I Seriously Do Not Think Moss Will Be Back

[neuronet]

First off, Randy Moss was excellent in the Super Bowl, but the Oline couldn't hold up long enough to get him the ball. The one time it did in the first half, Brady missed him by 5 yards on what would have been a TD.

You want Randy Moss to run routes 10-15 yards over the middle? He's not built to do that consistently. He's 6'4 and thin and provides a huge target for a safety or linebacker on those routes. Randy made a lot of important catches in the middle of the field this year (see the final scoring drive in the Super Bowl and the Indianapolis game for some examples), but he's going to get hurt if you do that every week.

For some reason, Randy gets blasted for not running multiple routes "over the middle", yet nobody blasts Welker for not running any go routes. It's understood that Welker does no have the size or speed to get by guys deep, so he gets a pass. Why doesn't Randy Moss get the same pass for routes that don't suit his game?

Do you think it's a coincidence that Welker had his best year working out of the slot with Moss on the field with him? D'Wayne Bates had the best year of his career opposite Moss and Nate Burleson looked like a future star. To assume Welker will continue to be a 1,000 yard WR with 100 catches without Moss on the team is probably a bad assumption to make.

In many games, teams decided that they just weren't going to let Moss beat them. It's up to the line to take advantage of only 7 in the box and punish the opposing defense in the run game for that coverage. They couldn't do that in the Super Bowl. Somebody else on the team has to be capable of making an explosive play in the passing game when the Oline can't block a 7 man front. Nobody did that in the Super Bowl. Welker is GREAT at what he does, but until someone gets 25 yards or more downfield (Watson down the seam or Stallworth/Gaffney on the opposite side), no team will change their defense up. Earlier in the year, Watson was a threat and so was Stallworth. If you want to point to a player or player(s) losing it at the end of the year, that's where you should look. If the Oline held up AT ALL in the Super Bowl, I can guarantee this thread wouldn't exist.

Very well put. The thread is silly.

 

[BradyManny]

Completely agree with this...because Moss being a decoy worked in the previous 2 playoff games they got comfortable with him in that role, and failed to adjust and use him properly when they needed Moss the gamebreaker and not Moss the decoy. Chris Collinsworth basically said the same thing on Inside the NFL, he said Moss was misused and only in the 4th quarter when they used him properly on shorter slants did we suddenly see the Patriots move the ball down the field.

Reiss was alluding to something similar in his mailbag as well, needless to say I agree.

Moss will be re-signed, and we'll see a slight shift in the offensive philosophy, I believe...to a slightly more conservative approach and one that isn't as much about stretching the field. A little more 2TEs set, more running with Maroney, and definitely more intermediate routes for Moss. And it's not about going over the middle. He doesn't have to, the defense is so afraid of letting him get behind them that a simple in or out will get him open, again, we saw this in the 4th quarter v. the Giants.

It might not be his cup of tea, but the Pats live by the "take what they give you motto" - only they didn't apply it to their most explosive offensive weapon down the stretch. They took that notion and said "OK, you take out Moss, deal with Welker." I'd rather see them say "F you, Moss will beat you another way, and oh by the way, you still have to deal with Welker." They seemed to cave to the defense's demands re: Moss.

Personally, I'd like to see them be a little more like the Colts & Manning - and I can't believe I'm saying this - in that there is a more concerted effort to not telegraph whether they are running or passing. The Colts run a lot of play action, they run that stretch play, they run out of the gun, etc.

 

[richpats]

Completely agree with this...because Moss being a decoy worked in the previous 2 playoff games they got comfortable with him in that role, and failed to adjust and use him properly when they needed Moss the gamebreaker and not Moss the decoy. Chris Collinsworth basically said the same thing on Inside the NFL, he said Moss was misused and only in the 4th quarter when they used him properly on shorter slants did we suddenly see the Patriots move the ball down the field.

If it took 3.5 quarters to realize how to effectively use Moss then I am seriously disappointed with the coaching staff in that game.

 

[Xzibit23]

Reiss was alluding to something similar in his mailbag as well, needless to say I agree.

Moss will be re-signed, and we'll see a slight shift in the offensive philosophy, I believe...to a slightly more conservative approach and one that isn't as much about stretching the field. A little more 2TEs set, more running with Maroney, and definitely more intermediate routes for Moss.

It might not be his cup of tea, but the Pats live by the "take what they give you motto" - only they didn't apply it to their most explosive offensive weapon down the stretch. They took that notion and said "OK, you take out Moss, deal with Welker." I'd rather see them say "F you, Moss will beat you another way, and oh by the way, you still have to deal with Welker." They seemed to cave to the defense's demands re: Moss.

Personally, I'd like to see them be a little more like the Colts & Manning - and I can't believe I'm saying this - in that there is a more concerted effort to not telegraph whether they are running or passing. The Colts run a lot of play action, they run that stretch play, they run out of the gun, etc.

In this offense with Brady as the QB Moss could still get 15 TDs relatively easily imo, even with a more conservative approach. So next year we may not see the record breaking season but we should expect to see a more traditional great season from a WR, like 1300 YDs and 14-15 TDs.

 

[MrBigglesWorth]

If it took 3.5 quarters to realize how to effectively use Moss then I am seriously disappointed with the coaching staff in that game.

they're still trying to figure out how to effectively use Maroney.

 

[Xzibit23]

If it took 3.5 quarters to realize how to effectively use Moss then I am seriously disappointed with the coaching staff in that game.

There's no question that in the SB the team didn't do a good job adjusting on offense..that cant be debated. They had Moss going deep for 3+ quarters in a game where Brady had 0.5 seconds to throw.

 

[BradyManny]

In this offense with Brady as the QB Moss could still get 15 TDs relatively easily imo, even with a more conservative approach. So next year we may not see the record breaking season but we should expect to see a more traditional great season from a WR, like 1300 YDs and 14-15 TDs.

I'm on the same page. And I think with a more conservative approach comes the ability to go deep more effectively. Brady + Moss + play action is lethal.

I also think Chad Jackson will offer more in this type of more conservative, shorter passes (quicker developing) offense than Stallworth. Jackson already proved in Meyer's system that he can go over the middle when he caught 88 passes for 900 yards.

On top of this - it's the natural countermove to the so-called "Blueprint" that teams are using against us of blitz and pressure Brady. It just so happend the Giants were the only team equipped to turn that blueprint into a victory, but I still think we'll see BB, McD and Brady adapt given a whole offseason to think about it.

 

[thechris]

I thought that Moss was happy to be a Patriot? Why wouldn't he resign?

 

[richpats]

There's no question that in the SB the team didn't do a good job adjusting on offense..that cant be debated. They had Moss going deep for 3+ quarters in a game where Brady had 0.5 seconds to throw.

That's why I don't feel so bad about the loss - we were going for the home runs when we could have settled for singles and won anyway.

 

[groundgame]

Moss may or may not be back, but in the end the Pats lost the SB because the Giants were the tougher team. Bear Bryant never liked to throw the ball too much, because a team loses it's toughness by being pass happy.

 

[DaedalusX]

Completely agree with this...because Moss being a decoy worked in the previous 2 playoff games they got comfortable with him in that role, and failed to adjust and use him properly when they needed Moss the gamebreaker and not Moss the decoy. Chris Collinsworth basically said the same thing on Inside the NFL, he said Moss was misused and only in the 4th quarter when they used him properly on shorter slants did we suddenly see the Patriots move the ball down the field.

To go further with this, I got the impression from body language between Moss and Brady, and Brady's visible annoyance with his line, that there was a point at which he decided he was just going to takeover play-calling and drop the game plan from the coaching staff.

I don't want to sound like I'm faulting McDaniels or Belichick here, but I think to some degree Brady decided that whatever the coaching staff was calling wasn't working and he was just going to Brady2Moss it for the remainder of the game.

I mean, I just can't see Josh or Belichick radioing over "hey Tom, it's not working, just keep airing it out to Moss." But I could be wrong.

 

[MrBigglesWorth]

To go further with this, I got the impression from body language between Moss and Brady, and Brady's visible annoyance with his line, that there was a point at which he decided he was just going to takeover play-calling and drop the game plan from the coaching staff.

I don't want to sound like I'm faulting McDaniels or Belichick here, but I think to some degree Brady decided that whatever the coaching staff was calling wasn't working and he was just going to Brady2Moss it for the remainder of the game.

I mean, I just can't see Josh or Belichick radioing over "hey Tom, it's not working, just keep airing it out to Moss." But I could be wrong.

How can you say this when the last scoring drive they ahd was the wes welker show?

If anything why didn't they go to welker alot more in the first half?

the whole team and coaching was late in making adjustments.

I don't understand why the comments about Mcdaniels saying to brady they weren't making adjustments as reported by espn didn't get any steam.

 

[DaedalusX]

Personally, I'd like to see them be a little more like the Colts & Manning - and I can't believe I'm saying this - in that there is a more concerted effort to not telegraph whether they are running or passing. The Colts run a lot of play action, they run that stretch play, they run out of the gun, etc.

I can't believe I'm saying this either, but I agree.

If you're going to build a better version of the Colts offense, then you should take lessons from how they have actually used theirs as well.

In a sense, the offensive play-calling was extremely arrogant down the stretch. The attitude seemed to be "we have the weapons, we don't need to pretend we won't use them" and probably because most teams would defend with that assumption anyway.

But that was not the smartest use of our talent, in hindsight.

 

[richpats]

they're still trying to figure out how to effectively use Maroney.

I did some checking on how much we committed to the run against the Giants in the regular season compared to the Super Bowl - in both games NE had 29 "1st and...." situations. In the Week 17 the Pats elected to run 15 times, pass 14. In the Super Bowl, they ran only NINE times and passed TWENTY!

Notice how Maroney had jack for yardage in both games, but there was more commitment to the run in the first meeting. I believe that gave the Giants just enough reason to respect the running game, and hey, NE got 38 points out of it. In the Super Bowl, our obvious devotion to the pass gave us 14 points. Go figure.

We could have learned a lesson from the Giants that game- they were willing to get 5 yards in 2 downs and pass short on 3rd down. We wanted "six" on every play.

 

[DaBruinz]

I did some checking on how much we committed to the run against the Giants in the regular season compared to the Super Bowl - in both games NE had 29 "1st and...." situations. In the Week 17 the Pats elected to run 15 times, pass 14. In the Super Bowl, they ran only NINE times and passed TWENTY!

Notice how Maroney had jack for yardage in both games, but there was more commitment to the run in the first meeting. I believe that gave the Giants just enough reason to respect the running game, and hey, NE got 38 points out of it. In the Super Bowl, our obvious devotion to the pass gave us 14 points. Go figure.

We could have learned a lesson from the Giants that game- they were willing to get 5 yards in 2 downs and pass short on 3rd down. We wanted "six" on every play.

My issue in this game was on the last series where the Pats got to 1st and goal from the Giants 6 yard line. Had the Pats decided to run the ball on even just one play, it would have forced the Giants to either USE a Time out or let the clock run down to the 2 minute warning. Either way, it helps the Pats because the Giants would then lose at least one play stoppage after they got the ball back OR they'd lose 55 seconds and a play stoppage (the 2 minute warning). Had the Pats run the ball twice, they'd probably burn quite a bit of time off the clock, or, cause the Giants to burn another Time Out. And, what's to say they wouldn't score on those running plays. Not running the ball helped the Giants out tremendously and gave the Giants the ball back with WAY too much time on the clock. Over 2 minutes and 4 stoppages (3 time outs and the 2 minute warning). That's an eternity. And I can only blame the Pats Coaching staff and Brady for that. And I say Brady because clock management is HIS responsibility as well as the coaches.

 

[MrBigglesWorth]

My issue in this game was on the last series where the Pats got to 1st and goal from the Giants 6 yard line. Had the Pats decided to run the ball on even just one play, it would have forced the Giants to either USE a Time out or let the clock run down to the 2 minute warning. Either way, it helps the Pats because the Giants would then lose at least one play stoppage after they got the ball back OR they'd lose 55 seconds and a play stoppage (the 2 minute warning). Had the Pats run the ball twice, they'd probably burn quite a bit of time off the clock, or, cause the Giants to burn another Time Out. And, what's to say they wouldn't score on those running plays. Not running the ball helped the Giants out tremendously and gave the Giants the ball back with WAY too much time on the clock. Over 2 minutes and 4 stoppages (3 time outs and the 2 minute warning). That's an eternity. And I can only blame the Pats Coaching staff and Brady for that. And I say Brady because clock management is HIS responsibility as well as the coaches.

I completely agree with you, instead they threw the out pattern Moss that wass incomplete.

They should have run more no doubt.

 

[Halifax_Pats_Fan]

I find it funny that people say that the defense broke down when, in reality, the offense didn't do its job with clock management.

In both the AFCCG in 2007 and the SB this year, the Pats needed to take time off the clock. They didn't do so and they gave the ball back to the Colts and Giants respectively with just too much time on the clock.

Now, as for the insinuation that the problem was Randy not running 10-15 yard routes over the middle, why does it have to be RANDY. If you want to put blame, how about on STALLWORTH. He was supposed to be the guy who would benefit most from being in single coverage. Yet, he was more non-existant than Moss was.

Also, the offense got away from what made it great the last few years. Spreading the ball out. They didn't use Watson enough. They didn't use Maroney enough in passing situations where he's shown he can make huge plays. They tried to FORCE the ball to Randy too much.

The Pats offensive game plan in the SB was bad and the O-line got abused. They were also very slow to make adjustments to force the Giants back on their heels and keep them from getting pressure on Brady.

You want to complain about Randy "not running slants and ins" but you seem to forget that its not RANDY calling the plays. Its McDaniels and Brady.

I don't see Moss being gone. In fact, considering the lack of depth of good LBers both in free agency and in the draft, I am not sure what the Pats are going to do. But keeping Moss will have very little influence on the team being able to sign younger LBers.

Clock Management? Clock Management? Running plays? Wasn't our objective here to score points, further to score a TD, a TD, not field goal, a TD! If all we needed was 3 it was obviously a no brainer, milk the clock. They needed a touchdown and as a coach my goal would be to get it in there when you can. You are playing for a tie? Wrong, you are playing for a win. They did, our Defense did not hold.

Look, our offensive line was outplayed, coupled with the fact that maybe a few more run calls or dump offs or spread outs (even though if I remember correctly we did spread out quite a bit) or runs could have been called. It was a close game, we made some questionalble calls on offense but it is easy to say in hindsight isn't it, now that we lost.

Clock management had nothing to do with us losing this game.

Sorry...

...and sorry for hijacking the thread

 

[richpats]

It was a close game, we made some questionalble calls on offense but it is easy to say in hindsight isn't it, now that we lost.

I was saying they were questionable as they happened. Some calls I just shook my head and said "Bill, you better be right."

 

[DaBruinz]

Clock Management? Clock Management? Running plays? Wasn't our objective here to score points, further to score a TD, a TD, not field goal, a TD! If all we needed was 3 it was obviously a no brainer, milk the clock. They needed a touchdown and as a coach my goal would be to get it in there when you can. You are playing for a tie? Wrong, you are playing for a win. They did, our Defense did not hold.

Look, our offensive line was outplayed, coupled with the fact that maybe a few more run calls or dump offs or spread outs (even though if I remember correctly we did spread out quite a bit) or runs could have been called. It was a close game, we made some questionalble calls on offense but it is easy to say in hindsight isn't it, now that we lost.

Clock management had nothing to do with us losing this game.

Sorry...

...and sorry for hijacking the thread

Halifax - Do you actually THINK about what you post or do you just talk out your rear end? If you don't think that Clock Management had a factor in the Pats losing the game, you don't understand the game at all. Sorry.

Yes, the Patriots needed a TD, however, one running play wouldn't have cost them that. Had the Offense taken more time off the clock or forced the Giants to use a Time Out prior to the two minute warning, the Giants wouldn't have been able to get down the field the way they did.

If you actually stopped and READ what I said, you'd know damn well that what I am talking about is the truth. If your ONLY goal is to get it when and where you can, then your guaranteed certain failure because its a very short-sighted view.

Throwing the ball 3 times is NOT playing for a win. Its playing in desperation. The Pats were in firm control and clearly could have gotten into the endzone on any one of the passing plays. It took until the 3rd one and they took less than 20 seconds off the clock. That is not good clock management at all and ANY coach will tell you that.

While poor clock management wasn't the MAIN reason, it sure as hell was a contributing factor and its ignorant to say otherwise.

 

[Halifax_Pats_Fan]

Halifax - Do you actually THINK about what you post or do you just talk out your rear end? If you don't think that Clock Management had a factor in the Pats losing the game, you don't understand the game at all. Sorry.

Yes, the Patriots needed a TD, however, one running play wouldn't have cost them that. Had the Offense taken more time off the clock or forced the Giants to use a Time Out prior to the two minute warning, the Giants wouldn't have been able to get down the field the way they did.

If you actually stopped and READ what I said, you'd know damn well that what I am talking about is the truth. If your ONLY goal is to get it when and where you can, then your guaranteed certain failure because its a very short-sighted view.

Throwing the ball 3 times is NOT playing for a win. Its playing in desperation. The Pats were in firm control and clearly could have gotten into the endzone on any one of the passing plays. It took until the 3rd one and they took less than 20 seconds off the clock. That is not good clock management at all and ANY coach will tell you that.

While poor clock management wasn't the MAIN reason, it sure as hell was a contributing factor and its ignorant to say otherwise.

Throwing the ball three times is doing what you do best, and that increases your chances to win. See SB 36, you don't take a knee, you play to win. So they clearly could have gotten in huh? Hindsight is great isn't it. You score TD's, when you can. You think they can score whenever they like? They why didn't they on the last drive?

Let me put it to you this way, with the SB on the line and time under 3 or 4 minutes or whatever it was, I am not gonna run the risk of milking the clock cause I know I am gonna score, and then score as if it's gonna happen. You don't know if they are gonna score and neither do they. That's why they did what they do best and pass. It's really not that complicated.

We are going to have to agree to disagree.