Ok, so anyone in Patriot nation not living under a rock knows that we traded Moss for the Viking’s 3rd round pick the other day. While I know many that are absolutely livid there are also others that are glad, either Randy rubbed them the wrong way of they just didnt like the direction the offense took with Randy, it’s a certainty that things will be ‘interesting’ moving on.
While I think the move will hurt in the short term I think it’ll be very good for the team in the long run. At the heart of the issue is money, Moss wanted long term security and obviously felt very uncomfortable not having a long term extension in place and it manifested in odd ways: after last season ended Moss claimed the Patriots organization “didn’t pay” even though they’d been cutting him some of the biggest checks to a WR in the league. Immediately after he said that I wanted to trade him then, what an absolute shithead thing to say right when the team is entering into negotiations with players whose contracts were up.
Did he really think he was doing himself any favors by trying to make the atmosphere more hostile to the front office? I don’t think that deep down he wanted to harm the teams contract efforts but I do think he started to feel a bit exposed, as he only had 1 more year left and he wanted an extension for himself. Then there’s the 16 minute press conference when he said he’s “playing his last season in New England”, did he think management would run to him with a fat contract begging him to stay?
I really don’t think he considered that, I think he was acting out of emotion: he felt desperation and that makes you do crazy things.
As for the Patriots, they’re obviously concerned with the next 5-7 years more than the next 5-7 games. They simply didnt want to shell out big money for a slightly built 34yr old receiver who’s game is dependant on out-running and out-jumping people. It certainly seems that his skills have diminished since he first got here in 2007. They also have a very young locker room and Belichick thought keeping the atmosphere good was more important than what Randy brought to the table.
So, count me in the thumbs up category. I think with Moss being gone it’ll be more difficult to make a 50yd play but I think being able to use Julien Edelman will make it easier to get the 1st down, which is the main thing I’m concerned with anyway. We had no problem moving the chains and scoring touchdowns before we got Moss so I don’t believe the sky is falling now that he’s no longer here, we’ll get by. On a different note, let’s all pray that Moss has a KILLER game against the Jets because it’ll hurt the Jets and because it will be a nice serviing of STFU to ass-clown Darelle Revis, who feels the need to talk smack about as often as Rex Ryan hits the buffet table.
Next up, DRAFT STRATEGERY!
This results from the constart mantra I hear from sportscasters about how teams should go about picking players, how ‘the team should pick the best player available’ and there doesn’t seem to be much more behind that statement to give it context.
Despite claims to the contrary the most effective strategery for selecting players is that which gives you the most impact, and this doesnt necessarily mean getting the best player. Now I know this seems counter-intuitive but bare with me for a minute.
Let’s take the Minnesota Vikings heading into the 2011 draft, now because Brett Favre is retiring (if you actually believe that please PM me ASAP as I have a FANTASTIC deal on some oceanfront property in Arizona I’d like to talk to you about), and the best player available is Runningback Mark Ingram, should they pick him because he’s the best player available?
The “best” player is relative to the impact that player makes to your team, if the Vikings picked up Ingram he wouldn’t get much playing time because they already have Adrian Peterson, who I think is better than Ingram, and it would not address the giant gaping hole (no homo) they have at the QB position. Ingram might be the best in absolute terms but it’s be a spectacular waste because it would do very little for the team, especially compared to how effective they’d be as a unit if they drafted a good QB.
It all comes down to whatever will get you the most bang for your buck, somtimes that means trading down and getting several good players before you make a move for a great player and sometimes it means trading up and zeroing in on specific pieces of the puzzle, sometimes the sniper rifle sometimes the shotgun, ying/jan, each have their place.
How to tell when someone’s full of shit.
Do they feel the need to force and intimidate you or would they prefer to presuade you with reason? If one has solid logic behind their argument then you can probably feel pretty secure that most people will see that the point is reasonable and agree with you, this isn’t an absolute lock as many people often have opinions that are based on emotion and an iron-clad argument from Spock himself won’t do the slightest bit of good but such is life.
When it comes to the “climate change” debate there’s been a rather surprising and disgusting ad that’s been released, better than describe it I encourage you to take a look and judge for yourselves.
Now, if the data supporting “climate change” (now referred to as “Climate disruption” in some circles) was THAT iron-clad would they need to try to intimidate people with threats of violence?