View Poll Results: Should the Rams make an offer to Moss?

Voters
115. You may not vote on this poll
  • Make him an offer for the last 8 games

    96 83.48%
  • NO...thank you

    19 16.52%
Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 168
  1. #136
    swatter555's Avatar
    swatter555 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    MO
    Posts
    484
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Randy Moss is available...

    I could see this playing out in 3 major scenarios if Moss is signed:

    1) Moss is moderately productive on-field, but becomes a distraction in the locker room by demanding the ball too much and making the occasional press gaff. His time in St.Louis is forgetable. Least likely, IMO.

    2) Moss is productive on-field, stretching defenses a bit and making the occasional spectacular catch. Moss makes a few comments during his time in St.Louis that raise some eyebrows, but generally keeps his mouth shut. Most likely scenario.

    3) Moss is highly productive and becomes very happy as a result. He keeps his mouth shut because he has little to complain about. Moss helps the Rams win a couple of key games and helps propel them into the playoffs. Moderately likely. Moderate chance of re-signing Moss.

    Unless some sort of scenario unfolds where the wheels completely come off, I really cannot see why we shouldn't give it a shot. The Rams can compete now, we just need another piece to make it come together. Moss may or may not be the solution, but it is a good risk to take with absolutely minimal downside.


  2. #137
    MoonJoe's Avatar
    MoonJoe is offline Ram MVP
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Norco, CA
    Age
    49
    Posts
    1,440
    Rep Power
    42

    Re: Randy Moss is available...

    1. We're hurting at receiver
    2. He's half the cancer TO is.
    3. He would get a lot of throws being the number one receiver.

    I say sign him for the last eight and then cut him.
    "The disappointment of losing is huge!"

    Jack Youngblood

  3. #138
    sosa39rams's Avatar
    sosa39rams is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Hamilton, On
    Posts
    5,454
    Rep Power
    43

    Re: Randy Moss is available...

    If Moss tried any whining Steven Jackson would shut him right up

  4. #139
    molar_pistol is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    az
    Posts
    938
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Vikings waived Moss - Should the Rams be interested?

    i'd like the front office to talk to him and consider it, but i can't really say whether or not he'd help or hurt this team, depends on where his head's at. no he doesn't help us long term, but if he's cheap a little short term boost wouldn't be a bad thing, especially since none of our healthy young receivers are likely to get any better with extra reps this year. i like robinson is gone either way, and amendola/gibson should still get their looks.

  5. #140
    berg8309's Avatar
    berg8309 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,899
    Rep Power
    42

    Re: Vikings waived Moss - Should the Rams be interested?

    Guess we have to wait until Wednesday to find out where Moss goes since the Vikings missed the 4pm deadline to waive. That seems like an odd procedural miscue to me. What is going on in that front office?

  6. #141
    RockinRam's Avatar
    RockinRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    4,079
    Rep Power
    44

    Re: Vikings waived Moss - Should the Rams be interested?

    General Counsel's points are right on the mark.


    Also, our young receivers do not have any solid veteran presence to guide them, teach them some crafty tips, or give them little pointers that can make or break a receiver. Moss has an incredible knowledge about the game, and our receivers would benefit from watching him play and playing besides him.

    He gives us a big threat in the passing game for AT LEAST a year. If he misbehaves (I doubt he will...) we can always cut him for minimal loss.



    Childress is a nut head.

  7. #142
    RockinRam's Avatar
    RockinRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    4,079
    Rep Power
    44

    Re: Vikings waived Moss - Should the Rams be interested?

    Another thing to think about...



    People who do not want Moss in St. Louis, and claim that he will hinder Bradford's progress, answer this.

    Wouldn't having a WR corps filled with average, inconsistent, mediocre players hinder Bradford's progress? I think so.



    Some food for thought.

  8. #143
    berg8309's Avatar
    berg8309 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,899
    Rep Power
    42

    Re: Vikings waived Moss - Should the Rams be interested?

    Quote Originally Posted by RockinRam View Post
    Wouldn't having a WR corps filled with average, inconsistent, mediocre players hinder Bradford's progress? I think so.
    When faced with two evils, choose the lesser of the two. I am mainly worried about him messing up Bradford in the head and undermining his authority as the playcaller on offense. Last thing you need with a rookie QB is a WR who calls his own plays and pouts and stops running when he doesn't get his way.

    Edit: I am not saying Moss does call his own plays, but it should be a consideration that he might want to given his history of pouting combined with a rookie QB.

    Also, in regard to the veteran leadership...do we really want a leader who not only takes plays off, but takes games off? Our whole mantra is that every play matters, but it has always been the case that Moss doesn't always feel like playing full speed. He's been ripped by a few media outlets for giving up on a catchable ball that might have been a TD against the patriots. Is that the kind of leadership the young wideouts need? Talented doesn't always mean good leader or good teacher. I'd rather our young players like Gibson and Gilyard don't take after Moss' tendencies.

  9. #144
    clarasDK is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Denmark
    Age
    39
    Posts
    442
    Rep Power
    16

    Re: Vikings waived Moss - Should the Rams be interested?

    The thing I ask my self about Moss is how well he would fit into our offence.

    Yes he can run down the field and make the deep threat. But he is not much of a route runner. Until now most of our offence has been focussed on running precise and well timed routes. I know this is partly because we do not have a real depp threat.

    The other thing I ask my self is if we should risc our locker room chemistry, maybe for years just to get a early shoot at the playoffs this year. If there is any risc of destroying what we have going for us right now and in the following years with a young core group of players buying into the 4 pillars and playing as a team. I would rather pass on Moss.

  10. #145
    swatter555's Avatar
    swatter555 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    MO
    Posts
    484
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Vikings waived Moss - Should the Rams be interested?

    I think the people who are worried about Bradford and team chemistry are being a little over dramatic. Moss has generally been liked by his teammates and his off-field antics have been minimal in recent years besides the two recent press conferances where he showed poor judgement. I don't think it would be accurate to call him a cancer.

    I think the risk-reward formula here is strongly in favor of picking up Moss, AFTER a personal interview in which he shows interest in coming to Saint Louis and staying low-key.

  11. #146
    Rammed's Avatar
    Rammed is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    407
    Rep Power
    8

    Re: Vikings waived Moss - Should the Rams be interested?

    I say just do it.

    The positives outweigh the negatives at this point in the season. No picks involved, half his salary, no longterm commitment needed and he can be kicked as quick as Belicheat and Silly Chilly did.



    Another thing I hate the words "locker room c*****" just absolutely hate it, for multiple reasons.

  12. #147
    berg8309's Avatar
    berg8309 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,899
    Rep Power
    42

    Re: Vikings waived Moss - Should the Rams be interested?

    Quote Originally Posted by swatter555 View Post
    I think the risk-reward formula here is strongly in favor of picking up Moss, AFTER a personal interview in which he shows interest in coming to Saint Louis and staying low-key.
    Can we do that personal interview when he is on waivers? Or only if he is a free agent?

    Additionally, I don't think I was being over dramatic in my concerns. Spags has made it clear the building a good locker room atmosphere was critical to him. The locker room atmosphere is maintained both by obtaining good character guys who get along with each other, as well as avoiding having players who undermine the coach's authority. I think a lot of people here are dismissing that possibility as either highly unlikely (Despite the fact he did it to both of his last two coaches in just this season) or as a non-factor, and I think both are incorrect. Regardless of where you stand in the end, to just dismiss it without consideration is too short-sighted. It is seeing the forest, but not the trees that make it.

    Anyone who thinks as Spags and Devaney debate whether to put in a claim that they won't consider whether he will undermine the coaches is fooling themselves. They should and will consider that possibility because of their strong emphasis on locker room unity. Now if they determine he won't be a problem, they know more than I do, and I will defer to their knowledge. However from Moss' behavior this year, I have serious concerns about adding a player who is willing to not only undermine his coaches, but tell the media about it. I don't think it is being dramatic, it is just considering an aspect which is important and concluding the opposite of your opinion.
    Last edited by berg8309; -11-02-2010 at 10:28 AM.

  13. #148
    RebelYell's Avatar
    RebelYell is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    St. Louis ,Missouri
    Posts
    2,354
    Rep Power
    44

    Re: Vikings waived Moss - Should the Rams be interested?

    Moss has quit on Vikings, the Raiders and the Vikings again. He has said already he plays when he wants to play. What makes you think he wants to play more then 30% of the time in St. Louis?

    I don't want players on the Rams that quit on their team mates because they don't feel like giving 100%. That's how you destroy a team. People that think this guy is going to come in and be a #1 receiver haven't watched him this year. He's no longer that type of player, sorry.

  14. #149
    BigGameHolt81 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    pennsylvania
    Posts
    53
    Rep Power
    0

    The more i think about it..

    The more i think we need to pick up Randy Moss. I mean the whole bad attitude thing could be a problem, but if it is we can just drop him. It would only be ffor our last 8 games and he would be a huge help. He would draw a double team and then there would be only 9 defenders which will help out Jackson, Amendola, our Te's, and Bradford. We have not been able to score in the 2nd half, but with Moss they will take more chances and their will be an increase in points.

    What do you guys seriously think?

  15. #150
    berg8309's Avatar
    berg8309 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,899
    Rep Power
    42

    Re: Vikings waived Moss - Should the Rams be interested?

    Quote Originally Posted by RebelYell View Post
    Moss has quit on Vikings, the Raiders and the Vikings again. He has said already he plays when he wants to play. What makes you think he wants to play more then 30% of the time in St. Louis?

    I don't want players on the Rams that quit on their team mates because they don't feel like giving 100%. That's how you destroy a team. People that think this guy is going to come in and be a #1 receiver haven't watched him this year. He's no longer that type of player, sorry.
    What is funny to me is how many people were arguing so vehemently before the year that we must add talent even with headaches because it was literally impossible to win without those guys, and here we sit at .500 with a shot at the division without having any players like that. Reading between the lines it seems like that same argument is being made, just without actually saying it. Spags and Devaney have made it clear that they don't want guys who don't play hard, and want to maintain a certain type of locker room (ironically a locker room Jackson probably wouldn't have fit in when he entered the league) and I think whether Moss will be a problem for them because of that will be the deciding factor on whether to put in a claim.

    Also, can you tell I'm bored right now with my constant posting? Been up since 3am.

Similar Threads

  1. Thomas Chat--Jan 6
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -01-07-2009, 08:38 AM
  2. Gordo 2/4/08
    By ramsplaya16 in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -02-04-2008, 07:01 PM
  3. Jim Thomas Live, Nov 20th--Lots of good stuff
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: -11-21-2007, 03:18 PM
  4. Postgame With Gordo
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -10-22-2007, 02:43 PM
  5. Thomas Live
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: -09-19-2007, 01:06 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •