Announcement

**pbmax** · 03-26-2007, 12:50 PM

The rest of their breakdown (note the writer, Ned Macey, in the last paragraph is paying more attention to the ages of the big name players than to T2s track record, so I am discounting the 'win now' observation):

Green Bay Packers
Green Bay management insists there is nothing to the rumored Aaron Rodgers for Randy Moss trade despite numerous reports to the contrary. As self-described â€œoutsidersâ€ we have no information to confirm or deny that report, but we can take a look at whether such a trade makes sense.

From 1998-2003, Randy Moss was a game-breaking receiver who forced defenses to account for him unlike any other active receiver. The 2004 season saw him battle injuries throughout. He was traded to Oakland that off-season and had an underwhelming season in 2005 before an embarrassing season in 2006. The assumption is that the bad situation in Oakland was the cause of his problems, but are there other reasons to be concerned?

Similarity scores are a tool used to compare people to other players who posted similar numbers over a given time period. A quick glance at Mossâ€™ three-year similarity profile is very alarming. (Only yards are listed, but similarity scores also compare catches, touchdowns, and average yards per catch.)

See chart in post above

The names on the left are acceptable if not overly impressive. More than half had over 7,000 receiving yards in their careers. The numbers on the right represent the next season after the similar three-year stretch. Only one receiver had more than 700 yards. Some of these guys had another good season or two in them, but nobody hit 1,000 yards again.

Moss is a different animal because his peak was higher even than that of Rison or Freeman. The other assumption is that Oakland was too dysfunctional and/or Moss just did not care when he was there. Of course, both Ronald Curry and Doug Gabriel had success there the past two seasons. How much of that was attributable to attention paid to Moss is impossible to discern.

The truth is that Moss is 30 years old, and he always relied heavily on his speed to get open. He is not the physical receiver that Terrell Owens is or the master route-runner that Marvin Harrison is. As such, he is not likely to age gracefully, even if freed from Oakland.

A properly motivated Moss is still a valuable commodity for an offense, but whoever acquires him should realize that they are not likely getting that superstar from Minnesota. As such, the rumored trade for Rodgers can only be evaluated based on what is known about the young quarterback. If he is the quarterback of the future, then the Packers should hold on to him. If they think he is limited after watching him in practice for two years, then by all means ship him to Oakland.

The Packers are in a win-now mode, but when Favre, Al Harris, Charles Woodson, Donald Driver and Chad Clifton all ride off into the sunset, they will need competent players to mold with the young talent like A.J. Hawk, Aaron Kampman, and Greg Jennings. If Rodgers is a crucial part of that future, the Packers should not give him up for an aging deep threat.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com

**pbmax** · 03-26-2007, 12:57 PM

Makes for an even more compelling argument that Moss probably is not worth the money, much less the draft pick and QB.

This site also has found that for all but a few exceptional cases, the seventh year of a WR marks the end of peak performance.

**Guiness** · 03-26-2007, 01:41 PM

Although you make some valid points, one of which is that the seventh year marks the beginning of the decline, I think it all goes out the window with Randy.

The guy is unlike any other. That doesn't mean he will succeed, it just means it's near impossible to apply any sort of yardstick to him.

**Merlin** · 03-26-2007, 01:48 PM

Name - Age- 2006 Stats
Marvin Harrison - 34 - 95 Rec, 1366 Yards, 14.4 Ave, 12 TD's
Terrell Owens - 33 - 85 Rec, 1180 Yards, 13.9 Ave, 13 TD's
Torry Holt - 30 - 93 Rec, 1188 Yards, 12.8 Ave, 10 TD's
Isaac Bruce - 34 - 74 Rec, 1098 Yards, 14.8 Ave, 3 TD's
Donald Driver - 32 - 92 Rec, 1295 Yards, 14.1 Ave, 8 TD's
Terry Glenn - 32 - 70 Rec, 1047 Yards, 15.0 Ave, 6 TD's

Judging by the talent that he has been compared to throughout his career, I would say Moss has a good 2-4 years left in him...

**pbmax** · 03-26-2007, 02:39 PM

Moss had an injury plauged year, followed by a comeback and another down year tied to nagging injuries. The receivers you have listed did not have 2 out of three years under 1000 yards due to injuries. In fact, your selection have been remarkably healthy given their age. Only Bruce has an injury history tied to a down year that immediately comes to mind.

And Moss has, as the article states, relied on supernatural ability to compete for the deep ball as well as his superior speed. If he suffers any physical decline, he would suffer more than say Harrison, who excels in more areas.

This isn't to say he isn't capable of another 1000 yd season (Slaughter almost did and Moss has been better), but the decline has begun.

Originally posted by Merlin

Name - Age- 2006 Stats
Marvin Harrison - 34 - 95 Rec, 1366 Yards, 14.4 Ave, 12 TD's
Terrell Owens - 33 - 85 Rec, 1180 Yards, 13.9 Ave, 13 TD's
Torry Holt - 30 - 93 Rec, 1188 Yards, 12.8 Ave, 10 TD's
Isaac Bruce - 34 - 74 Rec, 1098 Yards, 14.8 Ave, 3 TD's
Donald Driver - 32 - 92 Rec, 1295 Yards, 14.1 Ave, 8 TD's
Terry Glenn - 32 - 70 Rec, 1047 Yards, 15.0 Ave, 6 TD's

Judging by the talent that he has been compared to throughout his career, I would say Moss has a good 2-4 years left in him...

**The Leaper** · 03-27-2007, 12:32 AM

Originally posted by pbmax

Moss had an injury plauged year, followed by a comeback and another down year tied to nagging injuries. The receivers you have listed did not have 2 out of three years under 1000 yards due to injuries. In fact, your selection have been remarkably healthy given their age. Only Bruce has an injury history tied to a down year that immediately comes to mind.

None of them were shipped off to Oakland either...and forced to play for one of the most inept NFL franchises. You can sit here and drag out numbers all you want. None of us know for sure what Moss can offer...he's been giving less than 100% for better than 2 years now.

Antonio Freeman never had 2/5th of the talent Randy Moss had. Neither did most of the other guys you listed originally. They got by on adequate speed while they were younger...then dropped off sharply as soon as they lost a step. Moss had elite speed coming out of college...even if he loses a step, he still has adequate speed.

I'm not going to say that Moss is an 80-1400-12 guy anymore...the fact of the matter is we don't need that anyway. We merely need a WR with size and who is a credible threat in the red zone. With Favre at QB, Moss is certainly all of that...even at age 30. Dredging up a comparison to Antonio Freeman or Webster Slaughter is a pretty big stretch IMO.

**Guiness** · 03-27-2007, 08:23 AM

PBmax, I hate it when I see T Glenn mentioned as an elite receiver. Why the @#$ did we ever let him go? I know Driver was coming on, and obviously going to be good, but would it have killed us to have to very good receivers? He did have a couple of injuries, but did start 14 games...I didn't understand it at the time, and don't now with the benefit of hindsight.

**pbmax** · 03-27-2007, 10:05 AM

Well, this article specifically sites the group compared to Moss as less than exceptional, so you have that.

My enduring memory of Glenn was coming out of the game after every thrid catch with some vague head injury. I remember Patriots fans talking about his unavailability during games, but it wasn't until I saw him pull himself out of games that I understood what they meant.

I think Glenn is a good wide receiver, but doesn't maximize results compared with his talent. And given the number of times he had to catch a ball out of position with Favre (doesn't really matter if it was the throw, the protection, the bump, or the route) I don't think he was a good match for the Packers long term.

Originally posted by Guiness

PBmax, I hate it when I see T Glenn mentioned as an elite receiver. Why the @#$ did we ever let him go? I know Driver was coming on, and obviously going to be good, but would it have killed us to have to very good receivers? He did have a couple of injuries, but did start 14 games...I didn't understand it at the time, and don't now with the benefit of hindsight.

**Merlin** · 03-27-2007, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by The Leaper

Originally posted by pbmax

Moss had an injury plauged year, followed by a comeback and another down year tied to nagging injuries. The receivers you have listed did not have 2 out of three years under 1000 yards due to injuries. In fact, your selection have been remarkably healthy given their age. Only Bruce has an injury history tied to a down year that immediately comes to mind.

None of them were shipped off to Oakland either...and forced to play for one of the most inept NFL franchises. You can sit here and drag out numbers all you want. None of us know for sure what Moss can offer...he's been giving less than 100% for better than 2 years now.

Antonio Freeman never had 2/5th of the talent Randy Moss had. Neither did most of the other guys you listed originally. They got by on adequate speed while they were younger...then dropped off sharply as soon as they lost a step. Moss had elite speed coming out of college...even if he loses a step, he still has adequate speed.

I'm not going to say that Moss is an 80-1400-12 guy anymore...the fact of the matter is we don't need that anyway. We merely need a WR with size and who is a credible threat in the red zone. With Favre at QB, Moss is certainly all of that...even at age 30. Dredging up a comparison to Antonio Freeman or Webster Slaughter is a pretty big stretch IMO.

That's more the point I was getting at. I only listed aging receivers in the NFL and TO definitely had/has injuries. 2004 was the only year I thought Moss was really injured. Otherwise I am not so sure that with Oakland it wasn't more that he hated being there.

**Merlin** · 03-27-2007, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by Guiness

PBmax, I hate it when I see T Glenn mentioned as an elite receiver. Why the @#$ did we ever let him go? I know Driver was coming on, and obviously going to be good, but would it have killed us to have to very good receivers? He did have a couple of injuries, but did start 14 games...I didn't understand it at the time, and don't now with the benefit of hindsight.

I never said Glenn was an elite receiver, just an aging receiver that continues to produce. He doesn't have the presence that Moss does on the field.

**pbmax** · 03-27-2007, 12:27 PM

[quote="The Leaper"]

Originally posted by pbmax

I'm not going to say that Moss is an 80-1400-12 guy anymore...the fact of the matter is we don't need that anyway. We merely need a WR with size and who is a credible threat in the red zone. With Favre at QB, Moss is certainly all of that...even at age 30. Dredging up a comparison to Antonio Freeman or Webster Slaughter is a pretty big stretch IMO.

I agree he could function in this role. But if that is what he means to the team, his value is quite diminished compared to his contract. Assuming he doesn't want a big paycut, you are now at TTs position where he has to come cheap, meaning waived.

And the comparison to Freeman, Slaughter and the rest isn't based on potential or 40 times, its only on the numbers. Moss' immense physical talent can't be denied, even if its diminished, but remember that there are routes he doesn't run well and he shines in a specific role.

I also think Freeman was much closer to Moss than you give him credit for. But he declined sharply after injuries robbed him of what speed and mobility he had left. That and not having Robert Brooks around.

**MadtownPacker** · 03-27-2007, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by pbmax

Moss' immense physical talent can't be denied, even if its diminished, but remember that there are routes he doesn't run well and he shines in a specific role.

Save the damn routes for DD and Jennings!!

That thing about the specific role is that it is exactly what the offense needs. That is why this trade has so much appeal to me. As much as it looks bad to say it, the truth is Moss was dogging it in OAK. Will he do that in GB? Yeah , he might if the QB doesnt get him the ball but we all know as long as it is #4 Moss WILL get the ball.

At that point only good things can happen.

**MJZiggy** · 03-27-2007, 01:49 PM

The other thing is that with Favre, no one ever knows whether they're getting the ball or not. He goes through his progressions pretty quick and if his first choice is covered, everyone else better be ready!

Announcement

Moss' Future Performance Comparison

Moss' Future Performance Comparison

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment