Moss to Vikings?

[ORS]

So far, he's a 60% passer without Moss, while he was a 70% passer with Moss. He's played two crappy games without Moss, while he played 3 good, 1 crappy game with Moss. I think if 1 game sample size is enough to somehow, and illogically at that, prove that getting rid of Moss was somehow the right move, I think 2 games where Brady played substantially below himself are a proper sample as well.

 

My argument has substance, the delusional idiots who thought it was the right move after one game where he racked up 300 yards (and a poor completion rate, and 2 picks) argument doesn't really fly. I don't have an irrational hate for the Pats, I even consider them my second-favorite team. However, this BS about Moss-to-Branch being an upgrade is ridiculous.

You missed the point. The correlation of crap performance to playing a good defense looks like it is stronger than the correlation of crap performance to "no Randy Moss" at this point, since he hasn't played a weak defense without him. Although, to some degree you could say he has played a weak pass defense without Moss, and played well, because Moss was apparently not present, depite being on the roster, against Miami, which only makes the defense/performance correlation look stronger.

[boston22407]

Vikings coach Brad Childress revealed Monday that Brett Favre has been diagnosed with two fractures in his left ankle.

Favre has an "avulsion" fracture (when a ligament separates a piece of bone from the primary bone) and a stress fracture in ankle, which was surgically repaired this offseason. Coach Brad Childress won't rule out Favre for Week 8 against New England, but also said Favre's consecutive starts streak will have no impact on his playing status. According to beat writer Tom Pelissero, it "sure sounds like there's a real danger of him missing this game." Favre won't need another surgery, but is currently in a protective walking boot.

[Dojji]

Should mention that Randy was a real difference maker in the Vikings loss last night too -- his bonehead OPI call on a ball he could probably have caught even without the two-handed shove in the back of the Packers defender cost them great field position on their scoring drive going into halftime and very possibly cost his team a win. He catches it clean without the idiocy the Vikes have as many as two chances in the red zone, where they'd done well all game, and they'd be playing with house money since a turnover doesn't mean jack. Instead after that play comes back they just decide to go into the break. A TD there is the difference in the game numerically besides being a potential backbreaker.

[Emmz]

I didn't miss the point, but there's too many excuses with that. You guys are quick to tell me how right you guys were, and that trading Moss was the correct move, yet when confronted with the statistics, which suggest Brady played two straight poor games, you're making all of the excuses in the book. Btw, a 9th ranked pass defense is not exactly elite when you take a look at the teams they've played this season. Same goes for that top-ranked Chargers D, which has yet to face a challenging passer this year.

 

Seriously, schedule goes both ways here.

[Emmz]

Should mention that Randy was a real difference maker in the Vikings loss last night too -- his bonehead OPI call on a ball he could probably have caught even without the two-handed shove in the back of the Packers defender cost them great field position on their scoring drive going into halftime and very possibly cost his team a win. He catches it clean without the idiocy the Vikes have as many as two chances in the red zone' date=' where they'd done well all game, and they'd be playing with house money since a turnover doesn't mean jack. Instead after that play comes back they just decide to go into the break. A TD there is the difference in the game numerically besides being a potential backbreaker.[/quote']

 

Receivers do this all the time, most of the time refs look the other way, they didn't this time. Moss and T.O. are notorious for this technique. You're so quick to bash him for it now that he's off the Patriots. You're being totally irrational if you want to squabble over Moss supposedly costing us the game when Favre threw 3 interceptions.

[ORS]

I didn't miss the point, but there's too many excuses with that. You guys are quick to tell me how right you guys were, and that trading Moss was the correct move, yet when confronted with the statistics, which suggest Brady played two straight poor games, you're making all of the excuses in the book. Btw, a 9th ranked pass defense is not exactly elite when you take a look at the teams they've played this season. Same goes for that top-ranked Chargers D, which has yet to face a challenging passer this year.

 

Seriously, schedule goes both ways here.

One, I'm not quick to say anything. I don't think they are a more talented team without him, nor do I think they are more explosive offensively. I do, however, think there is some merit to the idea that they may play more consistent and cohesively as a team without him due to him taking plays off and his impact to team morale.

 

Yes, you did miss the point, because you compared games with/without him like it was an apples to apples comparison. Your point was basic, 0/2 good/bad without him, 3/1 good/bad with him. No consideration of the quality of opponent. No, #9 is not elite, but when his bad games all come against the 3 toughest pass defenses he faced, with or without Moss, the correlation I mentioned cannot be dismissed as cavalierly as you are doing it.

[Emmz]

Vikings coach Brad Childress revealed Monday that Brett Favre has been diagnosed with two fractures in his left ankle.

Favre has an "avulsion" fracture (when a ligament separates a piece of bone from the primary bone) and a stress fracture in ankle, which was surgically repaired this offseason. Coach Brad Childress won't rule out Favre for Week 8 against New England, but also said Favre's consecutive starts streak will have no impact on his playing status. According to beat writer Tom Pelissero, it "sure sounds like there's a real danger of him missing this game." Favre won't need another surgery, but is currently in a protective walking boot.

 

Unfortunately, Favre will try to play through it, because of his pride. But I'm not so sure that injured Favre isn't superior to 100% TJ. Unfortunately, this is how it had to be. We have to ride this out, and hope there's an opening to bring in a new QB this offseason. If we don't I have no doubt in my mind the Vikings move. Wilf wants a stadium, we won't give it to him unless we compete, and this just isn't doing it.

[boston22407]

Unfortunately' date=' Favre will try to play through it, because of his pride. But I'm not so sure that injured Favre isn't superior to 100% TJ. Unfortunately, this is how it had to be. We have to ride this out, and hope there's an opening to bring in a new QB this offseason. If we don't I have no doubt in my mind the Vikings move. Wilf wants a stadium, we won't give it to him unless we compete, and this just isn't doing it.[/quote']

 

you would think tj would get the go with how the coach talked about brett,a change up for the team,him being hurt

i am 90% sure brett will get the go on sunday

hope to see you on talkpats for the game

later

[Emmz]

One, I'm not quick to say anything. I don't think they are a more talented team without him, nor do I think they are more explosive offensively. I do, however, think there is some merit to the idea that they may play more consistent and cohesively as a team without him due to him taking plays off and his impact to team morale.

 

Yes, you did miss the point, because you compared games with/without him like it was an apples to apples comparison. Your point was basic, 0/2 good/bad without him, 3/1 good/bad with him. No consideration of the quality of opponent. No, #9 is not elite, but when his bad games all come against the 3 toughest pass defenses he faced, with or without Moss, the correlation I mentioned cannot be dismissed as cavalierly as you are doing it.

 

the Chargers had faced KC, JAX, SEA, ARI, OAK and STL. Ranked 30, 28, 20, 32, 25 and 21 in Passing. The Ravens have faced NYJ, CIN, CLE, PIT, DEN before facing the Patriots. Those teams are 27, 6, 22, 26 and 4 in passing, but they rank 9th anyways. Seriously, stop holding me to a double standard.

[ORS]

It's no double standard. Ask yourself, do you consider their defenses good? Would you consider them capable of being top-10 by season's end, after they've had a chance to face some more difficult passing offenses? I would, which is why I threw it out there as a "perhaps" in the face of your overly confident assertion that there was one and only one reason (losing Moss). It's why your 0/2, 3/1 comparison is irrelevant.

[mvp 78]

Unfortunately' date=' Favre will try to play through it, because of his pride. But I'm not so sure that injured Favre isn't superior to 100% TJ. Unfortunately, this is how it had to be. We have to ride this out, and hope there's an opening to bring in a new QB this offseason. If we don't I have no doubt in my mind the Vikings move. Wilf wants a stadium, we won't give it to him unless we compete, and this just isn't doing it.[/quote']

 

My guess, he plays the first quarter to show he can "gut it out," but doesn't finish the first half. Wouldn't be the first time he played just to keep the streak going, but bowed out early on.

[ORS]

Favre doing something for his own glory, consequences for the team be damned? Never, never.

[redsoxrules]

Peyton Manning is going to break all of his records, so no need to gut it out , rest and get better for the team

[WhiskeyBreath]

That would mean Favre actually gave a s*** about anyone other than himself.

[redsoxrules]

Its says Favre's injuries is very serious and that in order for him to play they might need to inject a long-acting anesthetic in and around the ankle .

 

BUT by doing that will majorly affect his throwing , hence another 3 INT game comming up

[WhiskeyBreath]

:thumbsup:

[Emmz]

It's no double standard. Ask yourself' date=' do you consider their defenses good? Would you consider them capable of being top-10 by season's end, after they've had a chance to face some more difficult passing offenses? I would, which is why I threw it out there as a "perhaps" in the face of your overly confident assertion that there was one and only one reason (losing Moss). It's why your 0/2, 3/1 comparison is irrelevant.[/quote']

 

That's strictly your opinion. I consider the Ravens defense (they're not nearly top-caliber pass defense, though) the be the best in the NFL, however, (the team Brady had the better game against, granted), but the Chargers are pretty obviously massively aided by their schedule thus far. Again, you're admitting your subjectivity here, so your opinion that the comparison is irrelevant is absolutely not factual by any means.

 

And yes, you are holding me to a double standard. You're saying that Brady's poor play without Randy Moss is excused by the strength of schedule, but yet you're not willing to accept that, maybe, the two teams you mentioned as having formidable pass defense could be aided by their schedule. The Chargers have yet to play a non-abysmal passing team, while the Ravens had played just two good passers (and they gave up 315 yards to Orton in one of them, and then just 167 to Palmer in the other). That's extremely hypocritical of you to be dismissive, yet tell me I'm too quick to dismiss.

[Emmz]

Yeah, I'd prefer Favre to let his record of games started to fall here. It's in our best interest to have TJ to play some. I just doubt Childress will actually bench him.

[mvp 78]

Vikes are 1-3 since the trade. The schedule opens up a bit from here and they could end up 9-7.

[boston22407]

thats a BIG could

[ORS]

That's strictly your opinion. I consider the Ravens defense (they're not nearly top-caliber pass defense, though) the be the best in the NFL, however, (the team Brady had the better game against, granted), but the Chargers are pretty obviously massively aided by their schedule thus far. Again, you're admitting your subjectivity here, so your opinion that the comparison is irrelevant is absolutely not factual by any means.

 

And yes, you are holding me to a double standard. You're saying that Brady's poor play without Randy Moss is excused by the strength of schedule, but yet you're not willing to accept that, maybe, the two teams you mentioned as having formidable pass defense could be aided by their schedule. The Chargers have yet to play a non-abysmal passing team, while the Ravens had played just two good passers (and they gave up 315 yards to Orton in one of them, and then just 167 to Palmer in the other). That's extremely hypocritical of you to be dismissive, yet tell me I'm too quick to dismiss.

Yeah, and your opinions, like the Vikings will be pretty much the same team they were last year, and that the Patriots would be worse off without Moss, are holding up so well to this point. I'm dismissive of your points because they fall flat when the games are played.

 

I'm not excusing anything, which is why there is no double standard. You were the one who smugly suggested you knew the reason Brady experienced any difficulty throwing the ball well. I offered another "possible" and reasonable source of the problem but didn't portray it as the only reason.

[YanksHater213]

Well the Mossless Pats best a Moss-full (?) Vikings. I guess I was right, we f***ing for sure are better without Randy. You debate that and you absolutely do not know football, end of story.

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

So if the Vikings won would you be saying that the Pats are worst without Moss?

[a700hitter]

Well the Mossless Pats best a Moss-full (?) Vikings. I guess I was right' date=' we f***ing for sure are better without Randy. You debate that and you absolutely do not know football, end of story.[/quote']It can most certainly be debated. The fact that the Patriots beat the Vikings doesn't prove that the Patriots are better off without Moss. The Vikings problem is that Favre is finally finished. Their problem is not Randy Moss.

[a700hitter]

So if the Vikings won would you be saying that the Pats are worst without Moss?

Of course he wouldn't. The last two anti-Moss posts were just opportunistic cheap shots.

[boston22407]

It can most certainly be debated. The fact that the Patriots beat the Vikings doesn't prove that the Patriots are better off without Moss. The Vikings problem is that Favre is finally finished. Their problem is not Randy Moss.

 

Pats are a top 3 nfl team with or with out him

[Emmz]

Yeah' date=' and your opinions, like the Vikings will be pretty much the same team they were last year, and that the Patriots would be worse off without Moss, are holding up so well to this point. I'm dismissive of your points because they fall flat when the games are played.[/quote']

 

 

You're dismissive of my points because you can't discuss football with half the confidence you can in baseball. It's pretty apparent you should stick to baseball discussions.

 

I'm not excusing anything, which is why there is no double standard. You were the one who smugly suggested you knew the reason Brady experienced any difficulty throwing the ball well. I offered another "possible" and reasonable source of the problem but didn't portray it as the only reason.

 

No, you dismissed me completely, you didn't suggest it as a possibility. I was quoting someone who said that one game (where Brady played poorly) was an example of the Pats being superior without Moss. Your argument holds absolutely no merit, because you provided no statistical analysis. You do this whenever someone challenges your opinion in anything, the only difference here is that you're not nearly as formidable in football discussion as you are in baseball discussion.

 

Oh yeah, Brady had a third straight game of poor passing. Who are you blaming this time for his sub-60% passing? The Vikings have arguably the worst secondary in the NFL, with a defensive line that is getting no pressure on the QB at the moment.

 

I can admit I was totally off on the Vikes, but there was no evidence to suggest this kind of a change from Favre's decision-making. He appeared to have adapted for a season-and-a-half. Remember your argument? That Aaron Rodgers was going to improve on his previous season, which was 4,500 yards, 7 INT (the best interception rate in the NFL, btw), 30 TDs and 66% passing.

[Emmz]

Well the Mossless Pats best a Moss-full (?) Vikings. I guess I was right' date=' we f***ing for sure are better without Randy. You debate that and you absolutely do not know football, end of story.[/quote']

 

Brady's completion rate was 70% with Moss, it's under 60% without him. Do the math

[boston22407]

who cares if brady is better with him or without him, pats are 6-1 you guys are like the guys on espn say the same s*** over and over again. lowering my IQ and everybody else here

[Emmz]

like the Vikings will be pretty much the same team they were last year

 

Also, I'd like to point out how inaccurate this is. I said that if the Packers were to improve, than the Vikings will be about the same as last year. Again you're distorting the truth to fit your argument. Your argument was that YOU ACTUALLY EXPECTED Rodgers to play above his previous season's performance. I was illustrating how asinine that was.