Moss: "I don't think they going to extend my contract here"

[emoney_33]

What "gauls" me is that BB traded away Seymour for a pick when he didn't have an acceptable replacement for him. Had he traded Wilfork away instead, that also would have galled me, because the team didn't have an acceptable replacement for him either. They pissed away this season in order to get a pick years down the road. That should gall every single Patriots fan in existence.

Let's get some facts together known at the time of the trade, instead of the fluff you use when talking about Seymour.

Jarvis Green is a decent replacement. He has filled in many times over the years, and has frequently came in on passing situations as a pass rusher. It was known there's a good chance that we may need the franchise tag for Wilfork, so using it for Seymour was a very low probability. There was a high probability Seymour was gone after 2009 and it's highly unlikely he would be the single missing piece of a SB team this season. The Raiders are likely to end up with a very valuable pick in 2011.

You don't keep guys around simply because you don't have an equal replacement for them. That's very short-sighted thinking and is doing the team a disservice. It is not in the best interest of the team long term.

There was a LOT of overhaul in the defense, you can't attribute the problems to a singular event like Seymour trade. The single biggest problem was secondary communication. The second biggest problem was run defense, of which was especially hurt by Mayo's injury. The third biggest problem was inexperience leading to poor situational football and decisions late in close games.

Jarvis Green would frequently be in on passing downs anyway, so Seymour's absence would be really most felt in the run defense. If you break down the run defense numbers and see a significant problem in the defensive right side then it would point to some combination of Jarvis + TBC. It's not so cut and dry to just claim that Seymour's absence was THE reason for certain defensive issues. And I"ll stand by my assertion that the 2009 defense would NOT have been significantly better with Seymour.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I saw the interview in person yesterday so my observation.

1) Moss said he is not going to get paid when he is 34 yr OLD. He seem to indicate the pats do not pay OLDER players.He was talking about him and his age when he made the statemet. CONTEXT people.

2) He said the last contract was real good and he thought it was good.Never said anything about his current contract.Again, He was talking about his NEXT contract and Pats not putting big money on Older players.

Why is none of what you have written being published anywhere? If he did say what you said, then that certainly is much more reasonable and respectful to his employer adn would certainly put Randy in a better light than the, "they don't pay me" nonsense.

Also, please comment on the following...His tone, mannerisms and frame it in proper context.

“That’s not a knock on them. That’s just how they run their organization,’’ said Moss. “That’s how it is. Put it like this: I guess that before I came there the philosophy was believing in their system. I think that’s where they really don’t pay guys because they have so much faith in their system. I didn’t mean it as a knock against the organization. They just don’t pay. If as an individual I’m not really in their future plans, I would like to go elsewhere.’’

Without proper context, I am left to conclude that Randy views himself above the system and feels that he deserves to be paid outside of the team's philosophy on how it pays it's players.



Not doubting you were physically there hearing Randy. Inquiring minds want to know!

 

[JMarr]

Re: Moss:"I don't think they going to extend my contract here"

It's pissing you off because he just badmouthed the team and then tried to sweep it under the rug as if it was no big deal in the very next sentence. And a lot of people here are falling for it. BradyFTW, you're a smart guy, but there is no sugar coating this. Moss just laid the hammer down on this football team while still on the roster. The reality of the situation is that there is no spin here, as those words actually came out of Moss' mouth when the reality is that he could have just kept his mouth shut about this and waited until his contract expired. Welcome to an offseason of turmoil, guys.

Easy there. It is what it is and I have three words for you regarding why this year you're hearing such an increase in players talking about "cheapness": NO SALARY CAP.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Why is none of what you have written being published anywhere? If he did say what you said, then that certainly is much more reasonable and respectful to his employer adn would certainly put Randy in a better light than the, "they don't pay me" nonsense.

Also, please comment on the following...His tone, mannerisms and frame it in proper context.



Without proper context, I am left to conclude that Randy views himself above the system and feels that he deserves to be paid outside of the team's philosophy on how it pays it's players.



Not doubting you were physically there hearing Randy. Inquiring minds want to know!

If it's true, it wouldn't surprise me that the context wasn't accurately represented anywhere, because "Moss continues to display loyalty, some realism" isn't a story that'll get people talking. No, with Moss the spin will always be to find a way to turn it negative and make him the bad guy, and that's why I've been saying since page 1 of this thread that reading selective, agenda-driven quoting simply won't reliably tell us what Moss was really saying.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Let's get some facts together known at the time of the trade, instead of the fluff you use when talking about Seymour.

Jarvis Green is a decent replacement. He has filled in many times over the years, and has frequently came in on passing situations as a pass rusher. It was known there's a good chance that we may need the franchise tag for Wilfork, so using it for Seymour was a very low probability. There was a high probability Seymour was gone after 2009 and it's highly unlikely he would be the single missing piece of a SB team this season. The Raiders are likely to end up with a very valuable pick in 2011.

You don't keep guys around simply because you don't have an equal replacement for them. That's very short-sighted thinking and is doing the team a disservice. It is not in the best interest of the team long term.

There was a LOT of overhaul in the defense, you can't attribute the problems to a singular event like Seymour trade. The single biggest problem was secondary communication. The second biggest problem was run defense, of which was especially hurt by Mayo's injury. The third biggest problem was inexperience leading to poor situational football and decisions late in close games.

Jarvis Green would frequently be in on passing downs anyway, so Seymour's absence would be really most felt in the run defense. If you break down the run defense numbers and see a significant problem in the defensive right side then it would point to some combination of Jarvis + TBC. It's not so cut and dry to just claim that Seymour's absence was THE reason for certain defensive issues. And I"ll stand by my assertion that the 2009 defense would NOT have been significantly better with Seymour.

He didn't say that the replacement had to be as good as Seymour: simply decent. And if you thought that Jarvis Green was decent, then your standards are pretty low. He might have been adequate in '04, but that stopped being the case a long time ago, to the point that once Seymour came off PUP in 2007, him playing on one leg was deemed better than Jarvis Green at 100%. It wasn't that Jarvis wasn't as good as Seymour: it was that Jarvis wasn't very good period.

Also, Seymour stayed on the field on passing downs (how else would he have led the team in sacks in '08?) so your entire premise is wrong. And not including the inability to generate a pass rush as one of the defense's three biggest problems is pretty laughable.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

1)Well Brett Favre's dream was to play with and throw to Moss and if Moss went back there Brett would certainly play another season..

2)Moss is still a beloved former player in Minny

3) We could use a pass rushing threat

= How about trading Moss back to the Vikings for Jared Allen?

I know its crazy but its a thought

 

[RobertWeathers]

If it's true, it wouldn't surprise me that the context wasn't accurately represented anywhere, because "Moss continues to display loyalty, some realism" isn't a story that'll get people talking. No, with Moss the spin will always be to find a way to turn it negative and make him the bad guy, and that's why I've been saying since page 1 of this thread that reading selective, agenda-driven quoting simply won't reliably tell us what Moss was really saying.

Agreed. I'm in the camp that does think the media has played Randy for a malcontented fool sometimes. Hes made some mistakes but overall he's been an oustanding performer here and a good "Patriot". Would certainly not want to see it end with him complaining about money and potentially trying to shoot his way out of here. He can do that tastefully and professionally IMO.

 

[RobertWeathers]

1)Well Brett Favre's dream was to play with and throw to Moss and if Moss went back there Brett would certainly play another season..

2)Moss is still a beloved former player in Minny

3) We could use a pass rushing threat

= How about trading Moss back to the Vikings for Jared Allen?

I know its crazy but its a thought

Vikes would never do it. I however would support the trade 100%. Allen is a force.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

Vikes would never do it. I however would support the trade 100%. Allen is a force.

The media is calling Sidney Rice as a potential Randy Moss Jr. so I would doubt it would happen...they already have a possible young Moss in place

 

[emoney_33]

He didn't say that the replacement had to be as good as Seymour: simply decent. And if you thought that Jarvis Green was decent, then your standards are pretty low. He might have been adequate in '04, but that stopped being the case a long time ago, to the point that once Seymour came off PUP in 2007, him playing on one leg was deemed better than Jarvis Green at 100%. It wasn't that Jarvis wasn't as good as Seymour: it was that Jarvis wasn't very good period.

Also, Seymour stayed on the field on passing downs (how else would he have led the team in sacks in '08?) so your entire premise is wrong. And not including the inability to generate a pass rush as one of the defense's three biggest problems is pretty laughable.

If you think Jarvis is not at the very least "decent", I don't know what to tell you. Seymour is OBVIOUSLY better than Jarvis in every way, and I have never tried to argue otherwise.

I didn't say Seymour played 0 passing downs, but obvious passing situations were usually where Jarvis got the bulk of his playing time.

You can add pass rush to the list of problems, but the pass defense was far more effected by the inexperience and miscommunications than pass rush IMHO. Pass rush WOULD have helped mask some of those issues for sure, but I don't think that was problem number 1 for the pass defense.

I'm not sure why people get SO defensive over Seymour. Jarvis IS a decent player and replacement. Seymour IS a great talent that is near impossible to replace adequately in comparison. It WILL take time to find a replacement for Seymour's talent, whether he stayed in 2009 or not.

However, in the end, Seymour's absence wasn't a major factor in our defensive struggles. He would have helped obviously, but he wasn't the tipping point.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

He didn't say that the replacement had to be as good as Seymour: simply decent. And if you thought that Jarvis Green was decent, then your standards are pretty low. He might have been adequate in '04, but that stopped being the case a long time ago, to the point that once Seymour came off PUP in 2007, him playing on one leg was deemed better than Jarvis Green at 100%. It wasn't that Jarvis wasn't as good as Seymour: it was that Jarvis wasn't very good period.

Also, Seymour stayed on the field on passing downs (how else would he have led the team in sacks in '08?) so your entire premise is wrong. And not including the inability to generate a pass rush as one of the defense's three biggest problems is pretty laughable.

In 2007, Green tied for second on the Patriots with 6.5 sacks while starting a career-high 10 games as part of a Patriots defense that allowed just 288.3 yards per game, the lowest total for the team in 25 years.
In 2006, Green tied for second on the team with 7.5 sacks, tied for the team lead with three forced fumbles and set a career high with 57 tackles (36 solo).
Green was named AFC Defensive Player of the Week for his efforts at Cincinnati (10/1/06) when he recorded a career-high 3.0 sacks.
Green recorded three strip-sacks of opposing quarterbacks in 2006, with each forced fumble resulting in a recovery by the Patriots.

Green was injured early on last season and actually underwent knee surgery mid season. He projected as an adequate (not to mention value) replacement for Seymour in rotation with Wright. As he clearly had frequently in the past. Unfortunately **** happens...

 

[BradyFTW!]

If you think Jarvis is not at the very least "decent", I don't know what to tell you. Seymour is OBVIOUSLY better than Jarvis in every way, and I have never tried to argue otherwise.

Not that PFF is an authority figure (I take their numbers with a grain of salt, as a helpful starting point), but check this out:

ProFootballFocus.com - By Position

According to their numbers, Green was a liability against both the pass and the run. He's always been bad against the run, but in the past he made it up as a pass-rush specialist, only he can't do that anymore, and he hasn't been able to for some time. At best, he's a below-average player who knows the system, and yeah, there's some value in that, but if he's starting then we're in trouble.

I didn't say Seymour played 0 passing downs, but obvious passing situations were usually where Jarvis got the bulk of his playing time.

You said that because Green was in on passing downs, Seymour's absence would be most felt against the run. That's half of the picture: he was our best lineman against both the run and the pass, so obviously his absence was pretty extremely felt against both.

You can add pass rush to the list of problems, but the pass defense was far more effected by the inexperience and miscommunications than pass rush IMHO. Pass rush WOULD have helped mask some of those issues for sure, but I don't think that was problem number 1 for the pass defense.

I'd say the opposite--that our secondary was actually pretty decent but got hung out to dry by our inability to rush the passer--but either way, that's not a debate that'll get resolved any time soon.

I'm not sure why people get SO defensive over Seymour. Jarvis IS a decent player and replacement. Seymour IS a great talent that is near impossible to replace adequately in comparison. It WILL take time to find a replacement for Seymour's talent, whether he stayed in 2009 or not.

I think that's exactly it. We traded away an irreplaceably good player for a pick two years down the line that won't mature as a player until Brady is well into his mid-30s. For those of us who want to see the Pats make the best run at it that they can make every year while Brady's still in his prime, it seemed an awful lot like Belichick pretty much punted on 2009 before it even started. And FWIW, it wouldn't surprise me at all if a lot of the locker room issues came from the players thinking the same thing, considering how dominant Seymour was in 2008. I get the pro-trade argument; that anytime you can turn one year of a player, no matter how good, into a first-round draft pick, you do it. That makes sense, as long as a) you can't franchise the guy, and b) you don't have an all-world QB in the middle of his prime, who won't be around forever.
However, in the end, Seymour's absence wasn't a major factor in our defensive struggles. He would have helped obviously, but he wasn't the tipping point.[/QUOTE]

 

[BradyFTW!]

Green was injured early on last season and actually underwent knee surgery mid season. He projected as an adequate (not to mention value) replacement for Seymour in rotation with Wright. As he clearly had frequently in the past. Unfortunately **** happens...

'07 defensive stats should be taken with a grain of salt, especially in the pass rush, since teams were almost always playing from 2+ scores down. Hence why Vrabel was able to amass 12.5 sacks despite getting more than 5.5 in only one other year in his entire career, and hence why Green was able to get 6.5 despite being deemed inferior to a one-legged Seymour.

 

[emoney_33]

You said that because Green was in on passing downs, Seymour's absence would be most felt against the run. That's half of the picture: he was our best lineman against both the run and the pass, so obviously his absence was pretty extremely felt against both.

Actually it's not half the picture at all. Seymour's absence was 100% unequivocally felt -most- against the run as I stated. Also I don't agree with the "pretty extremely" comment. This team was going to be a mediocre run defense and have pass defense troubles with or without Seymour. The fact that we have been successful sans Seymour in the past should at least give some credence to the notion that his absence doesn't have catastrophic effects.

I think that's exactly it. We traded away an irreplaceably good player for a pick two years down the line that won't mature as a player until Brady is well into his mid-30s.

As opposed to what? Is your argument that they should have refused the 2011 first round pick? And then what? We obviously don't win the SB with Seymour last year ALL else being equal. (i.e. Anything less than the 85 Bears defense is losing that Ravens game with that offensive performance)

For those of us who want to see the Pats make the best run at it that they can make every year while Brady's still in his prime, it seemed an awful lot like Belichick pretty much punted on 2009 before it even started.

I don't know how you can say that 2009 was punted. Seymour does not have THAT type of effect, I'm sorry.

And FWIW, it wouldn't surprise me at all if a lot of the locker room issues came from the players thinking the same thing, considering how dominant Seymour was in 2008. I get the pro-trade argument; that anytime you can turn one year of a player, no matter how good, into a first-round draft pick, you do it. That makes sense, as long as a) you can't franchise the guy, and b) you don't have an all-world QB in the middle of his prime, who won't be around forever.

That's a lot of conjecture. And no that is NOT the pro-trade argument. You do not always take a first-round pick in 2 years for a current pro-bowler. Wilfork just got tagged, so you guys can stop with the "could have tagged Seymour" argument as well. They knew ahead of time the likelihood of having to tag Wilfork. Their all-world QB was also coming back from a year off and an ACL injury. By all accounts this was going to be an up-and-down inconsistent season to begin with. Nothing points to keeping Seymour for 2009 being worth the Raider's 2011 1st-round pick. Turn it around, pretend Seymour was already a Raider. Going into the 2009 season, would you have liked trading the Raider's 2011 1st-round pick for 1 year of Seymour?

The bottom line is we lost Seymour's 2009 production, when we had a good backup in Jarvis and a whole lot of other issues and turnover. The likelihood that Seymour and Seymour alone would have won us a SB was tiny. Taking -everything- into account that was known AT the time, the trade was better for the team's future without a giant risk to the 2009 squad.

 

[satz]

Why is none of what you have written being published anywhere? If he did say what you said, then that certainly is much more reasonable and respectful to his employer adn would certainly put Randy in a better light than the, "they don't pay me" nonsense.

Also, please comment on the following...His tone, mannerisms and frame it in proper context.



Without proper context, I am left to conclude that Randy views himself above the system and feels that he deserves to be paid outside of the team's philosophy on how it pays it's players.



Not doubting you were physically there hearing Randy. Inquiring minds want to know!

The guy was sweating alot after playing a game of softball. the interview was about the future of the league and his future as a patriot.
people make it sound like it was a sit down interview. He is standing and it was part of the charity game which he was promoting.

He never looked pissed or unhappy about the whole thing and it was part of another interview where he answered 2 question.
I was in there in person it was on TV on some sport wrap.He was as i said laughing and promoting the charity and i did not even know if he made a
delibrate effort to put a message out.

 

[RobertWeathers]

The guy was sweating alot after playing a game of softball. the interview was about the future of the league and his future as a patriot.
people make it sound like it was a sit down interview. He is standing and it was part of the charity game which he was promoting.

He never looked pissed or unhappy about the whole thing and it was part of another interview where he answered 2 question.
I was in there in person it was on TV on some sport wrap.

Fair enough. Just gotta see how it plays out now.

 

[emoney_33]

'07 defensive stats should be taken with a grain of salt, especially in the pass rush, since teams were almost always playing from 2+ scores down. Hence why Vrabel was able to amass 12.5 sacks despite getting more than 5.5 in only one other year in his entire career, and hence why Green was able to get 6.5 despite being deemed inferior to a one-legged Seymour.

Interesting take on the 6.5 sacks in 2007, even though in 2006 he had 7.5.

Should Jarvis Green's early injury in 2009 be ignored?

 

[emoney_33]

Not that PFF is an authority figure (I take their numbers with a grain of salt, as a helpful starting point), but check this out:

ProFootballFocus.com - By Position

According to their numbers, Green was a liability against both the pass and the run. He's always been bad against the run, but in the past he made it up as a pass-rush specialist, only he can't do that anymore, and he hasn't been able to for some time. At best, he's a below-average player who knows the system, and yeah, there's some value in that, but if he's starting then we're in trouble.

Also that same site has Jarvis looking pretty good in 2008.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Fair enough. Just gotta see how it plays out now.

You actually understood that?? I have a feeling it translates to I wasn't there, I saw a segment of it on some sports show...but that's just a guess...

 

[RobertWeathers]

You actually understood that?? I have a feeling it translates to I wasn't there, I saw a segment of it on some sports show...but that's just a guess...

Y'know me, Mo. I'm not going to go to war over that. If he says he was there, he was there. I was being polite.

What I think Randy's was trying to accomplish during the interview has not changed.