Marv Levy Posted October 13, 2006 Posted October 13, 2006 Looks like the Raiders can't satisfy Randy Moss and look to deal him. Doesn't look like the Bills will make a bid for him but he could definitely help and be a real threat compared to Price and Reed. I'd welcome him, that little crybaby that he is. Who cares, as long as he produces. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writ...moss/index.html
silvermike Posted October 13, 2006 Posted October 13, 2006 1.) He hasn't been producing since he left Minnesota. 2.) He'd be a major distraction to young quarterback 3.) He's due $10M per year for the next couple seasons. That'll slow down the old line-rebuilding project.
daquixers_is_back Posted October 13, 2006 Posted October 13, 2006 I understand what your saying. Thats my stance with T.O. --- I dont care whether he has a big mouth or is a distraction as long as he catches footballs and touchdowns. Everyone else cares though ... they dont remember how he instantly made the Eagles better. Oh well.
Simon Posted October 13, 2006 Posted October 13, 2006 I dont care whether he has a big mouth or is a distraction as long as he catches footballs and touchdowns. Everyone else cares though ... they dont remember how he instantly made the Eagles better. Uhhh, hadn't they gone to 3-4 straight conference championships before Owens got there? And didn't they then implode in just his second season when he fractured the entire team by submarining his MVP caliber QB? I think some folks might remember that. Oh well. I guess when you feel the compulsion to insert yourself into nearly every thread on the board, you're occasionally bound to say something silly.
MDH Posted October 13, 2006 Posted October 13, 2006 Uhhh, hadn't they gone to 3-4 straight conference championships before Owens got there? 803644[/snapback] And finally won one with Owens out with an injury. Those Eagles sure to look bad this year without TO!
Simon Posted October 13, 2006 Posted October 13, 2006 And finally won one with Owens out with an injury. Those Eagles sure to look bad this year without TO! 803650[/snapback] Forgot about him missing the game when they finally got over the hump. Oh, the irony.......
Marv Levy Posted October 13, 2006 Author Posted October 13, 2006 1.) He hasn't been producing since he left Minnesota.2.) He'd be a major distraction to young quarterback 3.) He's due $10M per year for the next couple seasons. That'll slow down the old line-rebuilding project. 803620[/snapback] So maybe he's bound for NE and can really screw them up? Would be nice, but I think if Brady were his QB, they'd be ALOT better at the wideout position. I don't think he'd distract JP though. Losman would probably pound him in the head if he were to get mouthy!
Simon Posted October 13, 2006 Posted October 13, 2006 He's due $10M per year for the next couple seasons. That'll slow down the old line-rebuilding project. Is that his base salary or is that amount figuring in a signing bonus which is amortized over the life of the contract? If it does include his amortized bonus then anybody who trades for him will not be responsible for any of that and would only be responsible for his base salary. If his base is only half that number, then 5mil/year is a pretty good bargain for a player of that caliber. Cya
MartyBall4Buffalo Posted October 13, 2006 Posted October 13, 2006 Randy Moss isn't half the wr TO is. Moss is nothing more then a straight line speed jump ball wr. He wont go over the middle, he's not good at running short or intermediate routes. Give TO all the criticism you want the fact is on Sundays TO will go all out. Moss goes all out only when he feels like it. I'm glad buffalo isn't interested. The last thing a young team needs is a wr who while not the locker room distraction that TO is, will do plenty damage in his own right. Moss no longer has the same speed he had a few years ago, and while I'm sure defenses still have to respect him, he can be taken out of a game and made a complete non factor. His quickness off the snap is nill making him a less then ideal wr for slants or quick outs. Where as Owens could run those routes and get big yac. Moss would be best served on a team ready to win now. I won't rag on moss for speaking out about the garbage dump that is the raiders organization, but moss's skills in recent years have definitly declined.
MattyT Posted October 13, 2006 Posted October 13, 2006 TO's latest press conference Oh, and bad news for the Detroit Tigers.
syhuang Posted October 13, 2006 Posted October 13, 2006 Is that his base salary or is that amount figuring in a signing bonus which is amortized over the life of the contract? If it does include his amortized bonus then anybody who trades for him will not be responsible for any of that and would only be responsible for his base salary. If his base is only half that number, then 5mil/year is a pretty good bargain for a player of that caliber.Cya 803662[/snapback] Randy Moss' base salary in next two seasons: 2007: 9.75 million 2008: 11.25 millon
IDBillzFan Posted October 13, 2006 Posted October 13, 2006 I'd rather get a blowjob from Paris Hilton while her cellphone is ringing than have Moss on this team.
daquixers_is_back Posted October 13, 2006 Posted October 13, 2006 Uhhh, hadn't they gone to 3-4 straight conference championships before Owens got there? And didn't they then implode in just his second season when he fractured the entire team by submarining his MVP caliber QB? I think some folks might remember that. Oh well.I guess when you feel the compulsion to insert yourself into nearly every thread on the board, you're occasionally bound to say something silly. 803644[/snapback] You average more posts per day than I do ... unless Im not getting what you meant by that last comment. But anyway . Yes they went to 3 straight conference championships. They lost them all also. Owens was not in the Conference Championship they were in but he was a big part of them getting there (in the regular season). Lets face it, he was averaging nearly 6.5 receptions a game for 100 yards and 1.1 Touchdowns before he was injured (on a tackle that is now illegal). Over a season that translates out to 104 receptions for 1600 yards and 17.6 Touchdowns ... They were 15-4 with Terrel Owens and 5-9 without Terrel Owens ... so anyway my point is that its pretty hard to argue that he did NOT improve that team mightily.
Chilly Posted October 13, 2006 Posted October 13, 2006 You average more posts per day than I do ... unless Im not getting what you meant by that last comment. But anyway . Yes they went to 3 straight conference championships. They lost them all also. Owens was not in the Conference Championship they were in but he was a big part of them getting there (in the regular season). Lets face it, he was averaging nearly 6.5 receptions a game for 100 yards and 1.1 Touchdowns before he was injured (on a tackle that is now illegal). Over a season that translates out to 104 receptions for 1600 yards and 17.6 Touchdowns ... They were 15-4 with Terrel Owens and 5-9 without Terrel Owens ... so anyway my point is that its pretty hard to argue that he did NOT improve that team mightily. 803686[/snapback] I don't think Owens made them that much better. The Eagles passing offense this year has been pretty damn good! McNabb's on pace for 5,126 passing yards and 35 TDS with only 3 INTs! Insane.
daquixers_is_back Posted October 13, 2006 Posted October 13, 2006 I don't think Owens made them that much better. The Eagles passing offense this year has been pretty damn good! McNabb's on pace for 5,126 passing yards and 35 TDS with only 3 INTs! Insane. 803691[/snapback] True. But how do you argue with that record difference? Thats huge.
Chilly Posted October 13, 2006 Posted October 13, 2006 True. But how do you argue with that record difference? Thats huge. 803696[/snapback] They're 4-1 this year. I think a lot of it can be attritubted to McNabb's injury. With him not at 100%, the whole Philly offense completely changes. Owens was only gone 2 games before McNabb got injured last season and McMahon was the QB.
Buftex Posted October 13, 2006 Posted October 13, 2006 Randy Moss isn't half the wr TO is. Moss is nothing more then a straight line speed jump ball wr. He wont go over the middle, he's not good at running short or intermediate routes. Give TO all the criticism you want the fact is on Sundays TO will go all out. Moss goes all out only when he feels like it. I'm glad buffalo isn't interested. The last thing a young team needs is a wr who while not the locker room distraction that TO is, will do plenty damage in his own right. Moss no longer has the same speed he had a few years ago, and while I'm sure defenses still have to respect him, he can be taken out of a game and made a complete non factor. His quickness off the snap is nill making him a less then ideal wr for slants or quick outs. Where as Owens could run those routes and get big yac. Moss would be best served on a team ready to win now. I won't rag on moss for speaking out about the garbage dump that is the raiders organization, but moss's skills in recent years have definitly declined. 803665[/snapback] Great post. Moss looks like a shell of what he used to be. Maybe it is just attitude (which has been reported as being pretty good in Oakland), but Moss, in a Raider uniform has looked either slow, injured, or unfocused every time I have seen him play. In his prime, in Minnesota, I would say he was maybe one of the two or three best WR's I have ever seen...now he looks average at best. Maybe in the right situation, he would turn it on, but, forgive the pesssimism, I don't see Buffalo being a good fit for him at all.
BuffOrange Posted October 13, 2006 Posted October 13, 2006 But anyway . Yes they went to 3 straight conference championships. They lost them all also. Owens was not in the Conference Championship they were in but he was a big part of them getting there (in the regular season). Lets face it, he was averaging nearly 6.5 receptions a game for 100 yards and 1.1 Touchdowns before he was injured (on a tackle that is now illegal). Over a season that translates out to 104 receptions for 1600 yards and 17.6 Touchdowns ... They were 15-4 with Terrel Owens and 5-9 without Terrel Owens ... so anyway my point is that its pretty hard to argue that he did NOT improve that team mightily. 803686[/snapback] Dude stop talking out of your ass. They clinched homefield after week 15 and layed down for the last two games of 2004 and had Mike McMahon playing QB last year.
daquixers_is_back Posted October 13, 2006 Posted October 13, 2006 They're 4-1 this year. I think a lot of it can be attritubted to McNabb's injury. With him not at 100%, the whole Philly offense completely changes. Owens was only gone 2 games before McNabb got injured last season and McMahon was the QB. 803699[/snapback] A proper nice post ... Dude stop talking out of your ass. They clinched homefield after week 15 and layed down for the last two games of 2004 and had Mike McMahon playing QB last year. 803709[/snapback] And an improper, jerky post. Alright fair enough. Lets not talk about 2005. Lets just talk about 2004. They were 9-1 with TO and 3-2 without him. But yeah I do get your point about McNabb being out. I wasnt thinking of that ...
BuffaloBilliever Posted October 13, 2006 Posted October 13, 2006 People have to stop believing SportsCenter and all the other people who consistantly make love to pictures of T.O. in their spare time. T.O. wouldn't be so much of a distraction if the media didn't CONSISTANTLY ASK COACHES AND PLAYERS ABOUT HIM. The media is TRYING to make T.O. in to a problem.
Recommended Posts