So now what for Randy Moss? Without a franchise designation, he's free to go to the highest bidder, but he'd be crazy to leave New England. I don't know what the Patriots are thinking, but I can think of 23 reasons why they'd like Moss back. Let's make this clear, however: They don't need him as much as he needs them, and that's what I think the failure to protect him is all about. Moss is free to shop, but tell me where he could achieve as much as can in New England. He has a Hall of Fame quarterback. He has a team that always wins the playoffs and sometimes makes the Super Bowl. He has a coach that makes the most of what he has. In short, he has a Hall of Fame career waiting to be punctuated, and he should know the consequences of giving that all away. After all, he served a two-year sentence with the Oakland Raiders, and a lot of good that did him. He was a different guy in New England. He was happy. He was productive. He was the player you thought he could be but was not in Oakland. So Moss should find a way to stay, simple as that. The Patriots don't need to keep him, but he needs to stay .
No interest in Spygate II?
Arlen Specter took a hit at the NFL scouting combine Thursday when members of the league's competition committee voiced support for the NFL's handling of Spygate. In fact, listening to them it seems like Spygate is more like Die-Gate, over and done with.
"We're looking to move on now," said the Titans' Jeff Fisher.
Coaches and club officials met earlier with NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and league counsel Jeff Pash to review the situation involving the New England Patriots, and their listeners seemed satisfied with how the case has been handled.
"I'm tired of hearing about it," said the Giants' John Mara. "I think it was thoroughly investigated and there's been full disclosure."
Fisher echoed his sentiments and questioned those who said the Patriots were unfairly singled out.
"They violated a rule," he said. "they paid for it, and now we're moving on. Not everyone is doing (this). That's a misunderstanding. Not everyone is videotaping opponents' signals on the sidelines. I only know of one (team that did it), and it was punished. I'm very comfortable with the results."
No action likely on last-second TOs
Don't expect the NFL to adopt a rule prohibiting the use of timeouts immediately prior to field-goal attempts. It's not going to happen.
Members of the league's competition committee at Indianapolis said Thursday that they didn't see a need to pass a law basically because there's little or no support for it. Nor should there be. Hey, if you can call a last-second timeout before Peyton Manning gets a snap, who not do it before Adam Vinatieri tries a field goal?
So he may have to kick twice. Big deal. Kick it again. Where's the problem?
" We can't legislate when you call timeouts and when you won't," said the Titans' Jeff Fisher. "I don't think it's going to be an on-going issue. Where early you saw a trend (toward calling timeouts) I don't think you will see a lot more of it."
There is, however, a move toward re-introducing radio helmets to the defense. The proposal has been broached before but voted down. But it might have a chance now, particularly in light of charges against New England involving the videotaping of signals from the sidelines.
Quarterbacks have radio helmets, but defenses do not. That could change if the competition committee endorses an idea to provide a helmet for one defensive player and brings it to a vote at the league's owners' meetings in March. The question is what happens if that player is hurt, but it seems to work with the four quarterbacks on offense. Why not simply have helmets on the sideline available to one guy on defense?