Moss to Redskins?

[Chavez]

Well, I don't necessarily disagree with the team chemistry point.  Then again, TO didn't exactly destroy Philly's team chemistry (despite what some of the pundits predicted).

I think part of the "chemistry" thing is you have to keep the number of bad apples low (how many other "bad character" guys do the Eagles have) and have entrenched positive leaders. A no-nonsense coach doesn't hurt either. Note TO's attitude got bad after Young and Rice left; he was THE MAN for the franchise, really; who was going to sit him down? Charlie Garner? Jeff Garcia? A POSITIVE sign for the Vikes is that Pep and Birk seem to be stepping up and grabbing the bull by the horns (as they should - they're both All-Pro level players). In both cases the head coach either lost or never had control of the player, which is a bad situation.

 

In Philly, TO is Gilligan to the Skipper(s) of McNabb and Reid

I still think that Moss is more valuable than Reed for three reasons:

 

(1) Moss is, easily, the most talented WR in the game today.  In terms of pure talent, he's probably better than Jerry Rice in his prime.  While Ed Reed is a VERY good SS, he's not Ronnie Lott.

I agree on Moss's PURE physical talent; but IMO you gotta have the want-to and work ethic to get over the hump. Hate to bang the NE drum, and they may even be the aberration, but at how many positions do they have the best guy in the league? Or top 5 even? But they play disciplined, smart, and hard.

(2) Having a stud SS, IMO, is less important than having a stud WR.  Strong safety isn't as much of an "impact position" on defense as DE or MLB.  On the other hand, the TO and the Eagles are a perfect example of WR being an "impact position" on offense.

I think SS IS (or can be) an impact defensive position. At least as impactful as WR in the scheme of things. Roy Williams, Ed Reed, Brian Dawkins change games and make plays. Having just watched Mark Roman stink up Green Bay more than the paper mills, I CAN tell you what having a BAD strong safety does to your defense.

(3) The Ravens need a stud WR more than they need a stud SS.  There are a lot of great players on that defense.  On the other hand, Baltimore's offense (their passing game, in particular) is in dire need of help.

 

665668[/snapback]

 

 

 

I think the 3rd point is relative - will Moss' improvement of the Bal offense offset the weakening of their D? As was the argument that Reed is further ahead of the pack at SS than Moss is at WR (not that I necessarily agree 100% with that, but it's something to think about).

[Chavez]

LMAO @ Arrington being refered to "the most overrated" then "elite".  

 

664528[/snapback]

 

 

 

Ya might wanna re-read Swerski's post, Fraz:

 

Agreed.  Arrington is one of the most overrated players in the league.  Buchannon is a decent CB but, like Arrington, isn't an "elite" player at his position.

 

664184[/snapback]

 

 

 

[Bill Swerski]

I think SS IS (or can be) an impact defensive position. At least as impactful as WR in the scheme of things. Roy Williams, Ed Reed, Brian Dawkins change games and make plays. Having just watched Mark Roman stink up Green Bay more than the paper mills, I CAN tell you what having a BAD strong safety does to your defense.

 

666185[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Agreed about Dawkins, but Roy Williams is almost a liability in coverage. Reed's quickly becoming a stud, but I don't quite think that he's at Dawkins' level yet or at the level of, say, John Lynch in his prime.

 

Also, it's a lot easier for guys like Reed, Dawkins, and Lynch to look great with a supporting cast of defensive studs. Look what happened to John Lynch when he left Brooks, Barber, Kelly, Sapp, and McFarland in TB. Similarly, I think that a guy like Mike Doss, who looks good-but-not-great on a bad Colts defense, would look a hell of a lot better on the Ravens.

 

I still think that Baltimore could benefit more from Randy Moss than Ed Reed, if for no other reason than they DESPERATELY need to improve their passing game.

[Chavez]

Agreed about Dawkins, but Roy Williams is almost a liability in coverage.  Reed's quickly becoming a stud, but I don't quite think that he's at Dawkins' level yet or at the level of, say, John Lynch in his prime.

Hate to do something that might get you in a snit, but ripping on Williams' coverage ability and then invoking the name of John Lynch makes me ; I saw someone refer to Lynch as a glorified Chuck Cecil, and I'm inclined to agree. Not that heinous coverage necessarily makes me think a SS is worthless, just that it's a position where coverage ability is not the be-all, end-all. Lynch was obviously a productive and important member of the TB def, but not for his coverage ability.

Also, it's a lot easier for guys like Reed, Dawkins, and Lynch to look great with a supporting cast of defensive studs.  Look what happened to John Lynch when he left Brooks, Barber, Kelly, Sapp, and McFarland in TB.  Similarly, I think that a guy like Mike Doss, who looks good-but-not-great on a bad Colts defense, would look a hell of a lot better on the Ravens.

Can't argue with that, though I think Lynch's decline had age and injury as heavily contributing factors.

I still think that Baltimore could benefit more from Randy Moss than Ed Reed, if for no other reason than they DESPERATELY need to improve their passing game.

 

666231[/snapback]

 

 

 

Very true. Baltimore's offense is Atlanta's without Mike Vick.

[Retrograde assault]

Total bull***. Moss is only a cancer in the eyes of the MEDIA. The guy has not worn out his welcome with the team.

 

664235[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Glad you like him and I hope you get to keep him, but his level of effort against the Eagles last week was less than inspiring imo. I know he was dragging a lame ankle around the field but he looked more interested in starting the off season than heading to Atlanta. Heres a toast to Randy and his loyal Viking fans!