The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

This is insanity. How can a WR be great without a QB? Not taking into consideration physical stature, look what Randy Moss did with a crap team (see LA Raiders). When he gets on a good team, we know what happens. I know some tool here will compare them physically, so let's take a look at S Moss vs Welker. This is a team sport and any time you take the indiviual stats and DON'T look at the team, there's a village missing their idiot present.

The info I've found online says that Santana signed a 6-year deal in 2005 and is making 3.7 million this year, 4.3 next (which is a voidable year), and 4.5 in 2011. He's due to be a free agent in 2012. I don't know enough about the business of the NFL to say how that would relate to him staying on the team or not if these young guys work out, but I would think his deal would be reworked in the next year or two, keeping him from reaching free agency in 2012.

I have to say ARE is not established. Yes he may have experience, but still has not put together a thousand yard season. Has not put together 100 receptions. He was once an electrifying return specialist.

Santana Moss on the other hand has had a couple good years. He is still a deep threat. Still I feel he will finish out his career with the Skins. Or spend the twilight years of his career some where else.

We now have the size we all have been craving. Which makes Santana Moss even that more effective. Moss will not see double teams as much if the young draft picks do well. Even in a double tight end situation.

If Fred Davis is anything like ey he will demand attention as well. Meaning Moss should be covered one on one. Think about this. ey , Davis , Thomas and MOss all lined up as receivers.

dear gspods,

hi. my name is rob. i have some issues with the things you've said in this post, just interested in getting them cleared up. so here's a mishmash of some stuff you've said i don't get. please don't hate me or anything.

love,
rob

GSPODS wrote:Does Santana Moss have a future with the Redskins? Not much of one.
Santana Moss is not a legitimate #1 receiver. Not by a long shot. A career best of 84 receptions (one time) with a second best of 74 receptions, and a third best of 61 receptions makes a great #3 receiver, not a #1 receiver, or even a legitimate #2 receiver. Chris ey caught more receptions last season. As a matter of fact, 36 players caught more receptions last season.

so, uh, your thesis here is that based on pass receptions, santana is useless to us. even though as kelly and thomas develop, santana could still be an awesome slot threat for a few years (yes, he's getting slower but the man is still fast). and that's just because he hasn't caught a lot of balls, that makes him... not... good?

not a legitimate number two... are there 60 guys out there catching more than 60 balls each season? did i miss something? (had to look this one up. last year, there were like 40. so santana's worst season of those three--looking only at his receptions, which is kind of insane anyways--would be like, a lower-third #2 receiver. so... you're... really wrong. even in this weird universe where only your number of receptions counts as to you being good. which is crazy.)

GSPODS wrote:The Redskins top two receivers, ey and Moss combined, had 127 receptions. Houshmandzadeh and Welker had 112 each.

my friends jimmy and freddy had eight slabs of bacon this morning. i had six. who cares? housh's team didn't make the playoffs and welker's team didn't run the ball. apples and oranges (and bananas).

GSPODS wrote:To be among the best teams in today's pass-heavy NFL, your #1 and #2 wide receivers have to catch 200 receptions.
To be competitive, your #1 and #2 wide receivers have to catch at least 150 receptions. The Redskins fall far short of that mark.

sorry but this is just absolutely ludicrous and one of the things that made me feel the need to write this probably-unnecessary post. the new york giants--the team that won the super bowl last year-- had their top two receivers combine for 129 catches. by your definition, they cannot be competitive. this team won the super bowl. the super bowl. i mean, come on. they won... the super bowl. my head asplode.

moving onto your second, equally ridiculous post...

GSPODS wrote:And Brian Westbrook had 90 by himself.
Passing TD's is the wrong category to discuss with the Redskins.
I'm talking about being competitive.

brian westbrook is in an offense with nobody else around him, designed especially for him, and he is a football monster that lives inside our nightmares. if you're talking about being competitive, weren't we more competitive than philly last year? i fail to see your point. in fact, you fail to see your point because you said passing td's aren't our stat. i mean... yeah. so why are you saying we should get our receivers more receptions?

GSPODS wrote:Even the Falcons and the Ravens were close to the 150 mark, the Falcons at 136 and the Ravens at 151.

i thought you were talking about being competitive? these teams suck. but they meet your arbitrary standard of excellence so they're... what, exactly?

GSPODS wrote:If those teams at 5-11 and 4-12 can get close to the mark, why can't the Redskins?

because it's an arbitrary mark that you made up just now and we don't need to reach it to be a successful football team.

GSPODS wrote:I won't even waste your time looking up all of the better teams. The Redskins wide receivers are below average. That is why it was made a priority in the draft. Freaking Braylon Edwards caught 20 more passes than Santana Moss last season.

last year freaking andy lee had 30 more punts than derrick frost. what's your point again? our receivers aren't good enough? i mean... yeah. we don't have reggie wayne or torry holt. they would be nice. but it's not like we've got scrubs either. santana and ARE are just kind of the same guy, so we went and got taller dudes, and kelly fits the "possession" mold. it's not like we were at red alert overhaul mode, we just needed pieces like every team does. even still... every team has an identity, and just because other teams pass more and we run more doesn't make us... like bad or anything.

GSPODS wrote:Argue that a 60 reception receiver is a legitimate #1 or #2 receiver if you like. The production compared with the rest of the league says otherwise.

joey galloway caught 57 passes for 1014 yards last year. yay, what do i win? (hint: receivers come in all shapes and sizes. the idea that there has to be "legitimate" #1s and 2s and stuff is just horsehockey. i mean really. santana is a piece of the football team. in a vacuum, i'd rather have a bunch of guys. but he contributes. and i don't even really fully get your point. it's just a series of horrible arguments leading to nothing.

GSPODS wrote:Moss is still around because he is the best option available, not because he is a legitimate option, or even a legitimate threat. He isn't.

midnight miracle. midnight miracle. midnight......miracle. the midnight miracle. did you see the midnight miracle? i youtube it every day. roy williams thinks santana moss is a legitimate threat.

GSPODS wrote:Moss had 3 TD receptions last season. That ties him for 68th in the league. Randle El had 1.

fun with numbers: donald driver caught two touchdowns last year. jerrico cotchery: 2. david patten had three. who cares? someone else got found in the red zone. for the redskins, it was chris cooley and clinton portis because they are awesome football players that excell in red zone situations. again, this worked well because the team made the playoffs. larry fitzgerald went 100/1409/10. his team did not make the playoffs. your point is crazy. crazy crazy crazy.

GSPODS wrote:Legitimate #1 and #2 wide receivers, my arse. Both will be moved or gone as soon as the Redskins can groom or acquire legitimate #1 and #2 wide receivers.

and you finish with a flourish. so you think that if we can get better wideouts, we will trade or release our current wideouts??!?! thank you miss cleo. i thought we were just going to stick with them for the next 30 years. ARE turns 29 in a few days. moss turned 29 in june. they've got a few more years performing at their best, and then they won't be any more. so we're looking long term, and we're looking for size, and we drafted two guys that give us both of those things. it doesn't mean santana is a bad wide receiver.

i'm going to wrap up by saying i don't even totally disagree with you. santana moss is not an elite receiver. but he does bring a lot to the table. and your reasoning is just completely insane.

edited cause i misinterpreted something. still crazy.

rod_gardner_fan_club wrote:dear gspods,

hi. my name is rob. i have some issues with the things you've said in this post, just interested in getting them cleared up. so here's a mishmash of some stuff you've said i don't get. please don't hate me or anything.

love,
rob

and you finish with a flourish. so you think that if we can get better wideouts, we will trade or release our current wideouts??!?! thank you miss cleo. i thought we were just going to stick with them for the next 30 years. ARE turns 29 in a few days. moss turned 29 in june. they've got a few more years performing at their best, and then they won't be any more. so we're looking long term, and we're looking for size, and we drafted two guys that give us both of those things. it doesn't mean santana is a bad wide receiver.

i'm going to wrap up by saying i don't even totally disagree with you. santana moss is not an elite receiver. but he does bring a lot to the table. and your reasoning is just completely insane.

edited cause i misinterpreted something. still crazy.

Hi, Rob. The thread title is "Does Santana Moss have a future with this team?", meaning the Washington Redskins. Asked and answered. The rest of the argument is supporting the fact that Moss has no future with the Redskins, at least not as a starting #1 wide receiver. Every starting NFL player brings something to the table.

So, receptions doesn't float your boat as a benchmark?
Or TouchDowns?
How about yardage? 34th
Average per reception? Tied for 81st
First Downs? Tied for 30th
First Down Percentage? 84th

What does Santana Moss bring to the table? Because unless it's Steve Smith wearing his jersey, he doesn't bring enough. Let's argue Moss' future with the Washington Redskins. There are more than 32 NFL receivers that the Washington Redskins would take ahead of Santana Moss. He wasn't anyone's first choice in the fantasy leagues either.

What criteria work for you with regard to Santana Moss' future with the Washington Redskins? How about a comparison of what Steve Smith brings to the field? Crappy attitude aside, both receivers are vertically challenged, Smith even moreso. Both receivers are supposed to be vertical threats. Both have no one of note playing the opposite position. Both have had fair to middling quarterbacks a large part of their careers. Want to guess which of these two will be with their current team and in their current position longer? Want to guess who was taken first (before Santana Moss) in the fantasy drafts? (I don't participate in fantasy drafts but even so ...)

Stop jerking me off with pages of irrelevant crap and answer the damn question.
What criterium justify Santana Moss being with the Washington Redskins for the forseeable future?
Please skip any arguments relative to the team overall, the other receivers, the offensive line, the quarterbacks, etc., et. al., ad lib, ad nauseum, ad infinitum.

What ..... does ..... Santana ..... Moss ..... bring ..... to ..... the ..... table ..... that ..... guarantees ..... him ..... a ..... future ..... with ..... the ..... Washington Redskins?

If Randy Moss had Mark Boonell throwing him the ball, his numbers would suffer too (See Oakland for comparison). I think Santana has been misused in his time here in Washington and on the same note, I believe Zorn will get the most out of him. Also, don't forget that he didn't he didn't have the best supporting cast of good WR's around him (although I believe that Randle El is poised for a big year).

Santana brings speed, elusiveness, a veteran presence, good route running, and can be used as a decoy to get other people open. I say his future, which is this upcoming year, looks pretty bright to me so yes, he does have a future in Washington.

Cappster wrote:If Randy Moss had Mark Boonell throwing him the ball, his numbers would suffer too (See Oakland for comparison). I think Santana has been misused in his time here in Washington and on the same note, I believe Zorn will get the most out of him. Also, don't forget that he didn't he didn't have the best supporting cast of good WR's around him (although I believe that Randle El is poised for a big year).

Santana brings speed, elusiveness, a veteran presence, good route running, and can be used as a decoy to get other people open. I say his future, which is this upcoming year, looks pretty bright to me so yes, he does have a future in Washington.

Santana Moss has definitely been misused. I blame Joe Gibbs.
Jim Zorn will get whatever there is to get out of Santana Moss.
Up to now, the most there has been to get out of Santana Moss in a Redskins uniform is 84 receptions, 1483 yards and 9 touchdowns. That was in his first year with the team in 2005. Who was the Redskins QB in 2005? Wasn't it that guy you just insulted?

Sept. 19, 2005
Fantastic Finish: The Redskins ended years of frustration against the Dallas Cowboys with a dramatic fourth-quarter comeback at Texas Stadium. The Cowboys led 13-0 with 3:55 left in the game when Mark Brunell tossed a 39-yard touchdown pass to Santana Moss on a fourth-down play. Then, with 2:44 left, Brunell connected with Moss again on a 70-yard TD pass. Rookie Nick Novak, playing in his first NFL game, kicked the game-winning extra point. It was the Redskins' first victory at Texas Stadium since 1995.

Moss' production has steadily declined each year since 2005. I know the majority of the Redskins faithful will jump on every excuse imaginable from injuries to QB issues to coaching staff issues to (insert excuse here).
Excuses don't keep people employed in any business.
The only actual answer to this thread question is:
We'll know soon enough if Santana Moss fits Jim Zorn's offense.
If he does, he'll be here. If he doesn't, he won't.
Unfortunately, that answer is too simple and takes all the fun out of arguing all of the other talking points.

yup you just rained on someones parade there GS....

GSPODS wrote:

Cappster wrote:If Randy Moss had Mark Boonell throwing him the ball, his numbers would suffer too (See Oakland for comparison). I think Santana has been misused in his time here in Washington and on the same note, I believe Zorn will get the most out of him. Also, don't forget that he didn't he didn't have the best supporting cast of good WR's around him (although I believe that Randle El is poised for a big year).

Santana brings speed, elusiveness, a veteran presence, good route running, and can be used as a decoy to get other people open. I say his future, which is this upcoming year, looks pretty bright to me so yes, he does have a future in Washington.

Santana Moss has definitely been misused. I blame Joe Gibbs.
Jim Zorn will get whatever there is to get out of Santana Moss.
Up to now, the most there has been to get out of Santana Moss in a Redskins uniform is 84 receptions, 1483 yards and 9 touchdowns. That was in his first year with the team in 2005. Who was the Redskins QB in 2005? Wasn't it that guy you just insulted?

Sept. 19, 2005
Fantastic Finish: The Redskins ended years of frustration against the Dallas Cowboys with a dramatic fourth-quarter comeback at Texas Stadium. The Cowboys led 13-0 with 3:55 left in the game when Mark Brunell tossed a 39-yard touchdown pass to Santana Moss on a fourth-down play. Then, with 2:44 left, Brunell connected with Moss again on a 70-yard TD pass. Rookie Nick Novak, playing in his first NFL game, kicked the game-winning extra point. It was the Redskins' first victory at Texas Stadium since 1995.

Moss' production has steadily declined each year since 2005. I know the majority of the Redskins faithful will jump on every excuse imaginable from injuries to QB issues to coaching staff issues to (insert excuse here).
Excuses don't keep people employed in any business.
The only actual answer to this thread question is:
We'll know soon enough if Santana Moss fits Jim Zorn's offense.
If he does, he'll be here. If he doesn't, he won't.
Unfortunately, that answer is too simple and takes all the fun out of arguing all of the other talking points.

Boonell had one decent year throwing to one of two guys that could actually catch the ball. One of those guys was Moss and ey was the other. Now, we have a chance to spread the ball and not have the defense stack up on Moss.

Typical GSPODS argument, that amounts to nothing in the end. Yes, please... let's compare number of receptions for receivers in a Joe Gibbs offense verses a Bill Belichick offense. Brilliant. Yes, offensive philosophy has nothing to do with it.

My take on Santan. He's great, I've always been a Tana man fan.

His up sides, he has elite speed,(some has mentioned he has lost a step, but most of that came from a hammy injury, and with a full healthy off season I expect him to be back up to speed), Great hands, Great route running.

He has everything you want in a WR except higth. That only helps in jump ball situations. Take that out of the equation and he is a very good receiver.

You can harp on him about injury all you want, but he don't have like bad knees or a bad back or anything like that. He just got some football injuries. It happens.


Some of you need to go to youtube and look at some of his sick highlights. The kid is good. Some of you are getting as bad as Eagles fans. "He sucks, take him out" Don't even give a guy a real chance, never mind the fact he has brought memorable moments to skins fans.

I very much remember moments in his first year(yes Gspot, with Mark throwing him the ball before his play declined. And Marks ablity to throw the ball no further than 5 yards the next year is no excuse for Tana to catch some deep balls, "Satana, You have to go deep, then come back to the line to catch the ball, then pass everyone on the other team for more receptions and TDs, and being Doubled while doing it is no excuse"). We have seen what he can do when the D don't double him every play.

Just a quick point. I think Moss is a great receiver for us. After his record setting season in 2005, he's been double and triple covered for the past few years, primarily due to defenses respect of him as a legimate threat and the fact we didn't have any other respectable receivers. I've never seen a receiver attack the ball in the air the way Santana does. I predict he will have a solid campaign this year.

SkinsFreak wrote:Typical GSPODS argument, that amounts to nothing in the end. Yes, please... let's compare number of receptions for receivers in a Joe Gibbs offense verses a Bill Belichick offense. Brilliant. Yes, offensive philosophy has nothing to do with it.

The question is still: What does Santana Moss bring to the table that guarantees his future with the Washington Redskins? Thanks ever so much for missing the thread topic and the crux of the argument to argue side points that have nothing to do with the question.

Shove your philosophy argument. The philosophy is to catch the damn ball. Bring out the excuses for the dropped passes now. I know they are coming.

I've got two words for you: Steve Smith
What Santana Moss should be to the Redskins ... not what he is to the Redskins. Can Jim Zorn get that out of Moss? I'm not saying he can't. I am saying the production has to be there. Jim Zorn doesn't give a rats ass about Joe Gibbs' "True Redskins" if that's all they bring to the table.
Zorn's loyalties lie with whom? As of right now, only the people who pay him, and the coaches he personally selected or helped to select, not any of the players except the ones he drafted or suggested the Redskins draft. Santana Moss is guaranteed nothing in terms of a future with this team. Neither, for that matter, are any of the other current veterans.

The GSPODS argument is: Santana Moss will have to bring more than 60 receptions, 800 yards and 3 TD's to the table to keep his value to the Washington Redskins. That is the argument. Stop disecting side issues long enough to address the thread topic. Should I repeat the thread topic, or is it clear now?

I'm sure members would be happy to argue the effects of different coaching philosophies on individual players. That is a different thread topic.

Great debate going on in here fellas. Nice to see a topic discussed with some good valid points. I can't decide who im agreeing with, but both sides seem to know what they're talking about.

Just to clear it up, I'm a huge Santana fan. Hopefully he has a year like that 05 season when he was truly at the top of the game and we can all remember how good 'Tana can be when healthy.

As for predictions: I'll be bold enough to say he'll get around 1000 yards 70 REC 5TD in 12-14 games

Actually, the thread TOPIC is actually DOES Santana have a future with the team?

So a simple 'yes' or 'no' would actually suffice.

GSPODS wrote:Shove your philosophy argument.

Right.

Whatever... not interested.

SkinsFreak wrote:

GSPODS wrote:Shove your philosophy argument.

Right.

Whatever... not interested.

You introduced the coaching philosophy subject into this thread.
Now, you have no interest in discussing the subject you introduced?
Here's philosophy for you. Production keeps people employed. Non-production gets people terminated. Excuses get people nowhere.
Fans making excuses for a player really gets a player nowhere.
By any comparable measure, Moss sucks hind tit at his position.
And nobody who's opinion actually matters cares about the excuses.
It's either put up and shut up or sit down and get out. Those are the options, and anyone who doesn't think Devin Thomas, Malcolm Kelly, Fred Davis, and Mix / McMullen / (insert name here) are going to get their opportunities is fooling himself. Zorn is not bound to keep any player in any role, and this season will be experimentation central, especially if the first few weeks provide a rough start and a poor record.

GSPODS wrote:

SkinsFreak wrote:

GSPODS wrote:Shove your philosophy argument.

Right.

Whatever... not interested.

You introduced the coaching philosophy subject into this thread.
Now, you have no interest in discussing the subject you introduced?
Here's philosophy for you. Production keeps people employed. Non-production gets people terminated. Excuses get people nowhere.
Fans making excuses for a player really gets a player nowhere.
By any comparable measure, Moss sucks hind tit at his position.
And nobody who's opinion actually matters cares about the excuses.
It's either put up and shut up or sit down and get out. Those are the options, and anyone who doesn't think Devin Thomas, Malcolm Kelly, Fred Davis, and Mix / McMullen / (insert name here) are going to get their opportunities is fooling himself. Zorn is not bound to keep any player in any role, and this season will be experimentation central, especially if the first few weeks provide a rough start and a poor record.

Luckily for us, we are going to start going to start off the season undefeated. Moss will have monster games and all of us will be singing his praise.

If Moss is so bad, why is he our #1 receiver? Why is he going into his 4th year with a team without being traded or cut? Zorn will get Moss the ball in open space to where he can make plays. A lot of different factors go into Moss's "lack of production," and unfortunately you cannot see any of those variables as viable reasons why he isn't putting up monster numbers. I also want to add that big numbers from a WR is not necessarily going to win any championships i.e. R. Moss, T.O., Chad Johnson, Boldin, etc....

Cappster wrote:
Luckily for us, we are going to start going to start off the season undefeated. Moss will have monster games and all of us will be singing his praise.

If Moss is so bad, why is he our #1 receiver? Why is he going into his 4th year with a team without being traded or cut? Zorn will get Moss the ball in open space to where he can make plays. A lot of different factors go into Moss's "lack of production," and unfortunately you cannot see any of those variables as viable reasons why he isn't putting up monster numbers. I also want to add that big numbers from a WR is not necessarily going to win any championships i.e. R. Moss, T.O., Chad Johnson, Boldin, etc....

Here is my thought: The Redskins really did try to acquire Chad Johnson. When that didn't work they went to Plan B, which was the draft. Had the Redskins acquired Chad Johnson, Santana Moss would have become the #2 receiver. Chad Johnson is a deep threat more than a possession receiver, so why would the Redskins have been pursuing a trade for him? The only logical answer is that they don't think Santana Moss is a legitimate #1.

There are several reasons why Moss is still the #1 receiver. Joe Gibbs' loyalty to his "True Redskins" is one. The inability to trade for a legitimate #1 is another. The one productive season Moss did have shows he is capable of having another one. Let's hope Jim Zorn makes it this season.
I think we all want Santana Moss to have a future with the Redskins but production outweighs potential on the NFL business scales.

I think Jim Zorn will get everything Santana Moss has out of him.
The only question is: "How much does Santana Moss have?"
If anyone steps up enough to get Moss out of the continuous double-coverages, he should have another 80+ reception season. Honestly, I don't see Thrash or Randle El as being the players to step up. We already know what they bring to the table. One of the youngsters is going to have to step up, in my opinion, or Moss will suffer individually, and the Redskins will suffer as a team.

yes

oneman56 wrote:yes

I concur.

That great season he had in 2005 also meant that Brunell was only throwing to the another reliable receiver (Cooley). So basically you just had two options in any given passing play. Portis had a monster year also, so it was not the system per se that favored Santana. He just the only really good WR on the team.

In theory, you should expect Santana to have a more productive season. I stress the word productive because maybe he has less receceptions than in 2005, but they go for more YPC and more TDs. With all the options JC should have this year, I think it will be hard to Santana to repeat those monster numbers form three seasons ago.

Does Santana have a future? Yes...until some of the other guys step up. Last season we scared no one with our receiving corps.

GSPODS wrote:The question is still: What does Santana Moss bring to the table that guarantees his future with the Washington Redskins?

You answered that yourself.

60 receptions, 800 yards and 3 TD's

Which is 60 more recptions, 800 more yards, and 3 more TDs than Kelly and Thomas have put up in the NFL. So far, Moss is still the best receiver on the team. Hopefully, Kelly and/or Thomas will blossom, but it's not a sure thing yet, and it won't happen overnight, and until it does, Santana definitely has a future here. But in the end, no player has a "future" here, because at some point they're all going to be too old/injured/expensive to stay. Time marches on. Regardless, Moss will be here for at least the next two years, hopefully more.

Mursilis wrote:

GSPODS wrote:The question is still: What does Santana Moss bring to the table that guarantees his future with the Washington Redskins?

You answered that yourself.

60 receptions, 800 yards and 3 TD's

Which is 60 more recptions, 800 more yards, and 3 more TDs than Kelly and Thomas have put up in the NFL. So far, Moss is still the best receiver on the team. Hopefully, Kelly and/or Thomas will blossom, but it's not a sure thing yet, and it won't happen overnight, and until it does, Santana definitely has a future here. But in the end, no player has a "future" here, because at some point they're all going to be too old/injured/expensive to stay. Time marches on. Regardless, Moss will be here for at least the next two years, hopefully more.

GSPODS wrote:Hi, Rob. The thread title is "Does Santana Moss have a future with this team?", meaning the Washington Redskins. Asked and answered. The rest of the argument is supporting the fact that Moss has no future with the Redskins, at least not as a starting #1 wide receiver. Every starting NFL player brings something to the table.

obviously he brings something to the table. he's absolutely a home-run threat, and like i said, i don't even totally disagree with you. it's just that the way you made your argument was kind of nuts.

GSPODS wrote:So, receptions doesn't float your boat as a benchmark?
Or TouchDowns?
How about yardage? 34th
Average per reception? Tied for 81st
First Downs? Tied for 30th
First Down Percentage? 84th

which is valid. the "benchmark" should be the combination of a bunch of stuff. like, all of these things, plus natural talents, plus situations he's been in, plus how he can be used in the offense. i wouldn't look at any one thing to make an assessment--like you did--and even then, you chose receptions, which make him look good, especially compared to some of the stuff you wrote there. again, i'm just confused as to how you made the argument.

GSPODS wrote:What does Santana Moss bring to the table? Because unless it's Steve Smith wearing his jersey, he doesn't bring enough. Let's argue Moss' future with the Washington Redskins. There are more than 32 NFL receivers that the Washington Redskins would take ahead of Santana Moss. He wasn't anyone's first choice in the fantasy leagues either.

i don't know if that's true. again, it's all about the system. even still, of course he's not an elite wideout, but the types of things he can provide, (i.e., speed) are useful. he's not trash.

GSPODS wrote:What criteria work for you with regard to Santana Moss' future with the Washington Redskins?

well, i mean, i said them. a combination of all the stuff you mentioned, but mostly how what he brings fits into the offense. and honestly i don't know because i'm not the coach or GM but he does have talent and can, you know, catch footballs and run.

GSPODS wrote:How about a comparison of what Steve Smith brings to the field?

well i wish you wouldn't because steve smith is one of the most talented WRs in the game, so of course he'd be better. how about we compare JC to tom brady? springs to champ bailey? i mean, we have three or four or maybe five dudes on this team that you could argue are the best or very close to it at their positions. because of how the league works... we're just not going to get the best players at every position. so some have to just be pieces to the puzzle.

GSPODS wrote:Stop jerking me off with pages of irrelevant crap and answer the damn question.

i... what? jesus christ, that was out of nowhere. uhh... i'm not jerking... you off. that would be weird and gross and impossible through the internet. and also... what?

GSPODS wrote:What criterium justify Santana Moss being with the Washington Redskins for the forseeable future?

what's a criterium? did you mean criterion? i mean... i think you did. but that would be only one thing, which i've already said is crazy. it should be many different things. "criteria" if you will.

GSPODS wrote:Please skip any arguments relative to the team overall, the other receivers, the offensive line, the quarterbacks, etc., et. al., ad lib, ad nauseum, ad infinitum.

uhh, are you talking to me? i mean like i said, like a few times now, i don't totally disagree with your whole anti-santana stance. it's just that your reasoning is kind of wrong and weird and is kind of missing the point. i'm not even going to leave the last part in because i don't have a problem with it. it's just... your argument... is constructed so poorly... and inserting elipses... doesn't make you look... cooler.

It's tough to argue isolating a team function to one player. It's quite an irrational way to think and many people have given ample amounts of input and theory (since that's all we're ALL doing, is theorizing). Whether it's in a rant, a blog, or an organized post graduate thesis, it's still not concrete. Not what I say about Santana having a place or what the other side of the coin says about him not. Argue what you will, but such an aggressive stance on any subject will only be detrimentally overall.