Randy Moss Reportedly Close to Deal with Fox
Future Hall of Fame wide receiver Randy Moss is one of the most notorious players in NFL history, and it appears as though he is close to bringing his polarizing personality to Fox as an analyst, according to Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk.
UPDATE: Friday, Aug. 9
From Randy Moss:
Thanks for the luv peeps!!FOX BOOM— Randy Moss (@RandyMoss) August 9, 2013
Moss has reportedly agreed to a tentative deal with Fox, and while it is not yet official, it is expected to be finalized in the near future. Moss' duties could involve contributing to Fox Football Daily on Fox Sports 1 as well as some type of involvement with Fox Sports 1's Sunday programming, according to Florio.
The 36-year-old Moss is unquestionably one of the greatest receivers in NFL history, as he racked up nearly 1,000 receptions for more than 15,000 yards and 156 touchdowns in 14 NFL seasons with the Minnesota Vikings, Oakland Raiders, New England Patriots, Tennessee Titans and San Francisco 49ers.
Moss retired after a trying 2010 season, but he came back to play for the Niners last year. Moss was used sparingly, and he ended the season with just 434 yards and three touchdowns. He nearly captured that elusive Super Bowl ring, but the 49ers lost to the Baltimore Ravens in the big game.
Although Moss is second and third on the all-time NFL list in receiving touchdowns and receiving yards, respectively, he may be best known for his unpredictable attitude and actions both on and off the field.
While those antics caused plenty of headaches for his former employers, Fox is likely intrigued by what he could bring to the table. Not only is he always eager to speak his mind, but he should have plenty of insight on what it takes to thrive at the wide receiver position in the NFL.
Controversial receivers like Keyshawn Johnson and Cris Carter have done well for themselves as analysts in recent years, and Fox is hoping that it can hit pay dirt with Moss as well.
Follow @MikeChiari on Twitter
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?