Blogs
Guest Blogs
Why do we Celebrate Randy Moss? by Richard Hagar | Why do we Celebrate Randy Moss? by Richard Hagar |
|
|
|
| Written by Foresight | |
| Monday, 19 November 2007 | |
|
As John Madden mentioned on Sunday Night Football, Randy Moss went from being the best non-quarterback player in the NFL while with the Vikings to seeing his statistics nosedive for a couple years off while with the Raiders and finally returning to form this season with the Patriots. Looking only at his touchdowns, Moss had thirteen touchdowns in 2004 with the Vikings, eight touchdowns in 2005 with the Raiders, 3 touchdowns in 2006 with the Raiders, and now twelve touchdowns through nine games in 2007 with the Patriots. At first I justified Moss' resurgence by arguing to myself that he is simply a product of the quarterback throwing the ball. While its true that he never had a frontline quarterback throwing him the ball while with Oakland and he now has the best quarterback in the game throwing him the ball in New England, there is such a divergence in his statistics that it cannot explain everything. After watching several Patriots games recently, the truth of the matter is that a lot of the balls Brady is throwing to Moss are not "perfect" passes. Instead, Brady is (smartly) relying on Moss' ability and simply chucking the ball in the air in Moss' direction and allowing his receiver to make a play on the ball. The only problem with this is that any quarterback in the NFL (and quite a few armchair quarterbacks) could do the exact same thing. Maybe not every quarterback will have as good a touch on the ball as Brady does, but with the separation Moss gets when he bothers to run his routes, the throw does not have to be perfect to still be an easy completion. The problem this brings up, and which every sports analyst seems to do his best to ignore as they extol Moss's virtues, is that the only credible explanation for Moss' statistical falloff while with the Raiders is that he gave up on his team. Returning to Madden, during the Patriots-Buffalo contest, Madden attempted to explain away the fall-off by mentioning how there was a common perception that Moss had simply lost a step or that he wasn’t what he once was. Madden, like so many other analysts, then refused to take the next step and analyze why Moss had fallen off so sharply with the Raiders since the common perception was so obviously wrong. I don’t have a problem with announcers and commentators talking about all of the positives Moss brings to a team. He is an incredible football player with once-in-a-generation talent. However, don’t pretend to ignore all of his faults as well. Don’t pretend like Moss simply lost a step during two of his prime athletic years and then somehow regained it as he moved on. Don’t pretend that Moss is a good teammate because he is once again putting up huge statistics and his team is winning. I bet you his old Raider teammates have a little different opinion of just how good a teammate he really is. Comments
(3)
You discount happiness as a factor in job performance. Moss is happy now, therefore he is performing to his potential. You even said in his numbers, eight touchdowns in 2005 with the Raiders, 3 touchdowns in 2006 with the Raiders. He faced injury and not being happy on a terrible team with a bad coach and team environment. No, he didn't contribute to making the environment better, but he isn't superman either. Give the guy a break. There is no denying his greatness. We celebrate Randy Moss for the same reason you dedicated an entire article to the guy. He's great!
Great article! No smut loving mother should do with out!
you make some valid points but Moss is balling now cuz he's in a better place. Football is like a job-- you tend to work harder, put in more effort, and perform better when you are somewhere you are happy. Every week after every Patriot win I see Moss grinning ear to ear. Dude is happy. Was he happy with the Raiders? Not so much
Copyright 2007. All Rights Reserved. |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Subscribe to our free week in review newsletter. The "name" field is optional.