Moss to Vikings?

[TheKilo]

Granted, but Moss also didn't mix well either with the traditional Patriot strategy or BB's mantra. It's nice to know BB can play offense when he has the horses but it's really hard to say they were a better team with Moss than without when they won all their superbowls without Moss.

 

Mossis a great weapon, not denyng that, so don't get me wrong, but if you have to rewrite the entire playbook and rebuild the team culture to properly use him, you have to ask at what point it isn't worth it anymore.

 

 

 

You're kidding, right? Saying that its OK to let Moss go because "they won all of their Super Bowls without Moss"?

 

Better re-sign Troy Brown for that open roster spot, then.

[Emmz]

They also had one of the best defensive units in NFL history during that time. They do not have that anymore. They're an offensive juggernaut at the moment, as opposed to their teams pre-Moss. Like I said, they don't have Moss anymore, so what does Brady have to throw to when Welker gets more coverage because the defense doesn't have to account for Randy Moss?

[boston22407]

go watch the Monday night game and tell me what the offense looked like the 2001-2004 offense or the 2007 -2009 offense ?????????

[TheKilo]

Umm, Moss was still on the team Monday night so I'm not sure what your point is.

[Dojji]

You're kidding' date=' right? Saying that its OK to let Moss go because "they won all of their Super Bowls without Moss"?[/quote']

 

Yeah, because that's what I said. It's not like I went about 100 miles out of my way to note that we would, indeed, miss Moss, and that he's still a vary talented player, or anything bizarre like that.

 

You have a nasty habit of trying to put words in peoples' mouths. What I said was that sometimes it's more important to have a consistent style of ball that you always play, a team identity that everyone has an idea how they're supposed to contribute to it, rather than getting a collection of the most talented possible players. THat's a far cry from "We'll be fine without him." That would imply that things aren't going to change nearly as radically as they probably are already.

 

You know as well as I do that before Moss, the Patriots played a certain way way. We also both know that Moss changed the entire way the team played the game, and as great a player as he is, that brings negatives as well as positives. As he declines and his attitude becomes an issue a time can come when the deleterious effects of getting away from the heart and soul of Patriots ball can outweigh the obvious offensive advantages. This is still a team sport, and one player is not bigger than the entire rest of the squad put together and a time can come when you're forced to choose between one and the other. If you're reached that point, attempting to get back to the roots of Patriots football is a move that makes sense, especially if you are thinking beyond the current season and have no intention of bringing him back after this year anyway.

[Dojji]

Umm' date=' Moss was still on the team Monday night so I'm not sure what your point is.[/quote']

 

On the team sure, but the fact is that as a guy who's supposed to be a game changing wide reciever, you sure had to stretch to find ways in which he contributed to that win.

[boston22407]

Umm' date=' Moss was still on the team Monday night so I'm not sure what your point is.[/quote']

 

omg he was ? the stat sheet showed moss 0 catches 0td 0 yards

[Dojji]

They also had one of the best defensive units in NFL history during that time. They do not have that anymore. They're an offensive juggernaut at the moment' date=' as opposed to their teams pre-Moss. Like I said, they don't have Moss anymore, so what does Brady have to throw to when Welker gets more coverage because the defense doesn't have to account for Randy Moss?[/quote']

 

Disagree slightly, One of the reasons that Pats defense looked so good was because they were primed to look good. Paladios put the cart before the horse, but a possession game aimed at long possessions, short gains, chain-moving and clock-eating helps keep the defense fresh and rested while wearing down the opposition D in the second half. A premiere offensive team gets its offensive positions over with quickly by either scoring or taking big bites out of the field, it's a viable tactic to get a lot of points quickly, but it does mean more possessions for the opposing team and more time on the field for your D. This is a defense that nearly stood up well enough to put Matt Cassel in the playoffs, they've got something going for them. Losing Moss means a change of tactics that ought to make their jobs easier, so we might start seeing some big performances there. I think that's what the Patriots' staff is hoping for.

 

Also we've gone out and acquired a number of young high-ceiling defensive guys over the last few years and they put on a bit of a show the other day. It's not entirely impossible that our d is once again young and talented enough to start carrying the day a little, and could pick up if we play the kind of offensive game the Patriots mastered under Brady and BB in the first half of this decade.

[Emmz]

The old Patriots had hall of famers, suggesting that what they have right now is comparable to what they had is insane. You're acting like they can just get rid of Moss and go right back to 2001-2004 Patriots football, like they're stacked with 6 all-pro defenders or something.

[Emmz]

go watch the Monday night game and tell me what the offense looked like the 2001-2004 offense or the 2007 -2009 offense ?????????

 

lol

[Dojji]

The old Patriots had hall of famers' date=' suggesting that what they have right now is comparable to what they had is insane. You're acting like they can just get rid of Moss and go right back to 2001-2004 Patriots football, like they're stacked with 6 all-pro defenders or something.[/quote']

 

No I'm not, what I'm doing is pointing out that team identity counts for something and that Moss, while great, ran against the team identity.

 

And maybe you can tell me where I *EVER* said that we'd win as many games without Moss as with him. Good luck, because I've never said that. If that's what you're arguing against, then you're sitting in a corner having an earnest conversation with yourself.

 

Vikes fan a little miffed at the lack of jealous rage now that the Vikes have Moss and the Pats don't? That the fans of the decade's most successful team are reluctant to criticize its top notch GM and head coach until they see how these latest moves played out? Wanted to see Pats fans panic over this one? Tough, cuz this team knows how to play the kind of game you play without a great wideout and we have some young D that are worth giving a shot to see what they can do. Chance it blows up? Sure it's there, but they're gonna go back to playing the kind of ball Belichick hangs his hat on, and it's time to see which came first, the great defense, or the tactcs and plays on offense that are specifically designed to give a defense huge, tangible advantages?

[Emmz]

Your argument has more merit than the delusional idiots saying that he's not a very good player anymore, but I think saying they're attempting to go back to the old style of football that they played during the 2001-2004 dynasty is stretching it. They traded away one of the greatest receivers in NFL history, who's still elite, for a 3rd round pick.

[Emmz]

Also, to have that style of play, you'd have to once again field the top defense in the league, with one of the best, mistake-free, possession offenses in the league. Wes Welker fits in, but how does he get the ball when there's no Randy Moss? Wes Welker was a product of the defense having to put triple coverage on Moss constantly.

[Palodios]

You do know that Bill Belichick is the Pats coach' date=' right? Since when does defense not matter when you're coached by a supposed defensive genius and the architect of Parcells' SB winning teams? How many draft picks were used for defense since their last Super Bowl? You cant sit there and tell me a Bill Belichick coached team doesn't care about defense. You just can't. And using that as rationalization for shipping the best skill player the Pats have out of town...is sheer lunacy.[/quote']

 

I think we agree on a lot of things here. The last post you quoted I explicitly stated that they've been focusing draft picks on his defense-- they've been trying to replace players they've lost for a long time. BB is a defense minded coach, but he's been losing key personnel on the coaching staff every year. A few weeks ago, I saw a statistic that said that the Patriots had the fewest coaches in the league-- which definitely reconfirms the belief from last season that BB was overextending himself.

 

I think Palodios has it a little confused. Its not that the Patriots defense didn't matter. Its that they were on the field too long. When it only takes 2 minutes to score on offense and your defense is continually out there for stretches of 6,7,8 minutes eventually they will be gassed and eventually they will break.

 

This was another point I wanted to put out there. Either Brady would play long ball and succeed, resulting in a touchdown, or fail resulting in a punt. There has been a lack of long drives, and it doesn't help the defense. I'm not saying that losing Moss is a great thing that should be celebrated, but the fact is that his departure will put more emphasis on other sides of the game.

[Emmz]

You're saying mostly what Dojji is saying. I see your point, but I don't see how this is related to Moss. Moss is their biggest offensive weapon, they gave him up for nothing. Their defense isn't at the level that it can shut opponents down the way the former dynasty did.

[Palodios]

I don't know what you're expecting from this team. Moss explicitly said he didn't want to be just a decoy but the problem with that is that if he's being double covered, it doesn't make a ton of sense to pass to him. So, he doesn't get a lot of throws, and he whines, which BB knew was going to get out of control eventually. When Moss does get a lot of throws, Tom Brady, whose greatest pride as a quarterback is his low interception numbers, the risk for interceptions is very high because there are always two guys on him. Its lose lose any way you look at it, so some of us are trying to see the good in the trade and what it means for the team.

[Emmz]

You're making it seem like there's many more positives than negatives, when it's the other way around.

[boston22407]

By the way how the hell is B-more going to game-plan vs the pats. should be interesting?

Btw whats up with Brett in all the news ??

[Emmz]

Do you live in the Appalachians or something?

[Palodios]

You're making it seem like there's many more positives than negatives' date=' when it's the other way around.[/quote']

 

There are more positives than negatives. What do you want me to say, that the positives are small positives and the negatives are big negatives? Fine, they are.

[NateGrey]

> http://www.talksox.com/forum/other-sports/14673-glazer-vikings-patriots-talking-trade-moss.html

 

 

 

[Emmz]

There are more positives than negatives. What do you want me to say' date=' that the positives are small positives and the negatives are big negatives? Fine, they are.[/quote']

 

Name five legitimate positives. I can name a couple, like losing Moss' attitude... What else is there though? I guess it's rebuilding, except that they only got a 3rd round pick for Moss, it depends on what they do with that pick, that's a huge question mark.

 

I guess you could say another positive is that it gives them a chance to move towards their previous scheme.. But how long will it take them to put together another brick wall defensive unit like they had from 2001-2004?

[Palodios]

Well, you got three of them. Throw in 4) money and 5) Drives will take longer, so there will be more time for the defense to rest.

[Emmz]

5 is just plain off, man. The Pats are going to see an increase in three-and-outs.

[boston22407]

5 is just plain off' date=' man. The Pats are going to see an increase in three-and-outs.[/quote']

 

Sorry to break your heart but yall are not going to win anything this year ,so dont start sayin s*** about the pats

[redsoxrules]

Well' date=' you got three of them. Throw in 4) money and [b']5) Drives will take longer, so there will be more time for the defense to rest[/b].

 

 

you cant be serious ....

 

scoring in quick plays puts more pressure on the opposing team than it does on your own team

[jacksonianmarch]

You do not improve your team for this season by dealing away one of the best players of all time who still has it for a draft pick. There is no addition by subtraction talent wise. This is a MASSIVE dropoff. Does it mean the Pats will suck? Maybe not. Maybe they change their gameplan to something that fits better, who knows. But they are absolutely behind the 8 ball for 2010

[Dojji]

You're saying mostly what Dojji is saying. I see your point' date=' but [b']I don't see how this is related to Moss[/b]. Moss is their biggest offensive weapon, they gave him up for nothing. Their defense isn't at the level that it can shut opponents down the way the former dynasty did.

 

We've spelled it out a dozen different ways, Emmz, what's so difficult here? THE defense isn't great, but playing old-style Patriots offense will allow it to play up better than it has been.

 

 

Yes we did have a better defense at that time of the old Dynasty, we recognize that which is part of why no one's saying this team will definitely win Superbowls or that it's a dynasty team. The defense is younger than it's been in awhile though and has some up and coming talent. The fact that it's not dynastic level great doesn't mean that the defense can't be good enough to allow us to be a strong overall team that can go into the playoffs and have a chance. That's a reasonable goal at this time.

 

The Moss style offense creates fast offense and a lot if time with the D on the field, playing the conservative posession game, moving the chains, going for short yardage, this is the strategy Pats fans knew from the dynasty days, and what it does is keep thee D on the sideline as much as possible so that they can play stronger and give a relatively limited offense a chance to win football games. It's a viable strategy that the Patriots have employed in the past, that we know BB can implement well, we therefore feel that he can reintroduce the elements of that plan in such a way that the team can continue to play well without their so-called top offensive weapon.

 

Wes Welker is, IMHO, our top offensive weapon, he's our yardage guy, he's the guy Brady can find and get the ball to on a third and short or a third and goal. Moss makes the flashy plays, Welker makes the consistent ones and that is far, FAR more important. And don't you believe for one freaking second that every coach in football doesn't believe and say the exact same thing in the locker rooms when they're going over the playbook. Welker when healthy is one of the top of the league in receptions and for Patriot ball, that's exactly what's needed. Just because a guy can make bigger plays doesn't mean he's a more important player.

 

The fact that they're having to try as hard as they had been to make Moss relevant to the play on the field, to the point of having to try to force plays to Moss, should suggest to any objective observer just how necessary he is to our offensive scheme. That should be coming naturally if Moss is what they say he is.

[jacksonianmarch]

Dojji, that is a crock of ********

[Spudboy]

You do not improve your team for this season by dealing away one of the best players of all time who still has it for a draft pick. There is no addition by subtraction talent wise. This is a MASSIVE dropoff. Does it mean the Pats will suck? Maybe not. Maybe they change their gameplan to something that fits better' date=' who knows. But they are absolutely behind the 8 ball for 2010[/quote']

 

Common sense.