Tuesday, February 19, 2008
No Moss
Look, I'm happy that the Bears have cleared about 20-30 million from their cap, and that there's more savings to come, but you're surely on crack if you think that money would be best spent on Randy Moss.
Let's look at some quick facts that keep Moss off this team:
#1. Personality. The Bears of the 1980's were all about flashiness and style, things that Moss would have excelled in. However, the current Bears team is very much about teamwork and selflessness (see: universal hatred of Cedric Benson for his holdout). If Moss continues to be his usual entertaining self, he may find that he doesn't have an audience for it.
Oh, and then there's all the crime and anti-team behavior. You know: not playing games when you don't feel like it, marijuana, and, of course, the Straight Cash Homey incident.
#2. Oakland. I cannot stress this enough. Bringing in an A+ receiver does not a good team make. The Raiders brought in Moss to give their team a legit receiving threat (to go along with LaMont Jordan on the ground) in what seemed like a surefire move to get the Raiders back into contention. Well, except that the rest of the team still sucked, and Moss didn't see why he should put himself on the line for a bad team. This says it all.
Moss flopped around like a dead fish, and underperformed for a team that likes to throw the deep ball. Heck, they even had a speedster (Porter) to take some heat off of Moss on the deep routes. It just doesn't matter if Moss doesn't care. If Moss can turn his back on Oakland (which had a much better run game than we do), why not Chicago?
#3. Money. As much cap room as we've saved, I find it hard to believe that the Bears would go after the top WR available with so many other holes to fill. Moss had a 2007 performance that nets him the big bucks, and it's not likely that the Bears would blow all that cap room on just one player (Unless his name is Lance Briggs).
Labels:
Bears,
contracts,
cuts,
money talks,
not a good idea,
Randy Moss
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment