Randy Moss Cut: Should 49ers Capitalize on Pro Bowl WR's Availability?
Jim Rogash/Getty Images
Randy Moss was waived by the Minnesota Vikings today, less than a month after being acquired from the New England Patriots. The 49ers offense has been nothing short of disappointing this year, and could certainly use help in their passing game.
I know Moss doesn't seem to fit the Mike Singletary team-first mentality, but at one point, neither did Vernon Davis.
There is at least one camp around the 49ers Faithful and writers that seem in agreement of the 49ers need for a jump-ball receiver, and there is probably not a better go-up-and-get-it threat in the NFL than Moss.
Moss seemed to dis the Vikings after they lost to his former team Sunday night, saying they were still his friends and that he missed them. What Moss is also missing now is the Patriots league-best 6-1 record.
The 49ers on the other hand are coming into a bye week at 2-6 but may have tuned a corner (knock on wood) with the recent installment of Troy Smith at quarterback. This would be the opportune time, if the 49ers did in fact want to add the veteran to their receiving group.
Between Troy Smith's arm, the jump-ball abilities of Moss and the plethora of receiving alternatives the 49ers have, the potential is still there for the 49ers to do real damage to the NFC West. Factor in what this move would mean to defenses trying to stop Frank Gore, and we might have ourselves an instant Super Bowl contender—you know, like the one people thought the 49ers would be coming into the season.
San Francisco was a rumored destination for Moss earlier this year when he spoke to the press wearing a San Francisco Giants jersey, but that ended up being a pure coincidence.
Now, however, the 49ers could once again have a chance to make a bold move. It could very possibly be a move that propels their season back into NFL relevancy, and they have very few excuses not to make it.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?