew Heranadez was a guy who could catch 100 balls his rookie year while being the youngest player on the team?

Hernandez and Welker are now the #1&2 options in the passing game now, Brady's QB rating throwing to them is through the roof. That wasn't the situation going into camp, but it is the reality now.

IMO BB thinks the 2TE base and featuring Hernandez and Welker is the way to go. When they want to stretch the field Tate will be in single coverage, probably not the #1 corner, to take the occasional shot downfield.

THIS is the O BB wanted to build when he drafted Graham and Watson. The difference being that Gronk and Heranadez seem to have better hands and Gronk isn't as good a blocker as Graham in his prime with the team YET.

 

[Ring 6]

The O has changed from a 3-4 WR base in 2007 to a 2TE set now.

When training camp started who knew Heranadez was a guy who could catch 100 balls his rookie year while being the youngest player on the team?

Hernandez and Welker are now the #1&2 options in the passing game now, Brady's QB rating throwing to them is through the roof. That wasn't the situation going into camp, but it is the reality now.

IMO BB thinks the 2TE base and featuring Hernandez and Welker is the way to go. When they want to stretch the field Tate will be in single coverage, probably not the #1 corner, to take the occasional shot downfield.

THIS is the O BB wanted to build when he drafted Graham and Watson. The difference being that Gronk and Heranadez seem to have better hands and Gronk isn't as good a blocker as Graham in his prime with the team YET.

So you think we have a better offense with Randy Moss in Minnesota than Randy Moss in NE, giving 100%?

 

[patsfan13]

So you think we have a better offense with Randy Moss in Minnesota than Randy Moss in NE, giving 100%?

I think we will be a better offense the last 12 games of the season than we were the first 4 games of the season.


I also think that this offense will help out Defense while it develops. I think this offense will give us a better chance to win as a TEAM THIS SEASON, otherwise BB would not have traded Moss NOW.


IOW I think we will agree to disagree on this move and the reasons for it.

 

[12+81=TD]

08:00 – Rich Eisen, Marshall Faulk and the rest of the GameDay Morning crew debate whether the Patriots are better without Randy Moss?

NFL Videos: With or without Moss

:rocker:

 

[MoLewisrocks]

So you think we have a better offense with Randy Moss in Minnesota than Randy Moss in NE, giving 100%?

Andy, it's a rhetorical question because Randy never gave 100% consistently and that's not even counting his limitations. It was a problem even in his heyday. It's beyond a problem as he ages out. He was a huge factor in two offenses for the decade. Neither one won when it mattered. Bill thought they could change that here, didn't happen. He decided it wasn't just a matter of time, which was ticking on his contract and his focus and his ability to try as best he could to be something he's never been, a team first player. It's not that he doesn't want to win or he isn't competitive, either. It's just that all of that takes a back seat when his emotional apple care starts to wobble... We saw it in 2007 down the stretch after the Florida incident...we saw it when Brady went down, we saw it when the rebuild and injuries impacted the 2009 season...we saw it out of the gate this season because now the contract and his changing role and emerging talent and Brady's contract and being underapprecaited was the issue. Or at least some of us did. It was alway there lurking just below the surface. It always is with those guys. It's a delicate balance maintaining them, and eventually it produces diminishing returns and eventually everyone but their die hard fanboys knows it although not everyone is prepared to get in front of it like BB did this week because they're ascared of the potential backlash and consequences if moving on doesn't produced instant gratification.

 

[Ring 6]

Andy, it's a rhetorical question because Randy never gave 100% consistently and that's not even counting his limitations. It was a problem even in his heyday. It's beyond a problem as he ages out. He was a huge factor in two offenses for the decade. Neither one won when it mattered. Bill thought they could change that here, didn't happen. He decided it wasn't just a matter of time, which was ticking on his contract and his focus and his ability to try as best he could to be something he's never been, a team first player. It's not that he doesn't want to win or he isn't competitive, either. It's just that all of that takes a back seat when his emotional apple care starts to wobble... We saw it in 2007 down the stretch after the Florida incident...we saw it when Brady went down, we saw it when the rebuild and injuries impacted the 2009 season...we saw it out of the gate this season because now the contract and his changing role and emerging talent and Brady's contract and being underapprecaited was the issue. Or at least some of us did. It was alway there lurking just below the surface. It always is with those guys. It's a delicate balance maintaining them, and eventually it produces diminishing returns and eventually everyone but their die hard fanboys knows it although not everyone is prepared to get in front of it like BB did this week because they're ascared of the potential backlash and consequences if moving on doesn't produced instant gratification.

OK, change giving 100% to giving 100% of the effort he gave from 2007-2009.
My point is that if Moss was as committed to this team this year as he was the other 3 it is ridiculous to think BB would think it imporves the team to toss him away for a pick in the 90s.

 

[Patspsycho]

I think we will be a better offense the last 12 games of the season than we were the first 4 games of the season.


I also think that this offense will help out Defense while it develops. I think this offense will give us a better chance to win as a TEAM THIS SEASON, otherwise BB would not have traded Moss NOW.


IOW I think we will agree to disagree on this move and the reasons for it.

Let's be honest here. Even if Moss doesn't give 100% or gets only 5 catches a game, he still commands respect. He still commands the double-team, and that helps stretches the field and makes it easier for the underneath receivers. It's just too bad he didn't want to embrace his reduced role. We will probably keep winning, but the field will be much shorter for us and it will be more of a battle getting downfield.

 

[Ring 6]

I think we will be a better offense the last 12 games of the season than we were the first 4 games of the season.


I also think that this offense will help out Defense while it develops. I think this offense will give us a better chance to win as a TEAM THIS SEASON, otherwise BB would not have traded Moss NOW.


IOW I think we will agree to disagree on this move and the reasons for it.

But you are avoiding the question.

Its very simple.
Moss was either traded because BB felt he wasn't committed to the team, or Moss was traded even though BB felt he was committed, but the team was better without him.

You seem to want to straddle that distinction.

I agree we are better without him, but that is only because he gave up on the team.
Just answer whether you think he was 100% on board and the trade was based on being a better team without a fully committed Moss.

We cannot agree to disagree when you will not choose an answer.

 

[patsfan13]

Let's be honest here. Even if Moss doesn't give 100% or gets only 5 catches a game, he still commands respect. He still commands the double-team, and that helps stretches the field and makes it easier for the underneath receivers. It's just too bad he didn't want to embrace his reduced role. We will probably keep winning, but the field will be much shorter for us and it will be more of a battle getting downfield.

I think the route combos we will use now will compensate for that. Of course Tate isn't Moss, but he will have a couple of big plays while getting deep in single coverage on the other teams #2 CB.

I don't think Moss could handle being the #3 pass option behind Welker and Hernandez. JMO.

 

[patsfan13]

But you are avoiding the question.

Its very simple.
Moss was either traded because BB felt he wasn't committed to the team, or Moss was traded even though BB felt he was committed, but the team was better without him.

You seem to want to straddle that distinction.

I agree we are better without him, but that is only because he gave up on the team.
Just answer whether you think he was 100% on board and the trade was based on being a better team without a fully committed Moss.

We cannot agree to disagree when you will not choose an answer.

To quote BB it was "A COMBINATION" of factors. BB was telling us the truth as always. We just disagree on the relative importance of the factors and what this move says about the emergence of the O and the emergence of the young players in this O.