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 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456789101112 LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 168
  1. #151
    swatter555's Avatar
    swatter555 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    MO
    Posts
    484
    Rep Power
    16

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

    Quote Originally Posted by berg8309 View Post
    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.
    I dont see why you couldn't call the guy and see where he is.

    Like I said, the last several years he has been rather low key. I just don't think your level of pessimism is warranted.

    And I think the most important point of all- If you are correct on all counts, he can be cut with no loss to us. If I am correct, we get a very good player at our neediest position. This is a no lose position.

    To blindly pass up Moss is to be conservative beyond reason. Good play from Moss would be the tipping factor in a Rams drive for the playoffs.


  2. #152
    Fat Pang's Avatar
    Fat Pang is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    1,603
    Rep Power
    64

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

    I'm going to say no.

    The guy talks himself out of New England, spends three weeks in Minnesota and manages to talk himself onto the waiver wire and we want to bring him into an environment where the best thing we have going is collective effort and players who play for each other?

    Does he really fit that model?

    In an ideal world where players are the sum of their Madden ratings this is a move I might make but its not and I won't. I wouldn't compromise our resurgence for a guy who has proved that he doesn't do well with adversity.

    Sends the wrong message to the team in my view.

  3. #153
    laram0's Avatar
    laram0 is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Age
    57
    Posts
    9,275
    Rep Power
    109

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Fat Pang View Post
    I'm going to say no.

    The guy talks himself out of New England, spends three weeks in Minnesota and manages to talk himself onto the waiver wire and we want to bring him into an environment where the best thing we have going is collective effort and players who play for each other?

    Does he really fit that model?

    In an ideal world where players are the sum of their Madden ratings this is a move I might make but its not and I won't. I wouldn't compromise our resurgence for a guy who has proved that he doesn't do well with adversity.

    Sends the wrong message to the team in my view.
    If he can come on board and keep his mouth shut then I'm interested. Otherwise......pass

    GO RAMS!

  4. #154
    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
    And I think the most important point of all- If you are correct on all counts, he can be cut with no loss to us. If I am correct, we get a very good player at our neediest position. This is a no lose position.

    To blindly pass up Moss is to be conservative beyond reason. Good play from Moss would be the tipping factor in a Rams drive for the playoffs.
    The ability to cut him is the best reason that's been given for why we can pick him up. Dismissing concerns as non-factors is what bothers me. At the end of the day, if Spags and Devaney think he'll be cut, they won't bother picking him up and wasting money. If he is cut by his third team, it is pretty much a guarantee he will make it through waivers and that team will be stuck with the bill. Argument about the non-existant cap and wal-mart money aside, guys like Kroenke still don't like just throwing money around, he'll want to be sure it is worth it.

    It'll be interesting to see if they claim him, or if a team claims him that is ahead of the Rams, it is all a moot point.

  5. #155
    PeoriaRam's Avatar
    PeoriaRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    2,173
    Rep Power
    40

    Re: Randy Moss is available...

    Quote Originally Posted by RamsInfiniti View Post
    Because it does NOTHING to help this team long term ...
    I'd argue that showing the players that management is willing to take the steps to win does help this team long term by further breaking the loser mentality?

    It takes reps away from receivers that need them to develop ...
    Look at it this way-Gilyard gets more time on the bench to learn the playbook and less time to be a minor liability out on the field. Of course, Moss would be the #1 receiver, right? Hasn't everybody penciled in "Non-existent, but soon to be drafted high Receiver X" as next year's #1? If that's the case, why are we concerned about taking away reps in that position.

    Moss is a one-trick pony. I want players that want to be here, not a one-shot, passing through town primadonna ...
    That's a good way to hover at 5 to 6 wins until Doomsday, because the list of people who WANT to play in St. Louis and are good is rather thin.

    Moss APPEARS to have matured on the outside, but nothing has changed ...

    And he's going to want a ton here, he will expect every ball to be thrown his way ...
    Our best receiver is Danny Amendola. I love Danny, but when you can be described as a "scrappy hobbit" there is no way you should be a #1 wideout and get that many balls thrown to him.

    To this point, the Rams have not sold out to win an extra game or two short term, or put fans in the seats ...
    Maybe they should. This is a business after all.

    They are trying to win championships. Adding Moss does not help this goal, unless a NFC west division championship is all you strive for ...
    And you know what, an NFC West Championship is all we could realistically hope for at the start of the season. So what's the problem with trying to win the division this season? Moss doesn't have to be around next season.

    We can win that without Moss ...
    Debatable. We need to win on the road first.

  6. #156
    C-Mob 71's Avatar
    C-Mob 71 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    S. Illinois
    Posts
    1,506
    Rep Power
    45

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

    Quote Originally Posted by berg8309 View Post
    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.

    I was thinking about going back and finding all of my "excellent" Vincent Jackson quotes and just replacing his name with Moss.

    You have to understand, we weren't getting Jackson on the field until after the bye, I had faith in this team to start out strong, but I still felt we needed that "deep threat". With the emergence of Mark Clayton, my desires were subsided. As they were when DX started to show what he was capable of. Well now that they are hurt, I think it only makes sense to pick up Moss. The second half of our schedule is going to be much tougher, especially if the ***** start playing up to their expectations. A guy like Moss, with no strings attached to him, will only help our team. If I'm wrong, just cut him. Easy.

  7. #157
    RebelYell's Avatar
    RebelYell is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    St. Louis ,Missouri
    Posts
    2,390
    Rep Power
    45

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Fat Pang View Post

    In an ideal world where players are the sum of their Madden ratings this is a move I might make but its not and I won't. I wouldn't compromise our resurgence for a guy who has proved that he doesn't do well with adversity.

    Sends the wrong message to the team in my view.
    This is what I'm agreeing with. Spags is all about giving 100% on every play and if you do that, good things will happen. Moss is the exact opposite. Can't see how that could possibly work with his team. In New England the leaders on that squad were seasoned veterans. In St. Louis the leaders are in their first or second year. Not the same dynamic. As the veteran leaders took the back seat in New England or left, Moss again became a distraction.

  8. #158
    PeoriaRam's Avatar
    PeoriaRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    2,173
    Rep Power
    40

    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.
    I think a lot of players are quitting on the Vikings (or at least on Childress). Harvin came out with some comments that were almost equally insubordinate, and shoot, Favre undermines Childress at every turn.

    If I may make a comparison, everyone remembers Linehan's last week, in which he cut Fakhir Brown, and tried to cut/trade Holt (before being told he lacked the authority to make that call) in a final fit of paranoid "Arrgh! enemies surround me and are going to get me fired, so I'll get them first and wreck the team further as well!" Childress is in that stage.

  9. #159
    RebelYell's Avatar
    RebelYell is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    St. Louis ,Missouri
    Posts
    2,390
    Rep Power
    45

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

    Quote Originally Posted by PeoriaRam View Post
    I think a lot of players are quitting on the Vikings (or at least on Childress). Harvin came out with some comments that were almost equally insubordinate, and shoot, Favre undermines Childress at every turn.

    If I may make a comparison, everyone remembers Linehan's last week, in which he cut Fakhir Brown, and tried to cut/trade Holt (before being told he lacked the authority to make that call) in a final fit of paranoid "Arrgh! enemies surround me and are going to get me fired, so I'll get them first and wreck the team further as well!" Childress is in that stage.
    We should sign quitters because they won't quit when we really need to count on them? How many players that quit on Linehan are still on this roster? Once a quitter, always a quitter.

    Favre is undermining Childress because he wants to stay on the field and give 100%. Not the other way around.

  10. #160
    PeoriaRam's Avatar
    PeoriaRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    2,173
    Rep Power
    40

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

    Quote Originally Posted by RebelYell View Post
    We should sign quitters because they won't quit when we really need to count on them? How many players that quit on Linehan are still on this roster? Once a quitter, always a quitter.

    Favre is undermining Childress because he wants to stay on the field and give 100%. Not the other way around.
    Yeah, just flat out ignoring Childress' playcalls is only about giving 100% and staying on the field. Brett Favre wanting to stay on the field is only about Brett Favre, not about what's best for the Vikings

    /OT

    In such a situation, are you surprised when other players denounce the coach?

  11. #161
    RebelYell's Avatar
    RebelYell is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    St. Louis ,Missouri
    Posts
    2,390
    Rep Power
    45

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

    Quote Originally Posted by PeoriaRam View Post
    Yeah, just flat out ignoring Childress' playcalls is only about giving 100% and staying on the field. Brett Favre wanting to stay on the field is only about Brett Favre, not about what's best for the Vikings

    /OT

    In such a situation, are you surprised when other players denounce the coach?
    This doesn't make any sense. Favre has always been all about Favre. It's what he does and the team rewarded him with a $3 million bonus for staying in Mississippi when camp opened to lure him AGAIN back to the field. I'm not sure how that's even relevant.

    Moss has always been a quitter. Childress calls all the offensive plays for the Vikings? He isn't the offensive coordinator of the Vikings. Regardless, this is a guy who routinely has taken the Vikings to the playoffs. Play calling all of a sudden becomes a red herring when the team is losing.

  12. #162
    PeoriaRam's Avatar
    PeoriaRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    2,173
    Rep Power
    40

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

    Quote Originally Posted by RebelYell View Post
    This doesn't make any sense. Favre has always been all about Favre. It's what he does and the team rewarded him with a $3 million bonus for staying in Mississippi when camp opened to lure him AGAIN back to the field. I'm not sure how that's even relevant.
    The organization/coach blatantly rewards a guy who spent all last season undermining his coach, staying away during training camp, and generally behaving in a way that is detrimental to the Vikings, and you don't think that's relevant to the insubordinate behavior of other Vikings? Ummmmm.....What.

    Moss has always been a quitter. Childress calls all the offensive plays for the Vikings? He isn't the offensive coordinator of the Vikings. Regardless, this is a guy who routinely has taken the Vikings to the playoffs. Play calling all of a sudden becomes a red herring when the team is losing.
    You're missing my point. Favre is overriding the coach's decisions in the huddle and the locker room. It's not the nature of the plays that is the problem with the Vikings per se, its just that their self-centered mercenary quarterback is challenging their coach's decisions on a regular basis which naturally reduces the coach's standing with the rest of the team. And of course Childress is making the whole thing worse by enabling Favre. For example, by starting him on Sunday even though healthy QB (even if its Tavaris Jackson) > injured, virtually immobile QB.

  13. #163
    GolfnRAMFAN is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    322
    Rep Power
    10

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

    Does anybody remember how good Wes Welker got with Moss on the field with him? Everybody calls Amendola a poor man's Wes Welker. IMO, if Moss puts on Horns, Amendola becomes a clone Wes Welker.

  14. #164
    RebelYell's Avatar
    RebelYell is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    St. Louis ,Missouri
    Posts
    2,390
    Rep Power
    45

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

    Quote Originally Posted by GolfnRAMFAN View Post
    Does anybody remember how good Wes Welker got with Moss on the field with him? Everybody calls Amendola a poor man's Wes Welker. IMO, if Moss puts on Horns, Amendola becomes a clone Wes Welker.
    Wes Welker was pretty huge in Miami before he met with Moss. Does this mean if the Rams had gotten Moss last year, Bulger would have been the next Tom Brady?

  15. #165
    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?

    Here is an article just posted on ESPN.com, I don't see an author listed.

    Randy Moss, who is expected to be waived by the Minnesota Vikings on Tuesday, may have alienated some teammates when he roundly criticized a post-practice meal in front of the local restaurant owners who catered it, Yahoo! Sports reported.

    Every Friday, the Vikings invite a local establishment to cater the team's post-practice meal. Last Friday, it was a St. Paul restaurant -- a favorite of former Vikings center Matt Birk -- that served chicken, pasta, ribs and other dishes.


    While his teammates lined up to dig in, Moss lashed out, according to the report.

    Moss yelled "What the [expletive]? Who ordered this crap? I wouldn't feed this to my dog," a player who witnessed the incident said, according to Yahoo! Sports.

    The Vikings decided to cut ties with Moss on Monday, despite having given up a third-round draft choice to acquire him from the New England Patriots a month ago.

    "This decision was made based on what we thought was in the best interests of the Minnesota Vikings, both in the short and long term," coach Brad Childress said in a statement. "We wish Randy the best as he moves forward in his career."

    Moss' name did not appear on the league's official waiver report Monday, but he could be awarded to another team as early as Wednesday.

    The player who witnessed Moss' food tirade called it "an uncomfortable moment," adding that he felt Moss deserved to be cut after the incident, Yahoo! Sports reported.

    "This wasn't a chain -- it was a mom-and-pop restaurant, and you could tell it was their best stuff," the witness said, according to the report. "And [Moss] is at his locker saying, 'You know, I used to have to eat that crap -- but now I've got money.' You just felt so sad for them. I had never seen anyone treated like that.

    "And by the way, the food was actually really good."

    A source who was at a team meeting on Monday, in which Childress informed the Vikings that Moss would be leaving, said it was clear the coach was referring to Moss' criticism of the locker-room meal when he said "This just doesn't fit with how we treat people, how we talk to people and how we act," according to Yahoo! Sports.

    Moss' perceived lack of effort in the Vikings' last two games and his postgame comments after Sunday's loss at New England have widely been seen as reasons for the Vikings giving up on the wide receiver after a month.

    Following the Vikings' 28-18 loss to the Patriots, in which Moss had one catch for 8 yards, the veteran receiver announced that he would not be answering any more questions from the media for the rest of the season.

    He also criticized the Vikings for not heeding his advice on certain plays the Patriots were likely to use against the Vikings. He also expressed his admiration for the Patriots.

    "I'm definitely down that we lost this game. I didn't expect we'd lose this game," Moss said. "I don't know how many more times I'll be in New England again. But I leave coach Belichick and those guys with a salute: 'I love you guys. I miss you. I'm out.' "

    On Monday, Childress disagreed with Moss' assertion that the Vikings ignored the receiver's advice.

    "I think we did a pretty good job of heeding it, both offensively and defensively," Childress said, according to the Minneapolis Star Tribune. "He gave us some windows into how we thought they would end up playing. That's obviously in his eyes."

    A team can claim Moss and pick up the final year of a contract that pays him $6.4 million in base salary. Winless Buffalo has the worst record in the league and the first shot to claim Moss, followed by Carolina and Dallas (Cowboys owner Jerry Jones said Tuesday he will not claim Moss). If no team claims him, the Vikings owe Moss the remaining $3.388 million on his deal. He'd be available for around $450,000 and Moss could choose the team he would like to join.

    Various league sources told ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter that the Washington Redskins, Chicago Bears, St. Louis Rams, Miami Dolphins, Oakland Raiders, Kansas City Chiefs, Seattle Seahawks, New York Jets and even the Patriots are among the teams possibly interested in claiming Moss.
    Seems to me like he didn't have the overwhelming support and adoration of the locker room as some suggested. You wanted some evidence he can be problematic in the clubhouse, well this article at least sheds some light on it. Obviously a food tirade isn't a reason not to get a guy, but some suggested that he is basically a popular figure in the clubhouse and only clashes with coaches. This suggests otherwise at least.

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
  •