PDA

View Full Version : Randy Moss


Bob Dole
05-19-2005, 01:55 PM
In an effort to ensure that ChiefsPlanet.com keeps pace with the national media outlets:

Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss.

Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss.

Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss.

Goapics1
05-19-2005, 01:57 PM
"Straight cash, homey".

Rain Man
05-19-2005, 01:57 PM
Don't forget about Randy Moss.

Bob Dole
05-19-2005, 02:00 PM
In other AFC West news, Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss.

Does anyone seriously believe that the addition of one misfit receiver to an incredibly shitty team is going to put them in the Super Bowl?

Damn! This just in from ESPN: Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss.

ptlyon
05-19-2005, 02:03 PM
"This has been a public service announcement by Bob Dole. Sponsored by the letters, "M", "O", and "S". And by the number "84"."

Bob Dole
05-19-2005, 02:08 PM
Anyone know when A&E is planning to air the "True Hollywood Story: Randy Moss" marathon? Bob Dole figures they will run it along with HSN's "Randy Moss Collection" and the History Channel's "Modern Marvels: Randy Moss."

cdcox
05-19-2005, 02:09 PM
Could you imaging Randy Moss, Eli (God) Manning, and Rich Scanlon all on the same team?

Rain Man
05-19-2005, 02:09 PM
I think it's on Wednesday, right after "Will & Moss" and "Everybody Loves Randy."

ptlyon
05-19-2005, 02:10 PM
Don't forget the "Beyond the Glory" featuring Randy Moss and the Saturday morning PBS hit, "Cooking with Randy Moss".

Rain Man
05-19-2005, 02:11 PM
I think one of my favorite shows right now is CSI: Randy.

ptlyon
05-19-2005, 02:16 PM
Hell, I forgot my favorite sitcom, "Randy and Bros"

ArrowheadHawk
05-19-2005, 02:17 PM
Did you forget to mention randy moss?

Goapics1
05-19-2005, 02:19 PM
Episode III: Revenge of the Randy

ArrowheadHawk
05-19-2005, 02:21 PM
I like the daily show with randy moss

Goapics1
05-19-2005, 02:22 PM
Randy and the ass Bandit

Rain Man
05-19-2005, 02:25 PM
I loved those old Bonanza episodes where they replaced Hoss Cartwright with Moss Cartwright. Remember the one where Moss ran over the deputy with his horse? Classic.

RaiderCorporate
05-19-2005, 03:31 PM
Does anyone seriously believe that the addition of one misfit receiver to an incredibly shitty team is going to put them in the Super Bowl?

There's no guarantee Moss' addition means a Super Bowl berth but Las Vegas oddsmakers believe Oakland's chances are improved; a few days after Moss joined Oakland the odds on Oakland reaching the Super Bowl went from 80-1 to 30-1.

Moss makes their receiving corps deadlier. It's Jordan, though, who is the key. If the R A I D E R S manage to effectively run the ball, the passing game becomes harder to stop - with or without Moss. Moss may help the running game in that defenses may be less inclined to put an extra man up to stop the run.

HemiEd
05-19-2005, 03:34 PM
There's no guarantee Moss' addition means a Super Bowl berth but Las Vegas oddsmakers believe Oakland's chances are improved; a few days after Moss joined Oakland the odds on Oakland reaching the Super Bowl went from 80-1 to 30-1.

Moss makes their receiving corps deadlier. It's Jordan, though, who is the key. If the R A I D E R S manage to effectively run the ball, the passing game becomes harder to stop - with or without Moss. Moss may help the running game in that defenses may be less inclined to put an extra man up to stop the run.


:moon: :moon::moon: :moon::moon: :moon::moon: :moon:

Bob Dole
05-19-2005, 03:46 PM
Moss makes their receiving corps deadlier.

So your contention is that last season's receiving corp was "deadly?"

Eye Patch
05-19-2005, 03:53 PM
Does anyone seriously believe that the addition of one misfit receiver to an incredibly shitty team is going to put them in the Super Bowl?



who said anything about going to the SB by the addition of Moss. In fact what is a chokes fan talking about a SB, somethng they know nothing about.

I think the real question is does a whole team of piss poor receivers that wear ketchup and mustard think they can even win one playoff game let alone a SB.

Bob Dole
05-19-2005, 03:58 PM
who said anything about going to the SB by the addition of Moss. In fact what is a chokes fan talking about a SB, somethng they know nothing about.

I think the real question is does a whole team of piss poor receivers that wear ketchup and mustard think they can even win one playoff game let alone a SB.

Wow. You're right. It's our <i>offense</i> that's been the problem the past few years.

Phuqtard.

Eye Patch
05-19-2005, 04:09 PM
past few years???....

more like past few decades...

Rain Man
05-19-2005, 04:12 PM
Moss makes their receiving corps deadlier.

He didn't actually kill her. He just hit her with his SUV.

Eye Patch
05-19-2005, 04:21 PM
Rain Man .... I like your style..

RaiderCorporate
05-19-2005, 04:26 PM
So your contention is that last season's receiving corp was "deadly?"

I contend that the receivers were better than you realize.

Porter and Curry were both very competent receivers. Anderson and Johnson made for interesting matchups at TE.

You probably weren't paying enough attention to notice that Oakland relied on passing to score points and did so despite an ineffective running game. It took QB Collins half a season to figure out which way was up before he became useful. OL pass protection improved to give Collins more time in the pocket. After Collins and the OL improved the passing game prospered.

Bob Dole
05-19-2005, 04:36 PM
past few years???....

more like past few decades...

Thanks for verifying that not only have you not watched a KC game in the past 4 years, but you're too stupid to read a stats sheet.

Bob Dole
05-19-2005, 04:41 PM
I contend that the receivers were better than you realize.

Porter and Curry were both very competent receivers. Anderson and Johnson made for interesting matchups at TE.

You probably weren't paying enough attention to notice that Oakland relied on passing to score points and did so despite an ineffective running game. It took QB Collins half a season to figure out which way was up before he became useful. OL pass protection improved to give Collins more time in the pocket. After Collins and the OL improved the passing game prospered.

You probably weren't paying enough attention to notice that you had zero 1000 yard receivers.

To be "deadlier" this season assumes that they were "deadly" last season, and that's clearly not the case unless we're talking about the stadium.

Eye Patch
05-19-2005, 04:42 PM
Thanks for verifying that not only have you not watched a KC game in the past 4 years, but you're too stupid to read a stats sheet.

You're right I do remember the chokes hoisting a stat sheet as if it was a trophy.

Maybe that's how they do things for those who have no idea what a trophy is.

Careful now sport... you're starting to sound like a donk fan and I just met you so I don't want to sound insulting...

Cochise
05-19-2005, 04:55 PM
Actually it's now brought to you by the number 18 isn't it? Thought Moss ditched 84 since that's Porter's number.

Or, 18 might be the number of TD's we score against Chokeland this year.

beer bacon
05-19-2005, 05:34 PM
Wow. You're right. It's our <i>offense</i> that's been the problem the past few years.

Phuqtard.

I hope we can get our offense in gear so it can compete with the Oakland Mosses!

Bob Dole
05-19-2005, 05:37 PM
You're right I do remember the chokes hoisting a stat sheet as if it was a trophy.

Maybe that's how they do things for those who have no idea what a trophy is.

Careful now sport... you're starting to sound like a donk fan and I just met you so I don't want to sound insulting...

Your "team" won 5 games and your defense actually gave up more points than ours, and you're over here trying to run smack?

Oh yeah...you've got Randy Moss.

Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss.

RaiderCorporate
05-19-2005, 05:38 PM
You probably weren't paying enough attention to notice that you had zero 1000 yard receivers.

To be "deadlier" this season assumes that they were "deadly" last season, and that's clearly not the case unless we're talking about the stadium.

I paid enough attention to notice that Oakland threw to 16 receivers last year. Perhaps that had something to do with no one receiver getting to 1,000 yards (Porter being closest at 998 yds). I don't know.

Do I understand you - you believe using "deadly" to describe a passing attack must include at least one receiver at 1,000+ yards? Why do you assume having one or more receivers with 1,000+ yards receiving is important?

If this is your way to insult Oakland's 2004 passing game please do better.

Claynus
05-19-2005, 05:38 PM
I can't wait to see Sammy Knight lay Randy's punkass bitch out.

beer bacon
05-19-2005, 05:47 PM
I paid enough attention to notice that Oakland threw to 16 receivers last year. Perhaps that had something to do with no one receiver getting to 1,000 yards (Porter being closest at 998 yds). I don't know.

Do I understand you - you believe using "deadly" to describe a passing attack must include at least one receiver at 1,000+ yards? Why do you assume having one or more receivers with 1,000+ yards receiving is important?

If this is your way to insult Oakland's 2004 passing game please do better.

Your passing game was pretty poor compared to ours last year. 289 ypg compared to 259. 8.26 yards per attempt compared to 6.91.

I would say you had three or four games last year where your passing attack was good, namely at Denver, Kansas City, and Tennessee, but the rest of the games it wasn't really anything special.

Bob Dole
05-19-2005, 05:51 PM
Do I understand you - you believe using "deadly" to describe a passing attack must include at least one receiver at 1,000+ yards?

No. To be considered "deadly," your offense needs to score enough points to win more than 5 games.

Inspector
05-19-2005, 05:52 PM
who said anything about going to the SB by the addition of Moss. In fact what is a chokes fan talking about a SB, somethng they know nothing about.

I think the real question is does a whole team of piss poor receivers that wear ketchup and mustard think they can even win one playoff game let alone a SB.

Wow.

Voice of wisdom.

The whole KC area has been fooled. It really was the offense all along.

Ya know, you just can't find this kind of football knowledge very often anymore....

Electric Chair
05-19-2005, 05:56 PM
Wow.

Voice of wisdom.

The whole KC area has been fooled. It really was the offense all along.

Ya know, you just can't find this kind of football knowledge very often anymore....
Nobody has ever accused Raider Fan of being smart. Randy Moss either, for that matter.

4th and Long
05-19-2005, 06:08 PM
I think one of my favorite shows right now is CSI: Randy.
I prefer the older shows myself.

RaiderCorporate
05-19-2005, 06:10 PM
Your passing game was pretty poor compared to ours last year. 289 ypg compared to 259. 8.26 yards per attempt compared to 6.91.

I would say you had three or four games last year where your passing attack was good... ...but the rest of the games it wasn't really anything special.

Most teams compared poorly compared to your team's 4th best passing game. Your team also had the league's best 2004 offense and was 2nd best at scoring at 30 points a game. All of it wasted, by the way...

Yes, my team had worse stats and I think it had to do with losing their starting QB and guards. The transition to a new QB and new guards took several games to work itself out. By the end of the season the passing game looked pretty good.

Tribal Warfare
05-19-2005, 06:46 PM
You're right I do remember the chokes hoisting a stat sheet as if it was a trophy.

Maybe that's how they do things for those who have no idea what a trophy is.



Or that KC kicked The Raiders ass on Christmas Day last season

alanm
05-19-2005, 06:53 PM
There's no guarantee Moss' addition means a Super Bowl berth but Las Vegas oddsmakers believe Oakland's chances are improved; a few days after Moss joined Oakland the odds on Oakland reaching the Super Bowl went from 80-1 to 30-1.

Moss makes their receiving corps deadlier. It's Jordan, though, who is the key. If the R A I D E R S manage to effectively run the ball, the passing game becomes harder to stop - with or without Moss. Moss may help the running game in that defenses may be less inclined to put an extra man up to stop the run.
It's all a moot point with out a offensive line. And that consists of Gallery. If he goes down having 5 Moss's wouldn't even make a difference.

Inspector
05-19-2005, 07:21 PM
Nobody has ever accused Raider Fan of being smart. Randy Moss either, for that matter.

And if they made an accusation like that I can damn well guarantee you that it would be false.

Welcome aboard man. Been hanging around for a year and a half before making your first post, then you respond to me.

I feel kind of honored. I've never been anybody's first before....

And it's always fun to poke at the raiders....

RaiderCorporate
05-19-2005, 08:33 PM
No. To be considered "deadly," your offense needs to score enough points to win more than 5 games.

I was discussing the passing game specifically; you're broadening the scope to "offense." No matter.

In 2004:
Oakland scored 320 points and won 5 games.
St. Louis scored 319 points and won 8 games
Baltimore scored 317 points and won 9 games.
Jacksonville scored 261 points and won 9 games.
Kansas City scored 483 points and won 7 games.

No one I know would call Jacksonville's 2004 offense "deadly" just because it won 9 games, yet they seem to fit your definition. Taking Jacksonville into consideration where do other offenses, like those in Oakland or Kansas City, that score more points and win fewer games fit in?

Or is it possible you need to re-work your definition?

HemiEd
05-19-2005, 08:35 PM
I prefer the older shows myself.

ROFL another classic!

Nzoner
05-20-2005, 08:19 AM
I loved those old Bonanza episodes where they replaced Hoss Cartwright with Moss Cartwright. Remember the one where Moss ran over the deputy with his horse? Classic.

Classic is right. ROFL

Speaking of the old shows don't forget Amos n Randy

MOhillbilly
05-20-2005, 08:21 AM
id say he'll **** up(being in so-cal and all) before the season is over and find himself on the sideline.

Bob Dole
05-20-2005, 08:26 AM
I was discussing the passing game specifically; you're broadening the scope to "offense." No matter.

In 2004:
Oakland scored 320 points and won 5 games.
St. Louis scored 319 points and won 8 games
Baltimore scored 317 points and won 9 games.
Jacksonville scored 261 points and won 9 games.
Kansas City scored 483 points and won 7 games.

No one I know would call Jacksonville's 2004 offense "deadly" just because it won 9 games, yet they seem to fit your definition. Taking Jacksonville into consideration where do other offenses, like those in Oakland or Kansas City, that score more points and win fewer games fit in?

Or is it possible you need to re-work your definition?

Bob Dole isn't sure WTF you're discussing, because the conversation has twisted and turned so many times, Bob Dole fell down and passed out.

Your receivers were not "deadly." Therefore, the addition of Mandy Moss doesn't make them "deadlier." That was the sum total of Bob Dole's original point.

MOhillbilly
05-20-2005, 08:32 AM
Bob Dole isn't sure WTF you're discussing, because the conversation has twisted and turned so many times, Bob Dole fell down and passed out.

Your receivers were not "deadly." Therefore, the addition of Mandy Moss doesn't make them "deadlier." That was the sum total of Bob Dole's original point.

The Raiders are HOMOS and so are there fans.

Skip Towne
05-20-2005, 08:37 AM
The Raiders are HOMOS and so are there fans.
That pretty well sums it up.

Wile_E_Coyote
05-20-2005, 08:46 AM
Most teams compared poorly compared to your team's 4th best passing game. Your team also had the league's best 2004 offense and was 2nd best at scoring at 30 points a game. All of it wasted, by the way...

but the Raiders in '05 will be different :hmmm:

Bob Dole
05-20-2005, 08:48 AM
but the Raiders in '05 will be different :hmmm:

Exactly. Thanks for getting this thread back on-track.

Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss Randy Moss.

Wile_E_Coyote
05-20-2005, 10:45 AM
<A name=229673>Chiefs | Explosive Offense - from www.KFFL.com
Fri, 20 May 2005 09:18:40 -0700
Kansas City Chiefs (http://www.kffl.com/team/21/nfl) offensive coordinator Al Saunders (http://www.kffl.com/player/7811/nfl) has served as the team's assistant head coach/offensive coordinator since 2001. During that span, no team has scored more points (1,754), gained more yards (24,278), or been as efficient inside the 20-yard line (64.3 percent) than Kansas City.

with Randy Moss in the division :deevee:

TRR
05-20-2005, 10:59 AM
What I want to know is how Oakland is going to stop anyone. They couldn't stop anyone last year, and lost Phillip Buchanon this season. Is Moss going to play defense?

RaiderH8r
05-20-2005, 11:06 AM
Any news on Randy Moss?

alanm
05-20-2005, 11:26 AM
Does Randy Moss prefer Charmin or White Cloud? Or is that up to the Assistant assigned to Randy Moss? Does Randy's shit stink?