It's apparently OK for players to quit on bad teams . . . . .

So sayeth Jemele Hill of espn.com.

http://proxy.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=hill/080130&sportCat=nfl

Among the points:

- Barry Sanders left the Lions because he knew they couldn't win (no mention of him signing that huge cap-killing contract that of course prevented high bids on other quality players)
- Randy was right to quit on the Raiders, because look how dysfunctional they are!

Here's the money quote:

"Sanders knew he was too good to play for an organization that bad. He might have handled his situation more maturely than Moss, but ultimately they both realized their talent was far too great to be controlled by people who didn't know how to win."

Not to sound like a broken record after my criticism of Plaschke's weak "Tom Brady is NOT Johnny U!!!!" effort of last week . . but this reads like it was written by a kid at a Boston-area student paper, who somehow secured a Super Bowl credential and now is taking the chance to proclaim what a hero Randy Moss is because he decided to actually try this season.

Very sophomoric effort from someone who could do better.

 

Right. What's the point of trying if your teammates suck? Why try and make them better?

 

i don't think that's the reason BS quit at all.

 

For who? For what?

 

I have no problems with Sanders. None.
He quit and never came back.
What's the argument? That he owed the fans five more years? Eight? Ten? Want to end your career, end you career.
Moss is a more dubious case. But people who want to bust on the guy can't do it for anything he's done this year so they come out defending ex post facto the noble cause of Al Davis and the dysfunctional mess he's made of the Raiders. OK, then.

 

Didn't Moss take a big pay cut to go to the Pats? I don't begrudge anyone wanting to better their situation. But you're a professional football player. You get paid to play the game at the top of your ability. Nobody every accused Sanders of not giving his best. I don't think the same could be said of Lions management.

And other than the obligatory "(Super Bowl host city) sucks" column, aren't most of the people covering this thing too busy schmoozing and going to parties to really write a kick ass article? I can't remember the last time something written on Super Bowl week made it into the BASW.

 

Buffets are hell.

 

The analogy to Barry Sanders is lame. When Sanders concluded that his heart wasn't in it anymore, he retired, he didn't keep taking the paycheck without giving the effort. Very different situations. I can respect Sanders' decision, but not what Moss did in Oakland (and his last year in Minny, btw).

 

I agree. You quit the game you quit the game. Fine. Your decision.

Quitting your team for greener pastures is a dick move.

 

Couple things:

1. The comparison isn't merely lame, it's fucking inane. Sanders retired. If it was solely the Lions' lack of talent weighing on him, he could sat out or forced a trade, or, like Moss did, played so poorly that the team concluded a trade was best. Sanders did none of that; he retired.

The 1998 Lions were 5-11. Bad, but not grind-holes-in-your-head awful like the Raiders were while Moss was there.

In 1999, without Sanders, guess what?
Lions not so bad - 8-8. Made the playoffs with Greg Hill as the running back.

In 2000, Lions were 9-7 with James Stewart toting the rock.

So even if Sanders completely fucking walked away from all of it solely because of the Lions' shitty talent, well, it wasn't a very good reason.

So either Sanders was a bit of an idiot…or he had other, better, more permanent reasons to lean on.

2. Moss was an OK receiver in 2005. 60 grabs, 1000 yards, 8 scores, led the team in the last two categories. In Norv Turner's deep-ball system, that's about right. A little low, maybe, but not awful; Turner's offense is not a 110-catch offense. Look at Michael Irvin's numbers on far superior teams.

In 2006, yeah, not good. The Raiders also scored 168 points all year. Had a -23 turnover ratio. Was coordinated by…well, shit, you know who. And you know who quarterbacked them, too.

In those two years, he still averaged 15.3 yards per catch. A first down and a half, every time he touched it.

Did he quit? Yeah. The whole offense did. Jerry Porter didn't even play. Do you really blame any of them? Name me a worse-looking unit this decade. Hell, ever.

The real story, to me, has always been this: The NFL analyst pool is dominated by quarterbacks and offensive linemen who are highly complimentary of quarterbacks and offensive linemen and rather disdainful of wide receivers - especially Randy Moss. The few wide receivers in the analysis game are competitive, churlish brats who still think they can play (or would be playing if they hadn't been hurt for good) and are, I believe, jealous of Moss's talent.

Moss is the second best receiver any of us have ever seen. And if he had Joe Montana, Steve Young and Rich Gannon throwing to him for 15 of 20 years, he could have given Rice a real run for his money.

 

Great points, Alma. I would argue that Moss is the most physically gifted receiver I've ever seen, with Calvin Johnson (big year for him coming up) and that freshman at Texas Tech being the only guys who could be that special one day.

Other than that, though, I completely agree with you.

 

I would like to think I'd keep playing hard regardless of circumstance if I was making that much money to play a sport, but when you're playing a game that can kill you, I understand the temptation to ease up when you're playing on a team like that.

Like Chris Rock said ... I ain't sayin he's right ... but I understand.