Randy! Randy! Randy! Randy! Randy!

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: Randy! Randy! Randy! Randy! Randy!

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    I've gone over this nonsense already. I'll go slow.

     

    Randy in 2010 was a lost year.

    He had 3 TDs in 3 games with the Pats.

    The MN stop was a fiasco that proved nothing about his ability.

    And at TN they simply didn't use him. (Former Titans receivers coach Fred Graves - “I just don’t think we gave him a chance,”)

    He didn't play in 2011 (despite offers).

    With the 9ers in 2012 he signed knowing he was just a fill in and agreed to that. They weren't interested in sitting capable 20 something year olds with that offense for an aging receiver. Fine, they were clear about that.

    None of this is spin. These are all facts.

    There are no facts proving that Randy can't be a significant contributor to a team at WR. As always I scoff at the BS most fans like to offer as football knowledge. Maybe Randy is washed up. But there is no proof whatsoever that this is the case. It's just fans blabbering nonsense as if it was football knowledge. Happens here, day in, day out.

     

    The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that he is still a formidable player.  You are the one making that claim and the fact is that he has not put up numbers like an elite WR since 2009.  You can try and explain it away however you like, but the burden is still on you so saying I can't prove he is washed up is pointless.

    As for your claims about the 9ers I find that explanation to be laughable.  If Moss was such a great player still he would have seen more time.  Harbaugh knew coming into the season that he had a SB caliber roster.  You think he is going to play an inferior player simply because he was younger?  Teams with title aspirations don't do that.  The fact that Moss could not get more playing time than Manningham means at best he was viewed as the same type of player.  Manningham basically played like a JAG during his time on the field with SF.  The fact that Moss couldn't get on the field over him also speaks volumes.  The fact that SF's WR corps is thin as hell after losing Crabtree and they have no interest in signing Moss speaks volumes.  I have Moss' numbers and the lack of interest of the rest of the NFL on my side.  What do you have on yours?

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from RallyC. Show RallyC's posts

    Re: Randy! Randy! Randy! Randy! Randy!

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    Yeah, this is a bring Randy back thread. What do we have to lose? The WR corps is even more of a shamble than it was last year.



    Okay, Babe, honey, wake up!!! Its 2013! you've been asleep for quite sometime. We need to change your............mattress! Sorry, Babe, just can't help myself when it comes to you......I tried!

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Randy! Randy! Randy! Randy! Randy!

    In response to RallyC's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Yeah, this is a bring Randy back thread. What do we have to lose? The WR corps is even more of a shamble than it was last year.

     



    Babe, this is the purest of Troll recipes. Go ahead, I should know, right? Well, since you say so, I do! This is plainly a waste of everybody's time. Randy Moss was more than done before he left last time. Nap time????

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Bringing in reinforcements Rusty? Okay, give me some facts dumbkoff and I'll entertain your presentation. But don't give me the idiotic "I played in the NFL" nonsense. I'm immune to that stupidity.

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Randy! Randy! Randy! Randy! Randy!

    In response to RallyC's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Yeah, this is a bring Randy back thread. What do we have to lose? The WR corps is even more of a shamble than it was last year.

     



    Okay, Babe, honey, wake up!!! Its 2013! you've been asleep for quite sometime. We need to change your............mattress! Sorry, Babe, just can't help myself when it comes to you......I tried!

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Right Rusty. We all know your big on the age, job, earnings, education and such idiot's ploy. Nothing new from you.

    Let me ask.... which do you think is more true; Brady being a system QB or Randy being washed up?

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Randy! Randy! Randy! Randy! Randy!

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    I've gone over this nonsense already. I'll go slow.

     

    Randy in 2010 was a lost year.

    He had 3 TDs in 3 games with the Pats.

    The MN stop was a fiasco that proved nothing about his ability.

    And at TN they simply didn't use him. (Former Titans receivers coach Fred Graves - “I just don’t think we gave him a chance,”)

    He didn't play in 2011 (despite offers).

    With the 9ers in 2012 he signed knowing he was just a fill in and agreed to that. They weren't interested in sitting capable 20 something year olds with that offense for an aging receiver. Fine, they were clear about that.

    None of this is spin. These are all facts.

    There are no facts proving that Randy can't be a significant contributor to a team at WR. As always I scoff at the BS most fans like to offer as football knowledge. Maybe Randy is washed up. But there is no proof whatsoever that this is the case. It's just fans blabbering nonsense as if it was football knowledge. Happens here, day in, day out.

     

     

    The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that he is still a formidable player.  You are the one making that claim and the fact is that he has not put up numbers like an elite WR since 2009.  You can try and explain it away however you like, but the burden is still on you so saying I can't prove he is washed up is pointless.

    As for your claims about the 9ers I find that explanation to be laughable.  If Moss was such a great player still he would have seen more time.  Harbaugh knew coming into the season that he had a SB caliber roster.  You think he is going to play an inferior player simply because he was younger?  Teams with title aspirations don't do that.  The fact that Moss could not get more playing time than Manningham means at best he was viewed as the same type of player.  Manningham basically played like a JAG during his time on the field with SF.  The fact that Moss couldn't get on the field over him also speaks volumes.  The fact that SF's WR corps is thin as hell after losing Crabtree and they have no interest in signing Moss speaks volumes.  I have Moss' numbers and the lack of interest of the rest of the NFL on my side.  What do you have on yours?

    [/QUOTE]


    There is no burden of proof on me. Several of you are claiming he's washed up. I simply say that claim is not proven. Until I see facts that prove such a thing I say he is worth a shot on our team which has a joke of a WR corps at this point.

    What the hell are you even talking about? It's MOSS who is deciding if he wants to play at this point. There is not a lack of interest because he isn't even available yet.

    And as I have already stated 3 times, SF wanted his as a backup and was not, and is not going to play an older guy at the expense of their younger guys. This has been made clear right along.

    Despite your BS claims as to what Harbaugh was/is thinking, we KNOW what he was/is thinking in regard to this because it has been made clear.

     

    All you have is spin and speculation. Nada on facts.

     

    Some of you people just make shyt up.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from IrishMob7. Show IrishMob7's posts

    Re: Randy! Randy! Randy! Randy! Randy!

    In response to DontQuestionBB's comment:

    In response to IrishMob7's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to DontQuestionBB's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    Yeah, this is a bring Randy back thread. What do we have to lose? The WR corps is even more of a shamble than it was last year.

     



    What a sad state of affairs to be considering Randy Moss at this point in his career.  If Randy or Lloyd were to re-sign then it only solidifies that Kraft needs to get involved and take away some personell decisions from BB and bring in a real GM.

     

     

     



    Since you're never hesitant to criticize BB's personnel moves, what do you suggest the offseason moves be?  What would you have done differently?  What would you do from here on out?  Now I want players' names, cap figures, etc.  Don't dodge the question.  If you're going to criticize, provide your opinion of what should happen with the team if you had the GM duties.

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    For starters I would have kept Wes and made a move for Greg Jennings.  Another alternative would have been to keep the 1st rd pick and draft Cordarrelle Patterson.

     

    Now I would go after Dallas Clark and Dave Thomas because they are the best options at this point.  

    [/QUOTE]

    I like your thinking there.

    But, how would Greg Jennings have fit with the cap?  5 years/47.5M?  Not gonna happen.  And for all the crap BB got for signing 'injury-prone' Danny, that would be a bit hypocritical to vouch for Jennings who has been constantly injured over the past few years.  That is, of course, if you're in the crowd that gave BB crap for signing DA.

    If we kept Wes, would you not have signed Danny?  I'm not saying you are saying that, but a lot of people are saying we should have gotten both.  I disagree and think they would be redundant playing in the same offense.

    Not a big fan of Patterson.  I'm intrigued at the potential of both Dobson and Boyce.  I think at least one of the two will have a nice impact this season.

    I really do not think our WR prospects are as bad as people make them out to be.  Sure, they are unproven but there is a bevy of talent that is going to be fighting for these roster spots.  Tom will make it work.  Plus, Gronk will be back by Week 6 at the latest.  The controversy is overblown, IMO.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from digger0862. Show digger0862's posts

    Re: Randy! Randy! Randy! Randy! Randy!

    http://www.tagroom.com/wp-content/uploads/oh-brother.gif

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: Randy! Randy! Randy! Randy! Randy!

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    And as I have already stated 3 times, SF wanted his as a backup and was not, and is not going to play an older guy at the expense of their younger guys. This has been made clear right along.  Despite your BS claims as to what Harbaugh was/is thinking, we KNOW what he was/is thinking in regard to this because it has been made clear.

     


    Care to source this claim?  You really think if Moss could play like he used to that he could be a backup just because of his age?  Seriously?  If Harbaugh was so clear on what Moss' role was going to be then why did Randy complain about it so much?  He had to know it was coming.

     

    [QUOTE]

    All you have is spin and speculation. Nada on facts.

    Some of you people just make shyt up.

    [/QUOTE]

    Pot meet kettle.  All you have done is continuously reference a counterintuitive position that you claim Harbaugh and his staff were taking (that they were sitting a great WR in Moss for the JAG Manningham in a season they were contending for an SB because of his age) without an iota of proof.

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Randy! Randy! Randy! Randy! Randy!

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

    And as I have already stated 3 times, SF wanted his as a backup and was not, and is not going to play an older guy at the expense of their younger guys. This has been made clear right along.  Despite your BS claims as to what Harbaugh was/is thinking, we KNOW what he was/is thinking in regard to this because it has been made clear.

     

     

     


    Care to source this claim?  You really think if Moss could play like he used to that he could be a backup just because of his age?  Seriously?  If Harbaugh was so clear on what Moss' role was going to be then why did Randy complain about it so much?  He had to know it was coming.

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

    All you have is spin and speculation. Nada on facts.

    Some of you people just make shyt up.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Pot meet kettle.  All you have done is continuously reference a counterintuitive position that you claim Harbaugh and his staff were taking (that they were sitting a great WR in Moss for the JAG Manningham in a season they were contending for an SB because of his age) without an iota of proof.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Never said Moss was still great. You're making that shyte up.

     

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from soxrockursox. Show soxrockursox's posts

    Re: Randy! Randy! Randy! Randy! Randy!


    Randy was great but at the end of his carrer here and other places he was a cancer to the team!!

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from AcheNot. Show AcheNot's posts

    Re: Randy! Randy! Randy! Randy! Randy!

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    The WR corps is even more of a shamble than it was last year.



    The same might be said about you too, Babe

    Not by me of course. To me, you are still an All Pro around here...

    Btw, unless I'm mistaken, you accused three different people in this thread of being Rusty today. Even by your low "anyone who agrees with Rusty must be Rusty" standard, that's got to be a personal best

    I Like You, Babe


     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Randy! Randy! Randy! Randy! Randy!

    In response to AcheNot's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    The WR corps is even more of a shamble than it was last year.

     



    The same might be said about you too, Babe

    Not by me of course. To me, you are still an All Pro around here...

    Btw, unless I'm mistaken, you accused three different people in this thread of being Rusty today. Even by your low "anyone who agrees with Rusty must be Rusty" standard, that's got to be a personal best

    I Like You, Babe


     

    [/QUOTE]


    Some people might say you are a know-nothing snivelling degenerate little loser who has never added a single word of worth to this board. But not me, no sir.

     

    It's pretty clear Mob and Rally are Rusty. But I wouldn't expect you to catch on to that. Antibody? Perhaps. It's generally people who use Rustylike lingo and approach that are suspects. You know, bringing up job, education, age, earnings that sort of thing. It's a Rusty trademark that very few others ever use. Excessive agreement and mutual support are also suspect, since, you know, most real people here loathe Rusty.

     

    As far as your theory that I say anybody who agrees with Rusty is Rusty... that's pretty stupid. Not that you're stupid. It's just a stupid theory. You know, a guy like wozzy has agreed with Rusty, but I never have suspected he was Rusty. Tons of others fall into the same category. So, like I say, stupid theory.

     

    Are you trying to tell us Rusty has no fake accounts here? Let's get this on record.

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from AcheNot. Show AcheNot's posts

    Re: Randy! Randy! Randy! Randy! Randy!

    Well, wozzy must be the exception that disproves the rule then...or whatever that expression is

    I'm not trying to tell you anything, Babe. Rusty may or may not use sock puppets. I really dont GAF. And neither, I suspect, do the majority of the people here GAF. But IMO you see fake accounts even when they arent there (Mob and antibody, for instance). It's a sign youve been on the board too long. Not that I want you to leave or anything. Youve even accused me three or four times of being a Rusty sock puppet. I think it's funny

    Btw, I posted a new song for you last week. Did you see it? I hope so. It was really good. Was only up for like 25 mins before the mods deleted it

    MFers always ruining my fun...



     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: Randy! Randy! Randy! Randy! Randy!

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    Never said Moss was still great. You're making that shyte up. 



    You said he was still formidable.  That is a pretty strong adjective to use when describing a WR.  Even if you don't think the two are in the same ballpark my point from my previous post still stands.  Manningham was nowhere near formidable or great last season and yet he started over Moss.  Your contention is that Harbaugh chose to start the inferior Manningham because he is younger.  You have provided no evidence for this other than your own conjecture.  I think it is pretty dam crazy.  It's something a rebuilding team would do.  Contenders put their best players on the field regardless of age.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Randy! Randy! Randy! Randy! Randy!

    In response to AcheNot's comment:

    Well, wozzy must be the exception that disproves the rule then...or whatever that expression is

    I'm not trying to tell you anything, Babe. Rusty may or may not use sock puppets. I really dont GAF. And neither, I suspect, do the majority of the people here GAF. But IMO you see fake accounts even when they arent there (Mob and antibody, for instance). It's a sign youve been on the board too long. Not that I want you to leave or anything. Youve even accused me three or four times of being a Rusty sock puppet. I think it's funny

    Btw, I posted a new song for you last week. Did you see it? I hope so. It was really good. Was only up for like 25 mins before the mods deleted it

    MFers always ruining my fun...






    Awww gee, I missed your new creation. My loss. I'm sure it was worth checking out.

    Here's to not GAF! I share your sentiments completely. Maybe just not about the same things.

    I don't pretend to be omniscient about which accounts are Rusty fakes, but there are several that seem very obvious.

    But one might be puzzled if you don't GAF about that why you seem to GAF about if I GAF about it or not. But, to each his own. It's not something I take umbrage with you about.

    I appreciate your concern and your willingness to share your expertise regarding if I have been on the board too long or not. But I really don't GAF what you think. So, your concern is rather moot in that light.

    But really, you don't seem to have Rusty's style underlying your posts, so I will assume you just know football at a similar level to Rusty and aren't him. Feel better?

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Randy! Randy! Randy! Randy! Randy!

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    Never said Moss was still great. You're making that shyte up. 

     



    You said he was still formidable.  That is a pretty strong adjective to use when describing a WR.  Even if you don't think the two are in the same ballpark my point from my previous post still stands.  Manningham was nowhere near formidable or great last season and yet he started over Moss.  Your contention is that Harbaugh chose to start the inferior Manningham because he is younger.  You have provided no evidence for this other than your own conjecture.  I think it is pretty dam crazy.  It's something a rebuilding team would do.  Contenders put their best players on the field regardless of age.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Well, since Harbaugh has announced he wants to go with his young guys, formidable or not, this season, fresh off a SB appearance, that seems to not only crash and burn your theory that it is something characteristic of a rebuilding team, but can be offered as evidence that such a philosophy was likely in place mere months ago.

    And you might want to look up both formidable and great. They are not nearly of the same magnitude.

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from AcheNot. Show AcheNot's posts

    Re: Randy! Randy! Randy! Randy! Randy!

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:



    Awww gee, I missed your new creation. My loss. I'm sureit was worth checking out.

     

    Here's to not GAF! I share your sentiments completely. Maybe just not about the same things.

    I don't pretend to be omniscient about which accounts are Rusty fakes, but there are several that seem very obvious.

    But one might be puzzled if you don't GAF about that why you seem to GAF about if I GAF about it or not. But, to each his own. It's not something I take umbrage with you about.

    I appreciate your concern and your willingness to share your expertise regarding if I have been on the board too long or not. But I really don't GAF what you think. So, your concern is rather moot in that light.

    But really, you don't seem to have Rusty's style underlying your posts, so I will assume you just know football at a similar level to Rusty and aren't him. Feel better?

     



    Awww, gee. That's too bad. But dont worry, Babe. Now that I know youre sad about missing it the first time, I will repost the song again to make sure you see it. Ok?

    And, yes, I do feel better now. All those mocking GAFs in your post made me lol

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Randy! Randy! Randy! Randy! Randy!

    In response to AcheNot's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     



    Awww gee, I missed your new creation. My loss. I'm sureit was worth checking out.

     

    Here's to not GAF! I share your sentiments completely. Maybe just not about the same things.

    I don't pretend to be omniscient about which accounts are Rusty fakes, but there are several that seem very obvious.

    But one might be puzzled if you don't GAF about that why you seem to GAF about if I GAF about it or not. But, to each his own. It's not something I take umbrage with you about.

    I appreciate your concern and your willingness to share your expertise regarding if I have been on the board too long or not. But I really don't GAF what you think. So, your concern is rather moot in that light.

    But really, you don't seem to have Rusty's style underlying your posts, so I will assume you just know football at a similar level to Rusty and aren't him. Feel better?

     

     



    Awww, gee. That's too bad. But dont worry, Babe. Now that I know youre sad about missing it the first time, I will repost the song again to make sure you see it. Ok?

    And, yes, I do feel better now. All those mocking GAFs in your post made me lol

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Well I am certainly heartened not only that I have somehow brought a brief moment of mirth to your world but also that you would not only once but twice expend your precious  time to compose an ode on my behalf and go even further by re-posting such a work which was scurrilously expunged from existence by the wayward wisdom of the censor. All I can say is; You are just a swell guy.

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from nomadfan. Show nomadfan's posts

    Re: Randy! Randy! Randy! Randy! Randy!

    Moss will be hard pressed to be able to replace someone like Hernandez. Randy only ran over the foot of a meter maid with his car.


    Living well is the best revenge.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: Randy! Randy! Randy! Randy! Randy!

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    Well, since Harbaugh has announced he wants to go with his young guys, formidable or not, this season, fresh off a SB appearance, that seems to not only crash and burn your theory that it is something characteristic of a rebuilding team, but can be offered as evidence that such a philosophy was likely in place mere months ago.

    Or maybe he decided Moss wasn't that much better than his in house options?  That is just as consistent with his declaration.

     

    [QUOTE]

    And you might want to look up both formidable and great. They are not nearly of the same magnitude.

     [/QUOTE]

    for·mi·da·ble    [fawr-mi-duh-buhl]  Show IPA adjective 1. causing  fear apprehension, or dread:  a formidable opponent. 2. of discouraging or  awesome  strength, size, difficulty, etc.; intimidating:  a formidable problem. 3. arousing feelings of awe or admiration because of grandeur, strength, etc. 4. of great strength; forceful; powerful:  formidable opposition to the proposal.

    Not as far apart as you think.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from AcheNot. Show AcheNot's posts

    Re: Randy! Randy! Randy! Randy! Randy!

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    Well I am certainly heartened not only that I have somehow brought a brief moment of mirth to your world but also that you would not only once but twice expend your precious  time to compose an ode on my behalf and go even further by re-posting such a work which was scurrilously expunged from existence by the wayward wisdom of the censor. All I can say is; You are just a swell guy.



    Thank you, Babe. I think youre swell too!

    I can tell by the tone in your post, you are a sincere man

    I appreciate your sincerity

    Best wishes,
    Ache

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from csylvia79. Show csylvia79's posts

    Re: Randy! Randy! Randy! Randy! Randy!

    Come on guys bring in Randy Moss can't been any worst then kick the tires on Galloway.  Randy might not have much left but there are way worst people they have/could sign to see if they can make it through camp. 

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Randy! Randy! Randy! Randy! Randy!

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    Well, since Harbaugh has announced he wants to go with his young guys, formidable or not, this season, fresh off a SB appearance, that seems to not only crash and burn your theory that it is something characteristic of a rebuilding team, but can be offered as evidence that such a philosophy was likely in place mere months ago.

     

     

    Or maybe he decided Moss wasn't that much better than his in house options?  That is just as consistent with his declaration.

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

    And you might want to look up both formidable and great. They are not nearly of the same magnitude.

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

    for·mi·da·ble    [fawr-mi-duh-buhl]  Show IPA adjective 1. causing  fear apprehension, or dread:  a formidable opponent. 2. of discouraging or  awesome  strength, size, difficulty, etc.; intimidating:  a formidable problem. 3. arousing feelings of awe or admiration because of grandeur, strength, etc. 4. of great strength; forceful; powerful:  formidable opposition to the proposal.

    Not as far apart as you think.

    [/QUOTE]


    My use of the word formidable was simply to attest to respect deserved due to capability which is within the breadth of the meaning of the word. Your choosing to apply another meaning of the word within its breadth does not define my use of it.

     

    Oxford - inspiring fear or respect through being impressively large, powerful, intense, or capable:

     

    Formidable and great are two different words that can be of similar value but also can be significantly different.

     

     

Share