Re: KC Joyner defends his comments that Moss doesn't add much <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Dave (Baldwin, NY): Are you ready to admit the lunacy in your "Moss and Stallworth are the same receiver" comment? Talk about letting statistics get in the way of the truth.Dave's comment was actually one of the friendlier comments I received about last week's Randy Moss article. Most of the posters on ESPN's Conversation Beta could not understand why I thought the Patriots would not be able to utilize two vertical threats effectively. The Beta posts also inquired as to why the Patriots couldn't simply put Stallworth on one flank and Moss on the other and stretch the field on both sides.The main difficulty with this idea is that on a typical passing play, three wide receivers/tight ends run routes downfield. On most plays, one of these receivers will run a short route, another will run a medium route and the third will run a deep route. The idea behind this type of play call is to make the defense defend every depth level.If Moss and Stallworth were starting together, one of them would be able to run a vertical route, but the other would have to run either a short or medium route. The metrics in last week's article clearly showed neither player is very good at running medium routes, so the Patriots would be better served having someone else run a route at that depth level.That would force either Moss or Stallworth to run a short pass route. Since Moss' short pass numbers over the past three years are abysmal, Stallworth would end up being the default choice for short routes. That certainly isn't the best use of Stallworth's abilities, as his vertical pass numbers indicate he should be thrown as many deep passes as possible.The bottom line is Moss can still probably be a very good vertical receiver, but he is a one-trick pony whose skills exactly mimic the skills of another player on the Patriots' roster, which is what made me question the wisdom of the move.</div>
Re: KC Joyner defends his comments that Moss doesn't add much Can't say I disagree with that, both of them at this point are pretty much just deep threats capable of stretching the field. Which makes it all that much more imperative that opposing teams get pressure on Tom Brady so that they don't get the time to set up those deep routes.
Re: KC Joyner defends his comments that Moss doesn't add much <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AdropOFvenom @ May 11 2007, 12:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Can't say I disagree with that, both of them at this point are pretty much just deep threats capable of stretching the field. Which makes it all that much more imperative that opposing teams get pressure on Tom Brady so that they don't get the time to set up those deep routes.</div>The only counter argument is having 4 WR/TE threats and having two deep routes, a mid and a short. But then you leave yourself unguarded to the potential pass rush.And you can't do that all game long. You need, you know, a running game. And if every time you line up both Moss and Stallworth with a 3rd WR and a TE or 4th WR you throw the ball, then obviously the offense will be easy to read. The pats usually have two RB's or two TE's in the game, even without a TE they usually have two RB's (Pro).But as Moss and Stallworth are poor at the shorter routes it's easy enough to leave the Safeties deep for coverage on deep routes and have the CB's cover the short and mid and put on a fantastic amount of pass rush. Leaving your options Moss or Stallworth on the outside on short comeback routes, which neither are good at and which are those easy picks for six for aware CB's that would be playing the zone.I have a hard time seeing them both being used effectively on deep routes at the same time more than 5-7 plays a game. Maybe that's enough though.
Re: KC Joyner defends his comments that Moss doesn't add much <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AdropOFvenom @ May 11 2007, 11:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Can't say I disagree with that, both of them at this point are pretty much just deep threats capable of stretching the field. Which makes it all that much more imperative that opposing teams get pressure on Tom Brady so that they don't get the time to set up those deep routes.</div>Yeah but then Brady will look from the 5-12 yard range and find slot WR Wes Welker and or Ben Watson underneath.
