Rodney's thoughts on Moss

[emoney_33]

Ahh.... Irony. See that Felger thread and your comments for more details. As for the "extends threads", I made a simple point about the perspective of the speakers, and you, along with BradyFTW! are now making claims about coverage.

This is some seriously twisted thinking lol. You defended Gamble's comments that Moss quit, you then said it allowed them to change their defense, you were then brought to task about your statement and went into a hissy fit and spiraled out of control.

YOU made claims about coverage, not us. This is really simple logic, so which part of the following logic am I wrong?


A) Gamble said that Moss quit on the game

B) Gamble is in the best position to judge whether Moss is dogging it on the field.

C) If you know Moss has quit on the game it allows you to adjust coverages and focus on other parts of the field or other players

D) Welker and Watson had fantastic 2nd half while pretty empty 1st half

E) Either they didn't adjust their coverages, or their adjustments somehow made Welker/Watson have a better game


We are arguing point A as false (Moss did not quit on the game). Thus all the rest is meaningless in that argument. You are arguing point A is probably true because you believe point B is true. One of your arguments about that is that the Panthers could change their coverage. So we asked you whether indeed they did change it or not? If you don't know just flipping say you don't know.

 

[emoney_33]

No, the burden is not on me. You made the claim. I didn't:



You're deliberately equating the ability to do something with actually doing it, and Brady is making a simply ridiculous 'defense':



So, it's you two making the claim, not me. Notice my response to Brady:



Having the ability to do something is not the same thing as doing it.

Now, how about that play-by-play coverage breakdown?

Well WHAT THE HELL IS YOUR POINT DEUS!

Did Moss quit on the game or not?

 

[Deus Irae]

This is some seriously twisted thinking lol. You defended Gamble's comments that Moss quit, you then said it allowed them to change their defense, you were then brought to task about your statement and went into a hissy fit and spiraled out of control.

YOU made claims about coverage, not us. This is really simple logic, so which part of the following logic am I wrong?

Ok...

1.) Where did I DEFEND Gamble's comment?

2.) Where did I make claims about about coverage other than the ABILITY to make changes based upon how an opponent is playing?

B) Gamble is in the best position to judge whether Moss is dogging it on the field.

Where did I make that claim?

C) If you know Moss has quit on the game it allows you to adjust coverages and focus on other parts of the field or other players

This is obviously true.

D) Welker and Watson had fantastic 2nd half while pretty empty 1st half

I'm not sure I'd call Watson's 2nd half fantastic or his 1st half empty but, since this assertion is irrelevant, ok......

E) Either they didn't adjust their coverages, or their adjustments somehow made Welker/Watson have a better game

This is obviously not the only possible conclusion.

We are arguing point A as false (Moss did not quit on the game). Thus all the rest is meaningless in that argument. You are arguing point A is probably true because you believe point B is true. One of your arguments about that is that the Panthers could change their coverage. So we asked you whether indeed they did change it or not? If you don't know just flipping say you don't know.

Funny, I'm noting the comments of Gamble BASED UPON HIS PERCEPTION OF MOSS' PLAY as being the ones that mattered, as opposed to your argument which is, basically, that your claim of Moss not quitting, despite his noticeably questionable performance, is the right claim. Moss was not able to make Gamble pay for that perception, which is certainly not a check in the "eMoney's favor" box. As I noted, whether it was injury, or something else, is irrelevant in context.

 

[Deus Irae]

Well WHAT THE HELL IS YOUR POINT DEUS!

Did Moss quit on the game or not?

Moss clearly did not give 100% focus and effort. As I've noted in the past, that's not necessarily the same thing as quitting/dogging it. You and I went at this when you were defending Moss after the Chargers game last season. The 27-0 thread comes to mind.

You were wrong then, and you're wrong now.

 

[Deus Irae]

How is that an assumption? The data backs it up: our #2 and #3 receivers tripled their first-half production in the second half, and it logically follows that they would be the ones who would suffer if the focus was spread out, doesn't it? From that, the only sensible conclusion is that the focus didn't get spread out at all, unless you're willing to go out on a limb and say that they decided to make stopping Isaiah Stanback their gameplan for some reason.

"How is it an assumption?" Seriously, you're asking me that? Ok, let's get to the bottom of it, because you seem to have lost your mind today.....


eMoney, please post your breakdown on the coverages for every defensive play run by the Panthers, and please do so with enough haste that we know that it was done prior to this post having been made.

And we still don't have that breakdown of the coverages. Brady, do you still wish to claim that it wasn't an assumption, or are you now willing to choose option "A" instead of option "B"? Your choices, after all........

 

[TennesseePatriot]

i guess champ bailey has
Champ Bailey: Randy Moss Does Not Dog It - New England Patriots - NESN.com

Old Chump Bailey. He's a quitter himself. I mean clearly anyone who thinks Moss is good has to be a quitter right?

 

[WhoaDirty]

Quote:
Originally Posted by emoney_33
B) Gamble is in the best position to judge whether Moss is dogging it on the field.

Where did I make that claim?

Post #7 in this thread.

 

[The Dynasty]

Quote:
Originally Posted by emoney_33
B) Gamble is in the best position to judge whether Moss is dogging it on the field.

Post #7 in this thread.

But that is a fact. There is no one on the field that can give a more accurate account as to whether Moss was giving his best effort or not than the player who lined up against him on every play. Gamble watched tape on Moss he knows what he is capable of doing. You can tell the player you are lined up against is working hard, it doesnt require common sense. This player sees Moss on every play, not just the plays that he is involved in. I dont understand why people think what Gamble said wasnt true, he was asked a question and he answered it honestly. I dont think he expected it to be questioned whether he was being honest or not.

 

[Deus Irae]

Quote:
Originally Posted by emoney_33
B) Gamble is in the best position to judge whether Moss is dogging it on the field.



Post #7 in this thread.

Re-read the post. I did not make that claim. Here's what post #7 reads:

Gamble was the only one talking from a perspective that mattered during the game and on the field.

Note that it's about 'perspective that mattered', not 'best position to judge'. The person who was in the best position to judge is Randy Moss.

Moss was clearly not giving 100% focus and effort, from the defenders' perspective. Anyone questioning this should just go back and look at the out route.

 

[scout]

Gamble was the only one talking from a perspective that mattered during the game and on the field.

I keep hearing about Gamble's comments. Keep reading about Gamble's comments. Keep reading about Gamble's comments. Does Gamble understand they lost the game?

 

[The Dynasty]

I keep hearing about Gamble's comments. Keep reading about Gamble's comments. Keep reading about Gamble's comments. Does Gamble understand they lost the game?

Gamble did not come out and just make these comments. He was asked his opinion and he gave it. It wasnt like he just announced it randomly

 

[Deus Irae]

I keep hearing about Gamble's comments. Keep reading about Gamble's comments. Keep reading about Gamble's comments. Does Gamble understand they lost the game?

Of course he does, and he should probably have just blown smoke up the reporters' skirts in order to avoid offending the thin-skinned people of America. That's not what I was posting about, though.

However, I will say that Patriots fans have become ridiculous when it comes to the sensitivity about player comments. Players are asked questions. They are required, in some sense, to do interviews. Complaining when they answer questions, unless they really go over-the-top, is a bit silly. These players are being put into no-win situations.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

But that is a fact. There is no one on the field that can give a more accurate account as to whether Moss was giving his best effort or not than the player who lined up against him on every play. Gamble watched tape on Moss he knows what he is capable of doing. You can tell the player you are lined up against is working hard, it doesnt require common sense. This player sees Moss on every play, not just the plays that he is involved in. I dont understand why people think what Gamble said wasnt true, he was asked a question and he answered it honestly. I dont think he expected it to be questioned whether he was being honest or not.

True

Gamble would be infinately better judge than the Patriots head coach/ quarterback.

Besides, didn't Gamble win the game by leaving Moss uncovered so they could stop the run and cover Welker?

 

[BradyFTW!]

And we still don't have that breakdown of the coverages. Brady, do you still wish to claim that it wasn't an assumption, or are you now willing to choose option "A" instead of option "B"? Your choices, after all........

You're the one stating that a change happened, therefore the burden to prove it is on you. There's no burden to prove the null hypothesis; you'd know that if you'd taken Statistics 101.

The fact that your argument consists of making a ridiculous claim then demanding that everyone else prove it incorrect is flawed on such a basic level that it's pointless to even discuss it anymore.

 

[Deus Irae]

You're the one stating that a change happened, therefore the burden to prove it is on you. There's no burden to prove the null hypothesis; you'd know that if you'd taken Statistics 101.

The fact that your argument consists of making a ridiculous claim then demanding that everyone else prove it incorrect is flawed on such a basic level that it's pointless to even discuss it anymore.

So you chose "B". I love the irony.

 

[The Dynasty]

True

Gamble would be infinately better judge than the Patriots head coach/ quarterback.

Besides, didn't Gamble win the game by leaving Moss uncovered so they could stop the run and cover Welker?

BB and Brady are not looking at Moss on every play. Gamble was lined up 3 feet from him every play, he knows more than anyone whether he is giving his best effort. Its the same way in basketball you can tell if the player you are guarding is giving their best effort more than anyone else watching. I dont understand why this isnt such a hard concept for everyone to understand.

 

[BradyFTW!]

So you chose "B". I love the irony.

So you're deflecting again because you don't have an actual response to the point that I made. Typical.

 

[BradyFTW!]

BB and Brady are not looking at Moss on every play. Gamble was lined up 3 feet from him every play, he knows more than anyone whether he is giving his best effort. Its the same way in basketball you can tell if the player you are guarding is giving their best effort more than anyone else watching. I dont understand why this isnt such a hard concept for everyone to understand.

Going to out on a limb and say that Brady was looking at Moss on just about every play. Not only that, but unlike Gamble, he actually knew what Moss was supposed to be doing, and by extension whether or not he was doing it.

Also, the argument that Gamble knows better than Brady what Moss is capable of because he watched film on him is so deeply and obviously flawed that I don't even know where to begin with it.

 

[carolinatony]

My 2 cents which is worth the same as yours is that he's hurt. He out there for a decoy.
If no Moss; they can tripe team Welker and we have no passing game.

 

[The Dynasty]

​

Going to out on a limb and say that Brady was looking at Moss on just about every play. Not only that, but unlike Gamble, he actually knew what Moss was supposed to be doing, and by extension whether or not he was doing it.

Also, the argument that Gamble knows better than Brady what Moss is capable of because he watched film on him is so deeply and obviously flawed that I don't even know where to begin with it.

On running plays is Brady handling the ball off and then looking over to Moss and seeing what he is doing....?