September 27, 2016

No Moss, Shank, No Moss

direct_snapp_sm.jpg

Editor’s Note: Today, we’re pleased to formally introduce Dan Snapp, the newest member of the BSMW Game Day staff. Dan’s column, Direct Snapp, will be a regular feature of Game Day this fall. He couldn’t wait, however, to share some thoughts about a certain columnist, so here’s Dan’s debut effort.

Direct Snapp
by Dan Snapp
[email protected]

OK, Dan, you got us. We root for the laundry, we admit it. Nothing gets by you.

Friday, we hated Randy Moss. Punk, jerk, l’enfant terrible (You can use that if you want, Dan; it goes well with “Grey Poupon”), and general embarrassment to that gentleman’s game, football. But as soon as we found out that Bill liked him, well shoot! Bring him aboard! Does his jersey come in infant sizes? “In Bill we trust,” right, Dan? Isn’t that how it goes?

For those who missed it, Dan Shaughnessy thinks we’re morons. We lack the mental capacity to separate what a player does on the field with who he is off of it. Thankfully, we have noted psychology expert (and stats genius, apparently) Dan Shaughnessy to show us the way.

He took the results of a Globe approval poll, built a strawman argument, then quickly tore that down. To him, fans’ being in favor of the Moss deal means we’ve blocked out Moss’s past completely. It also apparently means we’ll accept any malcontent, thug, felon, you name it, just as soon as they don the blue and silver. Bill rings the bell; we salivate. So sayeth the prophet from Newton.

Just toss aside the possibility we might distinguish the varying factors of the deal: the minimal draft compensation; the salary hit Moss is taking; the lack of any signing bonus; and Brady’s restructuring gesture. And eschew any notion that we know what we’re getting in Moss: about taking the plays off, the saying he’ll play when he wants to play, the walking off the field with the game still going, the squirting the ref, nudging the traffic cop, fake mooning Packer fans (why is this a negative again?), yelling at his quarterback, and waxing poetic on the glories of the blue moon doobie.

Sure, there’s a risk here. But it’s a manageable risk, one that Bill Belichick’s well equipped to handle. What can Randy Moss do that Terry Glenn didn’t try in 2001? Despite a receiver corps that went two deep, Belichick twice suspended Glenn, and the Pats still went on to win the Super Bowl. This time around, the Pats’ cupboard isn’t so bare.

How about the acquisition of the surly Corey Dillon, the release of Lawyer Milloy, or the pickup of the original trouble child, Bryan Cox? Each move preceded a Lombardi Trophy.

So yeah, I guess we do cop to “In Bill We Trust.” And why wouldn’t we? He’s earned it.

As for character concerns, I don’t know what you think our expectations are. Do you think we want the Patriots parenting our kids? In Ben Coates’ case, the possibility exists.

We don’t want Eagle Scouts, Dan; we want football players. It would be nice if they’re both, but we’re realistic. It’s not like they’re marrying our daughters (although I’d sooner watch Bledsoe do that than take another sack).

Why are you complaining anyway? You should be in your glory. You finally got your Patriots Manny. Hallelujah, and congrats. Think of all the columns you can recycle by simply mad-libbing “Randy” for “Manny”. We’re talking loaf city, baby!

Don’t bite the hand that feeds you, Dan. If we truly had character concerns, nobody would read your column.

Comments

  1. Do you think Shank will write a column about how the Globe no longer values character when Ron Borges comes back? What’s worse, the Pats taking a chance on Moss or Dan standing by silently while Borges ripped off another person’s work?

  2. Good stuff.

  3. awesome. can’t wait to read future columns, Snapper

Leave a Reply