Patriots Free Agency: Randy Moss Isn't Walking Through That Door
Or at least Patriot Nation shouldn't want him to.
It is absolutely mystifying how nostalgic some Pats fans are about the guy. What about the entire 2009 and early 2010 seasons do they want to bring back?
Consider this: Since Moss was traded after Week 4 of the '10 season, the Pats have gone 24-4 and have averaged 32.1 points per game.
Conversely, since leaving the Pats, Moss has a total of 19 receptions for 254 yards and two touchdowns.
Please remind me again why the Pats need Moss.
Plus, Moss was out of football all of last season. And that time off didn't make him any younger. He's now 35 years old.
Furthermore, how much discontent have you heard about in the Pats locker room since Moss left? Not much.
In fact, things have been rather boring around Patriot Place sans Moss. And that's a good thing.
Who would you rather see in a Patriots uniform?
(Well, there was that photo of Rob Gronkowski with porn star BiBi Jones that made the rounds. But that just proved Gronk was living the life most men envy.)
And speaking of Gronkowski—and Aaron Hernandez, too—their emergence was probably accelerated by the departure of Moss. Without having to placate the pouting Moss, Tom Brady was free to spread the ball around.
The end result? Two stars were born.
All of this Moss talk is a byproduct of the misconception that somehow the Pats can't survive without having a wide receiver that "spreads the field."
Well, the Pittsburgh Steelers and Philadelphia Eagles each have (or should I say "had"?) a receiver—Mike Wallace and DeSean Jackson, respectively—that can fly, yet have statistically inferior offenses compared to the Pats.
Quite frankly, Moss isn't the burner that he once was, anyway.
So basically, the pro-Moss people are pining away for what was, not what currently is.
No, I like this Moss-less Pats team just fine, thank you. It's young, unselfish and without the drama.
But if you really want the drama, go watch some soap operas.
Or root for the Raiders.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?