Randy Moss NFL Return: Glowing Workout Report Means He Should Get Another Shot
Moss last played in 2010. That season he played for almost one-tenth of the teams in the league and only managed to catch 28 passes for 393 yards.
The once-explosive wide receiver that had become famous for making big plays recorded just five touchdowns, and his longest reception was for 38 yards.
Well, if there is any truth to the following reports, there may have been a cause for his decline beyond an erosion of talent.
Fox Sports' Jay Glazer offered this nugget:
hearing from multiple sources re Randy Moss workout today he lit it up. Was told he ran about 45 routes and "looked like the old Randy."— Jay Glazer (@JayGlazer) March 6, 2012
The key there is that he looked like "the old Randy," and not "an old Randy."
Will Moss play in the NFL in 2012?
Personally, I am blown away by this report, but also a little skeptical. In 2010, Moss' elite level of performance was long gone. It's hard to believe that he could have regained his past abilities at the age of 35 after a year away from the game.
But this report claims that is exactly what happened, and that means teams are going to come knocking.
Explosion was the key to his game. It was that and his excellent hands that allowed him to torch NFL defenses.
If he truly did look like "the old Randy," then he was showing that he had that explosion back and not just putting on a display of precise route running.
And if that is the case, Moss is going to get a job in the NFL. If not with the Saints, it will be with another team. Squads thin at the receiver position will reach out to Moss with the hope that they can catch lightning in a bottle.
If he does have his explosion back, Randy is not just another receiver. Prior to his awful 2010, he had put up three straight seasons of at least 1,000 yards receiving.
Moss has a long history of putting up his best numbers when there is a fresh chip on his shoulder, and there certainly is one now with his attempted comeback.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?