Moss, not a factor
 

It's been a while since Santana Moss has had one of those jaw dropping performances. Teams have picked up on this and he often has to fight through double coverage. Some of the best recievers in the league (Steve Smith, Chad Johnson, etc.) routinely face double coverage but still manage to put up big numbers. Is Moss as good as his early season numbers?

I respect Santana and appreciate everything that he brings to Washington, but during our last 6 games he has only one touchdown and zero 100 yrd performances. During this spand our starting H-back (Chris Cooley) trails Moss by about 40 yds.

He is said to be one of the better route runners in the NFL, so why can't he get open?
What is to blame, Play calling, offensive line, quarterbacking, or Moss himself?

Re: Moss, not a factor
 

Is this another overrated thread?

Re: Moss, not a factor
 

[QUOTE=sniks]Is this another overrated thread?[/QUOTE]
No, just something to think about.

Re: Moss, not a factor
 

[QUOTE=Anthony Chance]It's been a while since Santana Moss has had one of those jaw dropping performances. Teams have picked up on this and he often has to fight through double coverage. Some of the best recievers in the league (Steve Smith, Chad Johnson, etc.) routinely face double coverage but still manage to put up big numbers. Is Moss as good as his early season numbers?

I respect Santana and appreciate everything that he brings to Washington, but during our last 6 games he has only one touchdown and zero 100 yrd performances. During this spand our starting H-back (Chris Cooley) trails Moss by about 40 yds.

He is said to be one of the better route runners in the NFL, so why can't he get open.
What is to blame, Play calling, offensive line, quarterbacking, or Moss himself?[/QUOTE]

I would point to the fact that we have no #2 reciver to take pressure off of Moss. I'm actually suprised at the production he has gotten, especially being double and somtimes TRIPPLE teamed, latley. I think Cooley has been a great threat, but needs to be used as an even grater one if we hope to get Moss singled up again.

Re: Moss, not a factor
 

[QUOTE=Gmanc711]I would point to the fact that we have no #2 reciver to take pressure off of Moss. I'm actually suprised at the production he has gotten, especially being double and somtimes TRIPPLE teamed, latley. I think Cooley has been a great threat, but needs to be used as an even grater one if we hope to get Moss singled up again.[/QUOTE]

Thats a good point, we do lack a solid #2 reciever. This makes me wonder why Gibbs choose to go into the season with only 4 recievers, 2 of which are currently injured (Thrash and Patten) and the other couldn't catch a cold (Brown).

I think that Jimmy Farris can produce and should have been with the team in the beginning, it is a little late in the season to ask much of him

Oh yeah has anyone seen Taylor Jacobs

Re: Moss, not a factor
 

I agree that Moss has ben quite these past weeks, but teams do double and tripple cover him, I was still amazed at that catch that Moss had in the St.Louis game where he was like tripple coverd and he like out jumped everyone for the ball.

But his lack of offense is mainly and hugely due to the fact that other than our H-back, we have no real #2 WR.

Re: Moss, not a factor
 

Moss is a very good wideout; unquestionably a #1 wideout. But, in answer to your question, no he's not as good as his early season numbers suggested. NO ONE is as good as his early season numbers suggested; he was on pace for an 1,900 yard season halfway through the season. Great receivers regularly produce 1,200 yard seasons and Moss will do that for us.

Re: Moss, not a factor
 

[QUOTE=Gmanc711]I would point to the fact that we have no #2 reciver to take pressure off of Moss. I'm actually suprised at the production he has gotten, especially being double and somtimes TRIPPLE teamed, latley. I think Cooley has been a great threat, but needs to be used as an even grater one if we hope to get Moss singled up again.[/QUOTE]

I haven't seen Moss get triple teamed on a regular basis. He's always double-teamed, but I don't recall seeing him get triple-teamed. He's still a great wideout though.

Re: Moss, not a factor
 

Rod Gardner and Trung Canidate. we've come a long, LONG way.

Re: Moss, not a factor
 

[QUOTE=Ramseyfan]I haven't seen Moss get triple teamed on a regular basis. He's always double-teamed, but I don't recall seeing him get triple-teamed. He's still a great wideout though.[/QUOTE]
That catch he had in the St. Louis game he was trippled

Re: Moss, not a factor
 

i say we beg the jets to do a trade back

Re: Moss, not a factor
 

Moss > Coles

End of story.

Re: Moss, not a factor
 

[QUOTE=BigSKINBauer]i say we beg the jets to do a trade back[/QUOTE]

Lol, how about a Patten-Coles trade?

Re: Moss, not a factor
 

moss can beat double coverages and even triples, but brunell is VERY hesitant to throw him the ball with other jerseys around him and that's part of the problem (as well as the lack of ANY threats outside cooley, who's slow).

Re: Moss, not a factor
 

If you want Sanata to make the kind of plays he made in the begining of the season you have to call the plays he made. The deep ball to him has not been pursued for awhile. That deep hook he ran against Seatle that set up the game winning Kick in OT has not been called often enough. Some teams take chances with their star players and throw to them even though they are doubled. I will stack Santana Moss against anyone in the league at getting open, catching the ball, or making someting happen after the catch. But for a fair comparison they have to be running the same plays against the same coverages. Since that comparison can't be made you need to look at the plays he makes when we do go to him, and let that be what you judge him by.