Its a bad move by the Pats. I know JayJay is bringing stats to the table, but that was during Spygate where their stats are going to be skewed as well as their Super Bowl rings. All defense has to do now is double team Welker and watch for the tight ends. Their running back situation is a mess even with someone as interesting as Woodward. Minnesota still has a long way to go. The Bears and Packers have a good two game lead on them for the division. While they are near the top of the pack for a wild card birth. Its nice for Moss to go back home and hopefully retire, but I don't see it ending with a ring or maybe even a playoff birth.
Originally posted by lotjxI know JayJay is bringing stats to the table, but that was during Spygate where their stats are going to be skewed as well as their Super Bowl rings.
Originally posted by lotjxI know JayJay is bringing stats to the table, but that was during Spygate where their stats are going to be skewed as well as their Super Bowl rings.
You never fail to amaze me.
(edited by TheBucsFan on 7.10.10 0941)
Sorry, I brought the very real fact that the Pats cheated during those years.
Originally posted by lotjxSorry, I brought the very real fact that the Pats cheated during those years.
Come on. I grumble about the Patriots' skulduggery as much as the next man, but writing off their offensive success for most of the last decade as being a result of cheating is quite the stretch.
I'm not totally sold on the move (from the Pats perspective) but they do have a history of being on the right end of trades the vast majority of the time so it's usually safer to give them the benefit of the doubt. Besides, they can pretty much do whatever the fuck they want in the draft next year now.
Originally posted by lotjx Its nice for Moss to go back home and hopefully retire, but I don't see it ending with a ring or maybe even a playoff birth.
I have only a loose understanding of biology, but if he wants to cap a playoff appearance with another child I think he's left it a little late in the day.
Originally posted by lotjxI know JayJay is bringing stats to the table, but that was during Spygate where their stats are going to be skewed as well as their Super Bowl rings.
You never fail to amaze me.
(edited by TheBucsFan on 7.10.10 0941)
Sorry, I brought the very real fact that the Pats cheated during those years.
How do you account for the fact that their most dominant year statistically and in terms of results came after it was all revealed? Does getting busted recording opponents in 2007 automatically discredit a Super Bowl win that happened in 2001? Is what happened in 2007 really relevant to the question of "can the Patriots win without one major No. 1 receiver who catches most of Tom Brady's passes," which is what JayJayDean was talking about?
Originally posted by lotjxI know JayJay is bringing stats to the table, but that was during Spygate where their stats are going to be skewed as well as their Super Bowl rings.
You never fail to amaze me.
(edited by TheBucsFan on 7.10.10 0941)
Sorry, I brought the very real fact that the Pats cheated during those years.
How do you account for the fact that their most dominant year statistically and in terms of results came after it was all revealed? Does getting busted recording opponents in 2007 automatically discredit a Super Bowl win that happened in 2001? Is what happened in 2007 really relevant to the question of "can the Patriots win without one major No. 1 receiver who catches most of Tom Brady's passes," which is what JayJayDean was talking about?
They had Moss. Plus, they also were not as proficient in the playoffs, a San Diego team with LT on the bench and a one legged Philip Rivers almost beat them prior to losing the Super Bowl. Have you noticed they haven't won since 2004? 2007, they had unbelievable year, but a good chunk had to with Moss being the giant threat while Wes was able to get the underneath passes in one on one coverage. Moss was the difference maker in that year, 2008, Brady gets hurt and last year, Brady wasn't a 100%. I also don't think one good year exonerates their stats especially if they are bringing in a future Hall of Famer to help the offense.
I don't understand the trade then getting a hording some draft picks which a good percentage won't work out or be able to replace a Hall of Famer. I am also not totally sold on the people coming out in the draft unless they get Julio Jones or someone on his level. At this point, all it does is weaken a team who was already fighting for a playoff spot.
I don't understand the trade then getting a hording some draft picks which a good percentage won't work out or be able to replace a Hall of Famer. I am also not totally sold on the people coming out in the draft unless they get Julio Jones or someone on his level. At this point, all it does is weaken a team who was already fighting for a playoff spot.
I think you're underestimating the worth of draft picks. The Pats acquired Moss for a 4th rounder, they got three good years out of him, and still managed to trade him for a 3rd rounder. That's how I want my franchise to run.
Originally posted by lotjxI don't understand the trade then getting a hording some draft picks which a good percentage won't work out or be able to replace a Hall of Famer. I am also not totally sold on the people coming out in the draft unless they get Julio Jones or someone on his level. At this point, all it does is weaken a team who was already fighting for a playoff spot.
Y'know they could use those picks to trade up or trade for other players too. Yes, it is probably a short-term loss but there is something to be said for getting value from someone who clearly won't be back next year and is already providing too many distractions.
"As you may have read in Robert Parker's Wine Newsletter, 'Donaghy Estates tastes like the urine of Satan, after a hefty portion of asparagus.'" Jack Donaghy, 30 Rock
Originally posted by lotjxHave you noticed they haven't won since 2004?
Which supports your argument that it was the exposure of Spygate that derailed them........rather poorly.
Originally posted by lotjx2008, Brady gets hurt and last year, Brady wasn't a 100%.
I wonder if these things might explain them not winning the SB rather better than them not taping opponents' signals? Also, I don't think Samuel, Seymour, Vrabel, Bruschi and Harrison are as productive for them as they were once.
You're right though, Spygate's why they haven't won a Super Bowl for a while.
Originally posted by lotjx I am also not totally sold on the people coming out in the draft
Shit. If only they'd known of your assessment before pulling the trigger on the trade.
You should really listen to....
Originally posted by geemoneyI think you're underestimating the worth of draft picks. The Pats acquired Moss for a 4th rounder, they got three good years out of him, and still managed to trade him for a 3rd rounder. That's how I want my franchise to run.
This fella. He knows his onions.
They gave away Moss, who was only going to be with them for what's left of the current season to get a 3rd rounder which they could either use to pick up a guy who could be productive for years, or as trade bait to go after a guy they really like on draft day.
Look around the league. The teams that are consistently near the top of the pile tend to be the ones who like to amass draft picks. The Pats are among the best at it, and they don't suck when it comes to deciding when to part ways with veterans neither.
The biggest issue I have with the trade from New England's perspective is that if they had kept Moss for the entire season, he would have almost certainly earned them a compensatory third round pick when he signed elsewhere. So in exchange for given up the services of Moss for the remaining 12 games (plus any playoffs), they only get the 3rd round pick sooner (2011 instead of 2012) and higher (slotted in Minnesota's spot, rather than end of the line). That seems like poor value, unless they were convinced they had to get rid of Moss.
It is the policy of the documentary crew to remain true observers and not interfere with its subjects. "Well. Shit." -hansen9j Let's Go Riders! (9-4, 2nd West Division) Go Pack Go! (3-1, T-1st NFC North)
Since I'm going to entirely ignore the nonsense in much of the above, allow me to make a point about THIS point:
Originally posted by hansen9jThe biggest issue I have with the trade from New England's perspective is that if they had kept Moss for the entire season, he would have almost certainly earned them a compensatory third round pick when he signed elsewhere.
This is true. BUT! You can't trade those compensatory draft picks, so they are not of equal value to the one they acquired from Minnesota in terms of being an asset to the Patriots.
Holy fuck shit motherfucker shit. Read comics. Fuck shit shit fuck shit I sold out when I did my job. Fuck fuck fuck shit fuck. Sorry had to do it....
*snip*
Revenge of the Sith = one thumb up from me. Fuck shit. I want to tittie fuck your ass. -- The Guinness. to Cerebus
Originally posted by JayJayDeanSince I'm going to entirely ignore the nonsense in much of the above, allow me to make a point about THIS point:
Originally posted by hansen9jThe biggest issue I have with the trade from New England's perspective is that if they had kept Moss for the entire season, he would have almost certainly earned them a compensatory third round pick when he signed elsewhere.
This is true. BUT! You can't trade those compensatory draft picks, so they are not of equal value to the one they acquired from Minnesota in terms of being an asset to the Patriots.
Also there is real draft day value in having a pick a year earlier. As a rule of thumb (and I am grossly over-simplifying) you can trade away your pick THIS year for a better pick next year - like a 2011 3rd rounder for a 2012 2nd rounder.
The Pats do this all the time, so much so that sometimes its frustrating because it seems like they are always trading their draft picks for more future draft picks. On the other hand, there is a reason that the Patriots had what 10 players drafted this year while some teams (Cleveland?) only had 4 picks.
Originally posted by LlakorAlso there is real draft day value in having a pick a year earlier. As a rule of thumb (and I am grossly over-simplifying) you can trade away your pick THIS year for a better pick next year - like a 2011 3rd rounder for a 2012 2nd rounder.
I shortened my original post from having that comment, but I guess I might as well say it. I agree with your math about the 2nd rounder, so basically they traded 12+ games of Randy Moss and an (inflexible) 3rd rounder for a 2nd rounder. Does that seem like a good trade?
It is the policy of the documentary crew to remain true observers and not interfere with its subjects. "Well. Shit." -hansen9j Let's Go Riders! (9-4, 2nd West Division) Go Pack Go! (3-1, T-1st NFC North)
Originally posted by LlakorAlso there is real draft day value in having a pick a year earlier. As a rule of thumb (and I am grossly over-simplifying) you can trade away your pick THIS year for a better pick next year - like a 2011 3rd rounder for a 2012 2nd rounder.
I shortened my original post from having that comment, but I guess I might as well say it. I agree with your math about the 2nd rounder, so basically they traded 12+ games of Randy Moss and an (inflexible) 3rd rounder for a 2nd rounder. Does that seem like a good trade?
12+ games of a sulking, embittered Randy Moss? It's not a perfect solution, but I will take it. Yep, I am still drinking the Belichek Kool-Aid.
Also I saw the post-season with Moss and no Welker. I think I would rather take my chances with Welker and no Moss.
Both Bill Simmons and Aaron Schatz of Football Outsiders* are saying that the Moss in New England situation was incredibly toxic and that the move HAD to happen. So if that's the case, then never mind my prior arguments.
Also, Adam Schefter reported yesterday that Randy Moss restructured his contract with the Vikings. In what way, you ask? Was it more years? No. Was it more money? No. Was it the Vikings contratually promising to not franchise Moss, and thus give up any leverage in trying to re-sign him at the end of the year? Yes. Yes it was. Wow, Minny; wow.
*Yes, I get the irony of an "outsider" having inside information.
It is the policy of the documentary crew to remain true observers and not interfere with its subjects. "Well. Shit." -hansen9j Let's Go Riders! (9-4, 2nd West Division) Go Pack Go! (3-1, T-1st NFC North)
Originally posted by hansen9jBoth Bill Simmons and Aaron Schatz of Football Outsiders* are saying that the Moss in New England situation was incredibly toxic and that the move HAD to happen. So if that's the case, then never mind my prior arguments.
Also, Adam Schefter reported yesterday that Randy Moss restructured his contract with the Vikings. In what way, you ask? Was it more years? No. Was it more money? No. Was it the Vikings contratually promising to not franchise Moss, and thus give up any leverage in trying to re-sign him at the end of the year? Yes. Yes it was. Wow, Minny; wow.
*Yes, I get the irony of an "outsider" having inside information.
I agree with this move on Minnesota's part. Assuming that Favre's gone at the end of the year, you can't run the risk of Moss being a malcontent next year if Tavaris Jackson is still the same Tavaris Jackson that made the Vikings want Favre in the first place.
It's an all or nothing type move. They're getting Moss strictly as a rental for Favre. If they can't win with him, they won't need him next year anyway, because they'll have Sydney Rice back at 100%, with none of the headaches.
We're flying a giant orange "CONAN" blimp over the baseball playoffs. Finally, subtlety in advertising. @ConanOBrien
Originally posted by hansen9jBoth Bill Simmons and Aaron Schatz of Football Outsiders* are saying that the Moss in New England situation was incredibly toxic and that the move HAD to happen. So if that's the case, then never mind my prior arguments.
Also, Adam Schefter reported yesterday that Randy Moss restructured his contract with the Vikings. In what way, you ask? Was it more years? No. Was it more money? No. Was it the Vikings contratually promising to not franchise Moss, and thus give up any leverage in trying to re-sign him at the end of the year? Yes. Yes it was. Wow, Minny; wow.
*Yes, I get the irony of an "outsider" having inside information.
I agree with this move on Minnesota's part. Assuming that Favre's gone at the end of the year, you can't run the risk of Moss being a malcontent next year if Tavaris Jackson is still the same Tavaris Jackson that made the Vikings want Favre in the first place.
It's an all or nothing type move. They're getting Moss strictly as a rental for Favre. If they can't win with him, they won't need him next year anyway, because they'll have Sydney Rice back at 100%, with none of the headaches.
Rice is also a free agent at the end of the year. But at least they'll have Percy Harvin's headaches! (/rimshot)
It is the policy of the documentary crew to remain true observers and not interfere with its subjects. "Well. Shit." -hansen9j Let's Go Riders! (9-4, 2nd West Division) Go Pack Go! (3-1, T-1st NFC North)