Sorry folks, but Moose is expendable.

For this offensive system (which I know many detest), Muhammad is expendable.

I have a feeling about Moose, and tell me if you agree. We break our backs to re-structure his deal, and give him a nice chunk of change for a job well done. Then, in 2005, with Smith health and Colbert emerging, Moose sees less balls, drops more balls. Just a feeling, nothing to substantiate this on other than past observations of Moose.

The man played out of his head this year, no doubt. But it's like the Rozinski thing--he may be gone. But the world keeps spinning. And if we throw all of our resources and focus on keeping Muhammad, we will, IMHO, neglect certain areas of this football team that require more attention (FS, DT, OT, TE, S-Teams.)

I'm all for Moose finishing his career here, but I would be more than ok with letting him move on, saving a little cap room, and filling his role with a younger, faster prototype, including, but not limited to the following free agents:

*T.J. Houshmandzadeh UFA
*Tai Streets UFA
*David Givens RFA :applause:
*Cedrick Wilson RFA
*Dane Looker UFA

All fine options. Again, the RFA's will cost you a late pick. But there's and instant return on all of these options, and most of the, are only 3-6 year pros. Lot of future.

Again, it's just a thought.

 

Just to add.....

Look at the Bill Belichick model of football finance.

You take your lumps. If there is a player that is not neccesarily a need player, you thank him for his time and let him move on.

I am a fan, but also have a business mind. It would be smart business to allow Muhammad to move on, and go younger at the position. There comes a point in every player's career where it's just time to move on.

If I ran a team, I would like to think that I could put together a receiving corps even better than the one we have had in the last two seasons. And I do feel that allowing a 31-year old receiver to move on is not entirely bad.

 

Actually, you take away Moose and we don't have offense. That's detestable.

 

Like 2003, right?

 

I'm not sure any player is completely unexpendable. Smith would hurt sure, but we survived this season and had he been the ONLY key injury, who knows what we would have done?

Speaking only for myself, I know that we will survive without Moose and I've said several times I truly do not expect him back. My stance is that I feel Moose has been a valuable and positive asset to this team year in and year out. Not perfect, but who is and some years better then others, but some of that affected heavily by musical QBs, the system we were playing and what the coaching staff wanted him to do. I don't agree that Moose only plays in contract years or only plays when HE feels like it. He has off periods, but looking at the BIG picture, he's a contributor. You don't find many wide receivers with his blocking ability and in fact you don't find many receivers who WANT to block. They go out and give someone a gentle shove and then they're done or they take a really bad angle and gosh darn it, miss the play completely.

Do I think the team will go in the toilet if/when he's gone? No, but even bringing in a veteran WR, we might not replace the complete Moose, but that won't drop us from playoff contenders to the basement either.

If Moose wants obscene money then he's gone,period and there's no questioning the decision the organization makes. But I also don't want to see us low ball him and bank on him "loving us that much".

For me it's more an emotional thing. I like Moose and I want him back here. If he's gone and the team tried to keep him without doing a Gilbert, then I'm ok with that, but it will be a hard loss for me and I will miss him a lot.

 

Like 2003 when we had a ton of other players? No. Like 2004, when we ran our entire offense around a receiver that, once someone figured out how to cover him, shut us down. So yeah, let's try the exact same with Smith, coming off injury, and hope he can be better than he's ever been, and hope Colbert can catch a ball that's thrown to him for once.

They're all expendable, on paper. You lose a lot more than a salary when you release a team captain and current Pro Bowler, and I'm honestly beyond comprehension that a second - rate FA who's never done anything on the same level that our starter has, should obviously just do that much better a job at no money. Him and Travis Henry, right?

Smith was expendable. Nobody raced to show him the door. JD was expendable, and I've even seen someone argue (mind-numbingly) that we shouldn't re-sign him because Peete had "similar statistics" and we could always find another cheap player.

That's not what we did. And that's not what we should've done.

 

Mags, you like passing.

I like running.

You don't mind occasionally running the ball, provided it is out of a split set in a WCO system.

I don't mind occasionally passing the ball, provided it is out of shotgun, or an I-Form set off play-action.

Your coaching mind works like Bill Walsh. Mine works like Vince Lombardi.

Now that you have expressed your bitterness on what you percieve to be stubbornness, and stupidity of John Fox's offensive philosophy (whom he hired Henning to coordinate), let me give you a simple example of why I, personally (and it's only personal to me, I'm sure), saw the WCO offense under George Seifert as a painfully stubborn system.

Simple example. You can argue this all you want, but if we installed the GUN after the 1999 season, we would have won more games in 2000. Our QB would have had more time to scan the field, read the same routes that worked so well in 1999. But, no, that would have somehow "compromised the system."

Andy Reid runs the identical system that Seifert ran here. Only difference is that Reid adapted. He put the shotgun in this year and it has made McNabb a better QB in situational downs and distance. Seifert would never do this, eventhough it was obvious to many of us in the stands that Beuerlein off of center would have been a good thing. But, nah. Why compromise the system.

So, we go on to lead the NFL in sacks allowed. I believe it was 66, which totals to about 4 a game. Ridiculous. And I know Pat Jeffers was hurt, even more reason in my mind to adapt.

So answer me this, Mags? How is Jerry Richardson meddle in the offense? Where did you ever hear this? How did you come to this conclusion?

For all the praise you throw in the direction of the WCO, there are inherent problems in that system. It very rarely allows for any sort of vertical passing game. If everything is clicking perfectly, which it did for one half of one season in 1999, it is very effective. But, when you have to go on the road, in December, in the cold and snow, like we did in 1999 in Pittsburgh, it's a system that makes it harder to win in all conditions. We never committed to running the football in the WCO. Only the best of WCO's commit anything to the running game (Walsh-SFO, Holmgren-GB, etc.)

Another question? Why do you feel that Henning runs his backs into the ground? On what grounds do you base this argument?

Since he's been here, our backs have had bumps and bruises, not unlike any team who favors a balanced attack. But not a single Panther has been run into the ground by Dan Henning. Nor was a single Jet, Giant, or Redskin. Yes, Davis hurt his knee, and he did tote the ball quite a bit last year. But, shit Mags, it wasn't a lost cause using Davis we did. In 2003, I can tell you that at least 6 games were won b/c we "wore down Davis." It helps to have a back who can do that. His knee was a question when we brought him here, and he is old for a back.

As for Foster, it's two freak injuries. Henning has yet to wear down a back here in Carolina. Lamar Smith started every game in 2002 until he was suspended. Davis was aging and banged up when we signed him. Foster's injuries are freakish. So, you may not like how this system runs, but it's how it is. And you are entitled to hate the living shit out of it. But don't expect me to buy into this bullshit that the WCO is the system of all systems. I saw it for 3 years here, and was not impressed.

 

wow, I've never gotten that impression from Mags. Sure he might like the WCO offense better, but to say he only wants to see a few runs out of pro formation is ridiculous.

I've posted various stats somewhere about how our starting back, no matter if it was Davis, Foster, or Goings got 30+ carries in a disproportionate amount of their starts. As opposed to other "workhorse" backs, including Tomlinson, who was the total offense pre-Gates. Tomlinson only had 1 or 2 games in the past 2 years with 30+ carries, and hasn't missed any time. All of our backs have had multiple 30+ carry games, and consequently missed time, didn't finish games, didn't start games, whatever the case may be. That's "wearing down" a back. Hitting a back out of the backfield in the flats and letting him get tackled by a corner is far less wear than banging him between 2 or 3 300 pound linemen an extra 5 times a game.

Don't mis-construe this as my love for the WCO, I love the power running game and play-action based off that. I don't care much for the WCO.

 

Yeah. What the hell?

I'm not even going to read what's above. But for the record, I do like the trapping game, I like off-tackle plays, I like the I only in situations where you can get off-tackle type influences, and in that instance I don't care whether the fullback is blocking in the hole or sealing contain. I like the counter play only in certain instances. I do like influence-misdirection, but not fake to one guy to give another guy room, the backers are going to follow the ball.

I'd actually like it more if we just ran up the gut with more authority - not so much of this cutesy fake dive-toss crap. Not so much draw. Real running. Not as a crutch, and not as a total dependence upon a player who we'll wear out unnecessarily (yes, we did argue this, and yes, I did win. You can bring it back up for shits and giggles, but there's significant proof and I never saw a rebuttal of worth).


I also like it when people abandon their core point/core belief to argue something on the fringe of relevance for no specific point but to attempt to gain an edge, as if a successful defense/attack of this little nugget in the corner of the room validates the rest.



We don't have to sign Muhammad, it's not a dire and critical thing. However, the only time our offense really worked in 2003, it was when Muhammad was getting as many balls as Smith. When our O was working in 2004? Guess who?
1999? 2000? Guess who? The guy's good. He's served us well, and he's got more to give. I hope we can work something out with him, I hope we don't try some Jeno James bullshit on him and offer a free lunch and a couple bucks.

But if it came down to it, and he was asking an average of $7 mil a year for the next 8 years, then no, we can't do that. And then we begrudgingly hope we can find someone who can help us out (and hope and pray that Smith comes back healthy, that Colbert can hold onto the ball, and that we can be lucky enough to find a good slot WR). But this cocksure attitude that we don't need him, that just disregards the makeup of this team.

 

So, Colbert didn't make plays. He didn't have 5 very valuable touchdown snags. Ah, ok.

No, Mags, not everyone is expedable. Moose is over 30. Smith is not. Big difference.

I'm just preparing myself for his release. I was as happy as anyone to see him relish the opportunity he was given this year, but he is due about a billion dollars in 2005, and I don't see it being a possibility. Now, it can happen, but it may mean sacrificing other needs.

I would never try to slight the value of a team captain or pro bowler, but we re-structured him last year knowing full well that it would be almost impossible to keep him under that deal in 2005. Now, he happens to catch 90 balls and go to the pro bowl and he has unexpected leverage.

He may be a gonner, unless you can find me a way to keep him and address more pressing needs on this football team.