NFL Week 1 Discussion Thread - Revis signs, HBO rejoices

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Kodos

NFL Single-Season Receiving Yards Leaders | Pro-Football-Reference.com

Here are their seasons that rank in the top 250 performances in NFL history for single-season receiving yards:

Jerry Rice+ (33) 1,848 1995 SFO
Jerry Rice+ (24) 1,570 1986 SFO
Jerry Rice+ (31) 1,503 1993 SFO
Jerry Rice+ (28) 1,502 1990 SFO
Jerry Rice+ (32) 1,499 1994 SFO
Jerry Rice+ (27) 1,483 1989 SFO
Jerry Rice+ (26) 1,306 1988 SFO
Jerry Rice+ (34) 1,254 1996 SFO
Jerry Rice+ (40) 1,211 2002 OAK
Jerry Rice+ (29) 1,206 1991 SFO
Jerry Rice+ (30) 1,201 1992 SFO

Randy Moss (26) 1,632 2003 MIN
Randy Moss (30) 1,493 2007 NWE
Randy Moss (23) 1,437 2000 MIN
Randy Moss (22) 1,413 1999 MIN
Randy Moss (25) 1,347 2002 MIN
Randy Moss (21) 1,313 1998 MIN
Randy Moss (24) 1,233 2001 MIN

Jerry's highs are higher (including the best season in NFL history), and he has a lot more of them.

Stats are arbitrary according to ShksprWe need a more concrete way of judging this. I am only kidding.

Yes Rice was the man I know that. The sniffing the jock strap comment got to me.

[jeff061]

Purely from a skill and athletic standpoint I think an argument can be made for Moss.

But, more importantly, straight up best WR? No one comes close to Rice. Not even a discussion.

[Ksyrup]

Guys, I think this discussion is a bit premature.

Shouldn't we wait to see how Moss fares on Dancing with the Stars?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

"Clutch" performances exist in any way you want to define them - late inning/close score, game-winning drives, etc. What has been demonstrated in baseball via stats is that there is no unique or special talent/ability to be consistently "clutch," however you define it. That's been pretty thoroughly debunked. There is no rhyme or reason to the "clutch" stats generated by 99.9995% of players, where one or two years, a guy will outperform his stats in clutch situtations and then under-perform for another year or two. Nearly every player in MLB history is that way - up and down in clutch situations over their career.

What I think confuses the situation for people is two things: (1) we tend to remember successful clutch performances, and when someone is repeatedly in those situations and has those opportunities, we tend to remember the successful ones as if they are the only ones; and (2) we're talking about out-performing or under-performing your "normal" stats, so the greater a player is in general, the more successful they are going to be in clutch situations. If Derek Jeter wasn't a great player, he wouldn't have as many successful clutch performances (or opportunities, getting to the playoffs every year but 1 in his career). That doesn't make him clutch, it means he performs in the clutch about as he does normally - which is a very high level. that's what makes him appear clutch compared to Joe Schmoe's clutch performance with a career .650 OPS. Jeter's going to perform well in those situations because he is a great player to begin with.

All of this is not to say that pressure has no bearing on how someone performs when the game is on the line - it's just that, at least in baseball, it's been proven this isn't a talent or ability that can be consistently demonstrated over a career.

The inability to quantify clutch in baseball is more about the randomness in baseball than anything else.

What about football (since this is a football thread)? Is all the Eli talk meaningless because it doesn't matter if it's week 1 or the super bowl, the opening drive or running the two-minute drill, because there's no predictable patterns or meaningful performance differences?

To my knowledge, baseball is the only activity in life (sport or non-sport) that has "proven" to eliminate clutch performance as a consideration.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Yes. Blowing his knee out probably had nothing to do with Culpepper's collapse after Randy left.

Well you dont throw with your knee and other players have been able to find success after a knee injury.

Everyone in Minnesota knew he was overrated and laughed at the Dolphins for taking him at the time. He couldnt read a defense and when teams took Moss away from him he had no clue what to do. He had a great arm which was his only great quality.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

The problem w/ football vs. baseball is sample size. Baseball was made for statisticians.

[Ksyrup]

Randomness is exactly it - there can be no clutch ability if it's random.

I don't really have a good feel for clutch in football. It's a much more intricately complicated, team-driven/connected sport, so I"m not sure what the answer is, or if there is an answer. Again, I'd say that it's not a coincidence that we're talking about some of the best players in the game in terms of being clutch, because they start from an elevated position over the rest to begin with.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Well you dont throw with your knee and other players have been able to find success after a knee injury.

Everyone in Minnesota knew he was overrated and laughed at the Dolphins for taking him at the time. He couldnt read a defense and when teams took Moss away from him he had no clue what to do. He had a great arm which was his only great quality.

This actually illustrates why Rice was a better receiver, in a way. For many years, Moss was simply a guy who beat teams down the field all the time. He wasn't a great route runner. He was simply taller and faster than the defenders he was playing against, and he could outjump anyone he faced. Rice, on the other hand, could run any route in the book with precision.

[jeff061]

I'd say clutch in football is someone who has the game in his hands and doesn't fold under the pressure. Not necessarily playing better at key situations, just not playing worse. Definitely think it's a quality. Just look at McNabb (no I am never forgetting his super bowl choke).

Or Manning even before the last few years.

[Ksyrup]

That's exactly what I'm getting at - you're willing to make a decision on McNabb's "clutchness" based on one anecdotal incident that occurred in one big game that has hung with him that label. Ridiculous. As quality of a player as he's been in his career, I bet he's pulled out a bunch of games a lesser QB wouldn't have (to the extent you can attribute this fully to the QB, which I don't necessarily buy), and also had his share of games where he (and/or the team) have fallen short. Just like any QB.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Kodos

This actually illustrates why Rice was a better receiver, in a way. For many years, Moss was simply a guy who beat teams down the field all the time. He wasn't a great route runner. He was simply taller and faster than the defenders he was playing against, and he could outjump anyone he faced. Rice, on the other hand, could run any route in the book with precision.

I agree with this.

The comments you make about Moss are the reasons I also feel he is underrated in a way. He is the one WR that teams had to change their entire defense for. You couldnt stick 8 in the box and leave him in single coverage or the defense would get torched. The Vikings would be among the league leaders in rushing every year when Moss played for them because teams would sit in the 2 deep zone and not come out of it as Moss was so feared.

With Moss as a WR Daunte didnt have to read a defense because most of the game he knew he was getting 2 deep zone with safetys 20+ yards down the field which made Daunte into a decent QB at the time.

Now with the Pats you see Welker wide open on all of these underneath routes. Moss makes all the players around him better because he forces teams into a certain defense and I believe that is why he has played on the two highest scoring offenses in NFL history.

The Moss you see today is a shell of the WR you seen 10 years ago and teams are still cautious about blitzing. He just has a great QB getting him the ball now.

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

That's exactly what I'm getting at - you're willing to make a decision on McNabb's "clutchness" based on one anecdotal incident that occurred in one big game that has hung with him that label. Ridiculous. As quality of a player as he's been in his career, I bet he's pulled out a bunch of games a lesser QB wouldn't have (to the extent you can attribute this fully to the QB, which I don't necessarily buy), and also had his share of games where he (and/or the team) have fallen short. Just like any QB.

It's one thing to not succeed, no one's perfect. It's another thing to be dry heaving in the huddle in the final couple minutes.

[Shkspr]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

How about the two highest scoring teams in NFL history
1998 Minnesota Vikings
2007 New England Patriots

having Moss as a key part of their offense.

Since it is arbitrary that QB's have great years with Moss as a WR. Is it also arbitrary that some of the highest scoring teams in NFL history have had him on the team as well?

You must hate any type of individual stats because they are all arbitrary.

You're getting better. You've excised the first of your sins. Now all you have to worry about is that you're still using the success of other teammates as your main argument, and you're ignoring the fact that the league and playcalling changed between the 80's and the 00's to open up the passing game more.

When discussing football players from different eras, most individual stats do make me throw up in my mouth a little bit, yeah. You followed the Redskins in the 80's; you can explain as well as anyone why Art Monk was a HOFer. The case for his greatness is all about recognizing the shape of traditional WR statistics in a rapidly changing era and how they provide at best an incomplete portrait of a player's contributions.

Whenever anyone tries to quantify all-time teams, the criteria we usuall have to fall back on is simple: how did the men who saw them play judge their abilities relative to their contemporaries? In numerical terms, how many All-Pro teams and Pro Bowls did they make? Jerry Rice's observers felt he was the top receiver in the league year in, year out, for more than a decade. 10 All Pros, 13 Pro Bowls. Randy Moss has been a reasonably solid performer who sometimes approached Rice's dominance. 4 All-Pros, 7 Pro Bowls. But there are as many as half a dozen of Moss's contemporaries that were as good or better in any given year - Harrison, T.O., Irvin, Fitzgerald, maybe Wayne, Holt, or Bruce. You can't say that about Rice at his peak. That's why Moss really can't pull up to that standard - you've got to dominate your own era before you can compare to someone who dominated theirs.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by jeff061

It's one thing to not succeed, no one's perfect. It's another thing to be dry heaving in the huddle in the final couple minutes.

Donovan McNabb DID NOT throw up in Super Bowl XXXIX | Off the Record (OTR)

[jeff061]

I said dry heaving . Reguardless, it was clear to anyone who watched it he was not handling the pressure well. Just the way he was carrying himself. Anyways, going off on a tangent we won't agree on.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

That's exactly what I'm getting at - you're willing to make a decision on McNabb's "clutchness" based on one anecdotal incident that occurred in one big game that has hung with him that label. Ridiculous. As quality of a player as he's been in his career, I bet he's pulled out a bunch of games a lesser QB wouldn't have (to the extent you can attribute this fully to the QB, which I don't necessarily buy), and also had his share of games where he (and/or the team) have fallen short. Just like any QB.

It's definitely not "fair", but it's one of many random events that make up how things go down - it was a series of random events that got McNabb to the NFL in the first place.

If you're a trial attorney, and you have a solid career, and during then your one shot at a major multi-million dollar lawsuit, you crap your pants and stammer your words during your closing argument, that's going to be tough to overcome. Even if there was just a lot of bad luck involved. That attorney still blew it.

In sports, we think we can tame the chaos with stats, but we really can't - we can only describe what results the chaos produced.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

The comments you make about Moss are the reasons I also feel he is underrated in a way. He is the one WR that teams had to change their entire defense for. You couldnt stick 8 in the box and leave him in single coverage or the defense would get torched.

Ugh.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by molson

It's definitely not "fair", but it's one of many random events that make up how things go down - it was a series of random events that got McNabb to the NFL in the first place.

If you're a trial attorney, and you have a solid career, and during then your one shot at a major multi-million dollar lawsuit, you crap your pants and stammer your words during your closing argument, that's going to be tough to overcome. Even if there was just a lot of bad luck involved. That attorney still blew it.

In sports, we think we can tame the chaos with stats, but we really can't - we can only describe what results the chaos produced.

I understand that it helps write the narrative of the hindsight conclusion to be drawn, but that doesn't really mean either of them is clutch or not.

Jake Delhomme was unbelieveably great in the SB against the Patriots and then 6 years later, tossed 5 INTs in a playoff loss to AZ. Prior to that game, the narrative would have been that he was a clutch player just based on his SB performance. So what changed?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Jake Delhomme was unbelieveably great in the SB against the Patriots and then 6 years later, tossed 5 INTs in a playoff loss to AZ. Prior to that game, the narrative would have been that he was a clutch player just based on his SB performance. So what changed?

People who believe that performance can be relevant to the situation at hand don't claim that that can always be predicted with 100% accuracy. Brett Favre could go on a run, throw no big interceptions, and lead the Vikings to the super bowl this year. Tom Brady could get to an AFC Championship game and throw a couple of late interceptions. Nothing "changed". There's just a ton of variables.

That doesn't mean some guys aren't better bets in playoff situations than others, and that list of "best bets" might be somewhat (but not dramatically) different than "best bets" for the 1st half of week 1.

[JPhillips]

I can buy the idea of an athlete getting nervous and making mental mistakes under intense pressure. What I've never been able to accept is that some athletes perform better under pressure than during normal games. Why don't they perform up to their ability during the majority of playing time and why would we want to praise those individuals?

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I can buy the idea of an athlete getting nervous and making mental mistakes under intense pressure. What I've never been able to accept is that some athletes perform better under pressure than during normal games. Why don't they perform up to their ability during the majority of playing time and why would we want to praise those individuals?

The baseball stat people would tell us even that the "failing under pressure" thing doesn't exist in that sport.

Almost everyone should perform somewhat better than "normally" in the most important situations. Human nature. Few people are at their best 100% of the time. That gets a little complicated in sports because your better performance is directly matched up against someone else's better performance. So you might play better, but have worse stats than normal. So eyeball observations, and evaluating situations on a case-by-case basis, are still important.

[Ksyrup]

Exactly. I mean, you might find an example of someone who shits the bed EVERY SINGLE TIME he is in a pressure situation, but I doubt it. And if you found him, I hope he hada short career, because if stuff like that was really predictive, then tteams would stay away.

Certainly, people react differently to pressure; and in fact, a single individual can react differently to pressure in different situations. But I haven't seen any support (other than anecdotal) for the idea that people have a special ability/talent to rise to another level consistently in pressure situations.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by molson

The baseball stat people would tell us even that the "failing under pressure" thing doesn't exist in that sport.

No, that's not true. It's whether you can determine a pattern or consistency to failures or "rising above" so as to identify a specific trait/ability that can be predicted. When they talk about "clutch" existing or not, that's the baseline they are working from. No one fails or rises under pressure 95% of the time they are in those situations (however you define them).

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Exactly. I mean, you might find an example of someone who shits the bed EVERY SINGLE TIME he is in a pressure situation, but I doubt it. And if you found him, I hope he hada short career, because if stuff like that was really predictive, then tteams would stay away.

Certainly, people react differently to pressure; and in fact, a single individual can react differently to pressure in different situations. But I haven't seen any support (other than anecdotal) for the idea that people have a special ability/talent to rise to another level consistently in pressure situations.

I'd agree that those people wouldn't generally reach the highest level of their sport. Just getting to the majors requires any number of clutch performances. It's just that I can buy the possibility of reduced performance under pressure. I'm a theatre director and professor and I see that all the time.

I'll never be convinced that performance can be raised under pressure. The numbers don't bear it out and I don't have any evidence in my career that that type of performance could come from anything other than laziness in lower pressure situations.

[Sun Tzu]

Originally Posted by Shkspr

You're getting better. You've excised the first of your sins. Now all you have to worry about is that you're still using the success of other teammates as your main argument, and you're ignoring the fact that the league and playcalling changed between the 80's and the 00's to open up the passing game more.

When discussing football players from different eras, most individual stats do make me throw up in my mouth a little bit, yeah. You followed the Redskins in the 80's; you can explain as well as anyone why Art Monk was a HOFer. The case for his greatness is all about recognizing the shape of traditional WR statistics in a rapidly changing era and how they provide at best an incomplete portrait of a player's contributions.

Whenever anyone tries to quantify all-time teams, the criteria we usuall have to fall back on is simple: how did the men who saw them play judge their abilities relative to their contemporaries? In numerical terms, how many All-Pro teams and Pro Bowls did they make? Jerry Rice's observers felt he was the top receiver in the league year in, year out, for more than a decade. 10 All Pros, 13 Pro Bowls. Randy Moss has been a reasonably solid performer who sometimes approached Rice's dominance. 4 All-Pros, 7 Pro Bowls. But there are as many as half a dozen of Moss's contemporaries that were as good or better in any given year - Harrison, T.O., Irvin, Fitzgerald, maybe Wayne, Holt, or Bruce. You can't say that about Rice at his peak. That's why Moss really can't pull up to that standard - you've got to dominate your own era before you can compare to someone who dominated theirs.

this

Fabulous post.

[flere-imsaho]

The great thing about "clutch" is that you can argue about it more-or-less indefinitely.

[JediKooter]

My big beef against Moss is: You lay a good hit on him, he's done for the rest of the game. Won't finish routes, will cut his routes short and will alligator arm any catch that isn't hitting him right on the numbers. I can't ever recall seeing Rice doing that.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

The great thing about "clutch" is that you can argue about it more-or-less indefinitely.

Especially since Ksyrup's aruging skills really rise to another level when it comes to this topic.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by jeff061

I'd say clutch in football is someone who has the game in his hands and doesn't fold under the pressure. Not necessarily playing better at key situations, just not playing worse. Definitely think it's a quality. Just look at McNabb (no I am never forgetting his super bowl choke).

Or Manning even before the last few years.

I'm stunned at this post. I know other people have read it and commented on it, but I'm still stunned.

I know, McNabb threw up in the Super Bowl. Some say he was sick, others say the nerves got to him. I don't care either way, it happened.

But has anyone even bothered to look at:

a) his numbers in that game

or

b) what the other "top QB's" who faced the Patriots in the playoffs did?

As to one, McNabb threw for 357 yards in the game. Of course, he had to because the Eagles didn't have a ground game worth a crap in the game. 2.6 yards a carry and 44 total yards on the ground for Philly. That forced McNabb to throw the ball 51 times. The game was tied to start the fourth quarter. Down 10 in the fourth, Mcnabb led a 13 play drive to score a TD and cut it to 3. His famous throw up incident? It occured on the four yard line with 46 seconds left in the game. Yeah, lots of QB's beat the Patriots in that situation in 2004.

Nobody really wants to talk about how the Eagles had 3 TD drives of over 70 yards in the game.

Nobody wants to bother with the fact that with the Patriots at the peak of their powers, virtually any QB throwing the ball 51 times against them would end up with some turnovers. Bruschi made a big INT on him in the fourth. . . OMG, how many times did we see that happen in Bruschi's career?

As for b, the Patriots defense dismantled both Peyton Manning and Big Ben that year in the playoffs. Completely wiped them out and made them look like fools.

McNabb didn't have a career defining game that day, but he didn't play like the garbage people have made it seem like for years either.

[molson]

McNabb has had a problem with puking and dry heaving since college. I don't know if that's a physical thing or a mental thing or impacts his performance at all, but he was always puking everywhere at Syracuse.

[JediKooter]

Yes, I seem to remember McNabb having a pretty decent game in that SB. It was other parts of the team that let it get away. Special teams I think? I can't remember exactly.

[jeff061]

Well I was speaking specifically in the final few minutes when the game was on the line, he didn't just play bad, he folded.

Prior to that he didn't have a spectacular game, but it certainly wasn't bad.

[Alan T]

The biggest problem that I have with "clutch" in the NFL is that I haven't really seen a good definition of what it is supposed to mean. Does it mean that they win the Super bowl every time they start at QB in the super bowl despite the other players on their team?

Does it mean they having winning records in the playoffs?

Does it mean that they simply don't throw interceptions in the playoffs?

Or does it also carry over to "big games" during the regular season? Would those big games be historical rivals, or teams ahead of them in the standings?

Or does Clutch simply mean another word for lack of nervousness? Would that mean McNabb dry heaving means he is not clutch? So most rookies likely aren't clutch either thanks to their nerves?

Does it mean a player with more experience that does better in late game situations thanks to that experience? (ie: John Elway became "more" clutch as his career went on), if so does that mean Joe Montana became less clutch?

To me clutch just feels like some nebulous word that people throw out there for someone making an incredible play above and beyond the norm for them. ie: I don't hear many people talking about Peyton manning being clutch because he simply has always gone out there and done what everyone expected of him. Make a completion on every single pass.

Perhaps if there was a better definition of what clutch actually meant, then there would be some scale to actually measure which players are or are not clutch. Until then it just feels like a moving target that fits better into bar room conversations than statistical debate.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by TroyF

I'm stunned at this post. I know other people have read it and commented on it, but I'm still stunned.

I know, McNabb threw up in the Super Bowl. Some say he was sick, others say the nerves got to him. I don't care either way, it happened.

But has anyone even bothered to look at:

a) his numbers in that game

or

b) what the other "top QB's" who faced the Patriots in the playoffs did?

As to one, McNabb threw for 357 yards in the game. Of course, he had to because the Eagles didn't have a ground game worth a crap in the game. 2.6 yards a carry and 44 total yards on the ground for Philly. That forced McNabb to throw the ball 51 times. The game was tied to start the fourth quarter. Down 10 in the fourth, Mcnabb led a 13 play drive to score a TD and cut it to 3. His famous throw up incident? It occured on the four yard line with 46 seconds left in the game. Yeah, lots of QB's beat the Patriots in that situation in 2004.

Nobody really wants to talk about how the Eagles had 3 TD drives of over 70 yards in the game.

Nobody wants to bother with the fact that with the Patriots at the peak of their powers, virtually any QB throwing the ball 51 times against them would end up with some turnovers. Bruschi made a big INT on him in the fourth. . . OMG, how many times did we see that happen in Bruschi's career?

As for b, the Patriots defense dismantled both Peyton Manning and Big Ben that year in the playoffs. Completely wiped them out and made them look like fools.

McNabb didn't have a career defining game that day, but he didn't play like the garbage people have made it seem like for years either.

Eli would have ran it in for a game winning TD the puked on Bradys shoes...

[jeff061]

As long as he didn't puke on his dreamy hair.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'd agree that those people wouldn't generally reach the highest level of their sport. Just getting to the majors requires any number of clutch performances. It's just that I can buy the possibility of reduced performance under pressure. I'm a theatre director and professor and I see that all the time.

I'll never be convinced that performance can be raised under pressure. The numbers don't bear it out and I don't have any evidence in my career that that type of performance could come from anything other than laziness in lower pressure situations.

Really? People raise (or lower) their game in all aspects of life in response to stress situations. You couldn't possibly expect someone to operate at full tilt 24/7.

To me, the best microcosm is the military.

[spleen1015]

If it was never mentioned by TO that McNabb puked, no one would be talking about it today.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by jeff061

As long as he didn't puke on his dreamy hair plugs.

Fixed!

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Guys. . .

The Moss complaint of the contract is the first step. It's a step he's taken multiple times. Lets say he torches Revis on Sunday. 10 catches, 140 yards, 2 TD. Something like that. Then the Patriots have a record of something like 6-2 or 7-1 after 8 weeks. Yet the Patriots still haven't offered him a new deal or are even negotiating with him for one.

He's going to take it as a slap in the face. The guy is moody and petulant. I don't buy that he'll continue to go balls to the wall if he feels he's being disrespected. Brady? He'd have been professional and worked his ass off all year. Owens? As big of a douche as he is, he always played hard, despite dropping a ton of passes. Moss? He'll quit. He's done it time and time again. He'll break your heart.

All of that said. . . hell, I hope you are right. I hope Randy plays hard. He's a fun guy to watch even if he is a dick. I just don't buy that he's changed anything.

Here's Randy Moss' game log - Randy Moss Career Game Log | Pro-Football-Reference.com - do you want to point out the multiple years he's quit on his team and stopped producing? I'll give you 2006 on a 2-14 Raiders team. Other than that, I don't see it. Is there a media narrative out there that he has? Quite possibly, but based off the way the media attacks certain players around here I would trust his on-field performance more than what writers say.

Originally Posted by jeff061

I'd say clutch in football is someone who has the game in his hands and doesn't fold under the pressure. Not necessarily playing better at key situations, just not playing worse. Definitely think it's a quality. Just look at McNabb (no I am never forgetting his super bowl choke).

Or Manning even before the last few years.

This (and A-Rod) are why these arguments ring hollow for me (and I know I was on the side taunting Peyton and Rodriguez at one point). Did something magically change and click for these players? Or did a confluence of factors they have little control over and the inherent randomness involved finally fall their way?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

The great thing about "clutch" is that you can argue about it more-or-less indefinitely.

But do some of us argue much better about clutch than any other topic?

[Passacaglia]

No, some of us quit on our arguing when it's not going well.

[DanGarion]

The NFL also reacted Tuesday when Clinton Portis(notes), the outspoken running back for the Washington Redskins, said in his weekly appearance on a radio: “I think you put women reporters in the locker room in position to see guys walking around naked, and you sit in the locker room with 53 guys, and all of the sudden you see a nice woman in the locker room. I think men are going to tend to turn and look and want to say something to that woman.”

Aiello said the comments were “clearly inappropriate, offensive, and have no place in the NFL.”

Really? Portis had to apologize for that? WTF.

[Travis]

Heh, the full quote goes like this though:

"You know man, I think you put women reporters in the locker room in positions to see guys walking around naked, and you sit in the locker room with 53 guys, and all of the sudden you see a nice woman in the locker room, I think men are gonna tend to turn and look and want to say something to that woman. For the woman, I think they make it so much that you can't interact and you can't be involved with athletes, you can't talk to these guys, you can't interact with these guys.

"And I mean, you put a woman and you give her a choice of 53 athletes, somebody got to be appealing to her. You know, somebody got to spark her interest, or she's gonna want somebody. I don't know what kind of woman won't, if you get to go and look at 53 men's packages. And you're just sitting here, saying 'Oh, none of this is attractive to me.' I know you're doing a job, but at the same time, the same way I'm gonna cut my eye if I see somebody worth talking to, I'm sure they do the same thing."

Note, emphasis in the quotes were from the site I copied from, not mine.

[hoopsguy]

Kodos, Rice has 11 vs Moss' 7. And 3 of Rice's seasons took place beyond the age of 32 - if Moss matches that he'll have 10 seasons in the top 250.

If Moss isn't fit to sniff Rice's jock then what receivers do you think are? I think the career numbers of Randy Moss are going to be pretty staggering when he is done. Doesn't make him a good guy, fan favorite, player you root for, good interview, someone you want your daughter to date, or anything having to do with personality.

But if Moss never plays another game he will still be one of the most prolific wide receivers in the history of the NFL.

Current #'s:
Receptions: 931 (10th)
Yards: 14,524 (6th)
TD: 148 (2nd)
Receiving Yards/Game: 77.7 (2nd)

Factor in the "quality" of QBs before he landed in New England, and I think there is a compelling argument to be made for him as the 2nd greatest receiver of all time already based on the numbers. But he is going to pile on more numbers, and he is going to approach, if not pass, some of the Rice marks.

Pretty clear to me that if Moss isn't sniffing Rice's jock that no one is.

[hoopsguy]

Originally Posted by Kodos

This actually illustrates why Rice was a better receiver, in a way. For many years, Moss was simply a guy who beat teams down the field all the time. He wasn't a great route runner. He was simply taller and faster than the defenders he was playing against, and he could outjump anyone he faced. Rice, on the other hand, could run any route in the book with precision.

This argument is like diminishing Wilt's scoring marks because he was taller than anyone. Or that Shaq leading the league in scoring (not sure he ever did) because "all he ever did was dunk" ... well, if it is that easy why isn't anyone else doing it.

Fact is, Moss was/is a freak athlete. He has unbelievable physical skills and that translated into some of the most amazing WR stats we've ever seen. Did he have shortcomings? Yep, but I'm guessing the next generation who sees his stats instead of his game film will be much kinder than you are in the quoted paragraph.

[jeff061]

This (and A-Rod) are why these arguments ring hollow for me (and I know I was on the side taunting Peyton and Rodriguez at one point). Did something magically change and click for these players? Or did a confluence of factors they have little control over and the inherent randomness involved finally fall their way?

I don't think anything clicked. Just more experience in general. Becomes old hat.

[DanGarion]

Ah, I didn't see the full quote in the article I was reading.

Originally Posted by Travis

Heh, the full quote goes like this though:

"You know man, I think you put women reporters in the locker room in positions to see guys walking around naked, and you sit in the locker room with 53 guys, and all of the sudden you see a nice woman in the locker room, I think men are gonna tend to turn and look and want to say something to that woman. For the woman, I think they make it so much that you can't interact and you can't be involved with athletes, you can't talk to these guys, you can't interact with these guys.

"And I mean, you put a woman and you give her a choice of 53 athletes, somebody got to be appealing to her. You know, somebody got to spark her interest, or she's gonna want somebody. I don't know what kind of woman won't, if you get to go and look at 53 men's packages. And you're just sitting here, saying 'Oh, none of this is attractive to me.' I know you're doing a job, but at the same time, the same way I'm gonna cut my eye if I see somebody worth talking to, I'm sure they do the same thing."

Note, emphasis in the quotes were from the site I copied from, not mine.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by Travis

Heh, the full quote goes like this though:

"You know man, I think you put women reporters in the locker room in positions to see guys walking around naked, and you sit in the locker room with 53 guys, and all of the sudden you see a nice woman in the locker room, I think men are gonna tend to turn and look and want to say something to that woman. For the woman, I think they make it so much that you can't interact and you can't be involved with athletes, you can't talk to these guys, you can't interact with these guys.

"And I mean, you put a woman and you give her a choice of 53 athletes, somebody got to be appealing to her. You know, somebody got to spark her interest, or she's gonna want somebody. I don't know what kind of woman won't, if you get to go and look at 53 men's packages. And you're just sitting here, saying 'Oh, none of this is attractive to me.' I know you're doing a job, but at the same time, the same way I'm gonna cut my eye if I see somebody worth talking to, I'm sure they do the same thing."

Note, emphasis in the quotes were from the site I copied from, not mine.

The fact that she would be attracted to any of the players is irrelevant. The fact that a player can't keep themselves in check while around the rest of their teammates in a business situation is the player's fault. Period.

[molson]

I agree with the sentiment going around today that nobody should be in the locker room. I mean, how did it become accepted for reporters to barge in and ask athletes questions when they're still naked? What the hell is that?

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by molson

I agree with the sentiment going around today that nobody should be in the locker room. I mean, how did it become accepted for reporters to barge in and ask athletes questions when they're still naked? What the hell is that?

Agreed. There's zero reason for reporters to be in the locker room right after a game.