Joined: Aug 21, 2007 Posts: 9750 Location: The Republic of Texas
Status:
Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 10:37 am Post subject: Seven big-name players who should be cut
Seven big-name players who should be cut
Mike Florio
Friday, Jul. 2, 2010 - 9:50 a.m. ET
NFL teams typically hate to admit a mistake. And so they hang on to guys who don't belong much longer than they should.
Earlier this year, the Raiders realized it was time to cut the cord on quarterback JaMarcus Russell. After the move, many who had loudly criticized the franchise began to wonder whether Oakland might be ready for a resurrection.
What other teams could inspire confidence by making a move that simply needs to be made? Let's consider seven players.
Mike Vick
The Eagles rolled the dice on Mike Vick, but it hasn't paid off.
The Eagles need a quality backup for starting quarterback Kevin Kolb. The Eagles don't need a season-long sideshow from a wildcat gimmick who simply isn't prepared to serve as Kolb's understudy.
So the Eagles should seize on the recent controversy involving Vick to close the door on the failed one-year experiment with him.
Even if Vick stays in Philadelphia, the Eagles need a competent veteran backup with experience in the West Coast offense. So they should just dump Vick now, sign Jeff Garcia and move on.
Pride and ego could get in the way. The Eagles went out on a limb last year to sign Vick, and cutting him now amounts to an admission that they never should have signed him in the first place.
By the way, they never should have signed him in the first place.
Reggie Bush
The Saints rely on a multi-headed attack at tailback, and Bush is only a bit player in the offense. But the Saints owe him a base salary of $8 million for 2010.
On one hand, the Saints should have every right in an uncapped year to spend way too much on a locally beloved role player who'll never live up to the hype. On the other hand, the Saints shouldn't ignore the connection between Bush's overcompensation and their inability to sign the franchise's top running back, Pierre Thomas, to a long-term deal.
Ideally, the Saints would pressure Bush into taking less money. But he'd most likely refuse, and then the Saints would have to decide whether to call his bluff by cutting him.
So they should just cut him now. They won't, but they should.
Albert Haynesworth
The Redskins have an opportunity to unite their roster under new coach Mike Shanahan by telling the reluctant defensive lineman that, if he doesn't want to be part of the team, the team doesn't want him.
Forget trying to trade him for a handful of peanuts and a '98 Camaro. Make a loud and clear statement by cutting Haynesworth.
If the Redskins are concerned about saving face, they can take solace in the fact that Haynesworth's decision to blow off mandatory minicamp voids $9 million in guaranteed base salaries for 2010 and 2011. Though cutting Haynesworth now wouldn't wipe away the misguided decision to pay him a $21 million roster bonus on April 1, making a strong statement about one of the NFL's most disliked men would have a far greater intangible value to the new regime in D.C.
Deion Branch
Believe it or not, Branch has never had a 1,000-yard receiving season in his eight-year career.
He came close in 2005, his last year in New England, but fell two yards short.
Since Seattle traded a first-round pick for Branch and signed him to a six-year, $39 million contract, his production steadily has dropped, and his salary has increased.
Last year, Branch made more than $100,000 per reception. This year, his salary rises to $5.47 million. It no longer makes sense for the Seahawks to wait for Branch to deliver. He never will.
Roy Williams
Cowboys owner Jerry Jones has shown he's not afraid to admit a mistake. Last year, he did it twice -- with receiver Terrell Owens and cornerback Pacman Jones.
Now, Jones needs to eat a Texas-sized slice of humble pie and part ways with one of the biggest blunders of his tenure with the team. He needs to cut Williams.
Arguably, the handwriting already is on the wall less than two years after the Cowboys gave up a first-round pick, a third-round pick and more for a receiver who's now averaging $9 million per year. After Miles Austin's breakout in 2009 and the first-round selection of Dez Bryant in 2010, the Cowboys simply don't need Williams.
Having Williams around gives the Cowboys leverage against an extended holdout by Bryant. However, once Bryant puts pen to paper, Jones should put shoe to Williams' rear end.
Bob Sanders
In 2006, the Colts were horrible against the run, prompting concerns that the Chiefs would quickly bounce Indy from the playoffs by using a heavy dose of Larry Johnson.
Then the safety Sanders returned from injury, and Johnson gained 32 yards on 13 carries in a 23-8 loss. Three games later, the Colts hoisted a silver trophy in a South Florida downpour.
Sanders missed nearly all of the 2009 season, but the Colts didn't miss Sanders. They made it back to the Super Bowl, and they didn't lose it because of his replacement.
The injury-prone defender packs a wallop when he's healthy, but he's healthy too rarely to justify his salary.
So the Colts should make the tough decision to move on.
Cedric Benson
The Bengals routinely are criticized for harboring criminals. They do so not because they hope to change lives, but because they know a bargain when they see one.
Two years ago, they saw a bargain in Benson when the Bears dumped the former fourth-overall draft pick after two arrests in a month. And the Bengals got 1,251 yards out of him in only 13 games last season.
With 2010 being a contract year for Benson, they can expect even more.
But Benson has gotten in trouble again, and Bernard Scott was solid in his rookie season. Scott, who slid in the draft due to his own off-field issues, could become the lead dog for the Bengals.
The Bengals most likely will give Benson another year of their patent-pending second chances. If they do, they'll probably see someone else offer Benson big money in 2011. That's all the more reason to make a rare (for the Bengals) example out of Benson. Then, they can get ready to give a few second chances to Scott.
Mike Florio writes and edits ProFootballTalk.com and is a regular contributor to Sporting News. Check out PFT for up-to-the minute NFL news.
Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:10 pm Post subject: Re: Seven big-name players who should be cut
mcfloyd wrote:
Seven big-name players who should be cut
Mike Florio
Friday, Jul. 2, 2010 - 9:50 a.m. ET
NFL teams typically hate to admit a mistake. And so they hang on to guys who don't belong much longer than they should.
Earlier this year, the Raiders realized it was time to cut the cord on quarterback JaMarcus Russell. After the move, many who had loudly criticized the franchise began to wonder whether Oakland might be ready for a resurrection.
What other teams could inspire confidence by making a move that simply needs to be made? Let's consider seven players.
Mike Vick
The Eagles rolled the dice on Mike Vick, but it hasn't paid off.
The Eagles need a quality backup for starting quarterback Kevin Kolb. The Eagles don't need a season-long sideshow from a wildcat gimmick who simply isn't prepared to serve as Kolb's understudy.
So the Eagles should seize on the recent controversy involving Vick to close the door on the failed one-year experiment with him.
Even if Vick stays in Philadelphia, the Eagles need a competent veteran backup with experience in the West Coast offense. So they should just dump Vick now, sign Jeff Garcia and move on.
Pride and ego could get in the way. The Eagles went out on a limb last year to sign Vick, and cutting him now amounts to an admission that they never should have signed him in the first place.
By the way, they never should have signed him in the first place.
Reggie Bush
The Saints rely on a multi-headed attack at tailback, and Bush is only a bit player in the offense. But the Saints owe him a base salary of $8 million for 2010.
On one hand, the Saints should have every right in an uncapped year to spend way too much on a locally beloved role player who'll never live up to the hype. On the other hand, the Saints shouldn't ignore the connection between Bush's overcompensation and their inability to sign the franchise's top running back, Pierre Thomas, to a long-term deal.
Ideally, the Saints would pressure Bush into taking less money. But he'd most likely refuse, and then the Saints would have to decide whether to call his bluff by cutting him.
So they should just cut him now. They won't, but they should.
Albert Haynesworth
The Redskins have an opportunity to unite their roster under new coach Mike Shanahan by telling the reluctant defensive lineman that, if he doesn't want to be part of the team, the team doesn't want him.
Forget trying to trade him for a handful of peanuts and a '98 Camaro. Make a loud and clear statement by cutting Haynesworth.
If the Redskins are concerned about saving face, they can take solace in the fact that Haynesworth's decision to blow off mandatory minicamp voids $9 million in guaranteed base salaries for 2010 and 2011. Though cutting Haynesworth now wouldn't wipe away the misguided decision to pay him a $21 million roster bonus on April 1, making a strong statement about one of the NFL's most disliked men would have a far greater intangible value to the new regime in D.C.
Deion Branch
Believe it or not, Branch has never had a 1,000-yard receiving season in his eight-year career.
He came close in 2005, his last year in New England, but fell two yards short.
Since Seattle traded a first-round pick for Branch and signed him to a six-year, $39 million contract, his production steadily has dropped, and his salary has increased.
Last year, Branch made more than $100,000 per reception. This year, his salary rises to $5.47 million. It no longer makes sense for the Seahawks to wait for Branch to deliver. He never will.
Roy Williams
Cowboys owner Jerry Jones has shown he's not afraid to admit a mistake. Last year, he did it twice -- with receiver Terrell Owens and cornerback Pacman Jones.
Now, Jones needs to eat a Texas-sized slice of humble pie and part ways with one of the biggest blunders of his tenure with the team. He needs to cut Williams.
Arguably, the handwriting already is on the wall less than two years after the Cowboys gave up a first-round pick, a third-round pick and more for a receiver who's now averaging $9 million per year. After Miles Austin's breakout in 2009 and the first-round selection of Dez Bryant in 2010, the Cowboys simply don't need Williams.
Having Williams around gives the Cowboys leverage against an extended holdout by Bryant. However, once Bryant puts pen to paper, Jones should put shoe to Williams' rear end.
Bob Sanders
In 2006, the Colts were horrible against the run, prompting concerns that the Chiefs would quickly bounce Indy from the playoffs by using a heavy dose of Larry Johnson.
Then the safety Sanders returned from injury, and Johnson gained 32 yards on 13 carries in a 23-8 loss. Three games later, the Colts hoisted a silver trophy in a South Florida downpour.
Sanders missed nearly all of the 2009 season, but the Colts didn't miss Sanders. They made it back to the Super Bowl, and they didn't lose it because of his replacement.
The injury-prone defender packs a wallop when he's healthy, but he's healthy too rarely to justify his salary.
So the Colts should make the tough decision to move on.
Cedric Benson
The Bengals routinely are criticized for harboring criminals. They do so not because they hope to change lives, but because they know a bargain when they see one.
Two years ago, they saw a bargain in Benson when the Bears dumped the former fourth-overall draft pick after two arrests in a month. And the Bengals got 1,251 yards out of him in only 13 games last season.
With 2010 being a contract year for Benson, they can expect even more.
But Benson has gotten in trouble again, and Bernard Scott was solid in his rookie season. Scott, who slid in the draft due to his own off-field issues, could become the lead dog for the Bengals.
The Bengals most likely will give Benson another year of their patent-pending second chances. If they do, they'll probably see someone else offer Benson big money in 2011. That's all the more reason to make a rare (for the Bengals) example out of Benson. Then, they can get ready to give a few second chances to Scott.
Mike Florio writes and edits ProFootballTalk.com and is a regular contributor to Sporting News. Check out PFT for up-to-the minute NFL news.
Appreciate your objectivity about RW, Mcf. I know you were a big RW homer his first year or so, but your postings have been objective and honest this past year in regards to RW.
I agree with Florio...I think he should be let go also. I'd wait till Dez has the offense and playbook down first, and make sure we make it through the summer with no injuries, and or upon another team suffering a big injury at WR then trade RW to that team...but in my always humble opinion, I think he's the bull in the china shop in terms of team chemistry and progress and we'd be a lot more "natural" imo without him.
Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 1:03 pm Post subject: Re: Seven big-name players who should be cut
I believe RW has made several changes to his work approach, his focus, and his game. As such, I expect him to have a big season in 2010. I also expect Miles Austin to have a big season in 2010...and I also expect Dez Bryant to have a big season in 2010.
In short, the Dallas Cowboys will be a beast. Barring injury, they have to be a pre-season favorite to make the Superbowl.
If the team can carry coach Staypuft's lack of intensity, the Cowboys might even win the Superbowl in spite of having an inferior HC. At least by losing 40 lbs Wad should be somewhat easier for the team to carry in 2010!
Joined: Aug 21, 2007 Posts: 9750 Location: The Republic of Texas
Status:
Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 1:14 pm Post subject: Re: Seven big-name players who should be cut
Jhalp wrote:
[..]
Appreciate your objectivity about RW, Mcf. I know you were a big RW homer his first year or so, but your postings have been objective and honest this past year in regards to RW.
I agree with Florio...I think he should be let go also. I'd wait till Dez has the offense and playbook down first, and make sure we make it through the summer with no injuries, and or upon another team suffering a big injury at WR then trade RW to that team...but in my always humble opinion, I think he's the bull in the china shop in terms of team chemistry and progress and we'd be a lot more "natural" imo without him.
IMO this is exactly the situation that RW11 needs to be in. It's up to him whether he stands or falls. All questions will be answered this season and there will be no more need for speculation and/or opinion.
Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 3:09 pm Post subject: Re: Seven big-name players who should be cut
Danderoo_17 wrote:
If the team can carry coach Staypuft's lack of intensity, the Cowboys might even win the Superbowl in spite of having an inferior HC. At least by losing 40 lbs Wad should be somewhat easier for the team to carry in 2010!
I've always said that this team will never win a championship with this coach. I want to be proven wrong.
The team not being prepared or motivated against the Vikings solidifies my opinion. This team may be further from a championship than most think.
Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 7:07 pm Post subject: Re: Seven big-name players who should be cut
Cowpunk wrote:
[..]
I've always said that this team will never win a championship with this coach. I want to be proven wrong.
The team not being prepared or motivated against the Vikings solidifies my opinion. This team may be further from a championship than most think.
Any championship won under Waddles would be one and done as he lacks the respect of his players to keep them focused . But the ultimate blame goes to Jerry for hiring him and for other fuck ups like bringing in RW and grossly overpaying him before he did a damn thing ! Jerry finally did win one playoff game in 14 years , but that's pretty pathetic when you consider the past history of this team .
Joined: Sep 09, 2007 Posts: 5171 Location: Malibu, Ca
Status:
Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:26 am Post subject: Re: Seven big-name players who should be cut
Jhalp wrote:
[..]I think he's the bull in the china shop in terms of team chemistry and progress and we'd be a lot more "natural" imo without him.
RW is going to hurt the teams chemistry more than Crayton a player who did nothing but whine about being traded after Dez was drafted? LOL I didn't see RW rock the boat after Dez was drafted he's been working and sounds ready to compete with him unlike Crayton who demanded a trade and didn't want to show up. It's that kind of crap from an unhappy camper that can hurt a teams chemistry. The fact that you think RW has no value to the team and should be cut means you better keep your marinate handy.
Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 7:13 am Post subject: Re: Seven big-name players who should be cut
Jhalp wrote:
[..]
Appreciate your objectivity about RW, Mcf. I know you were a big RW homer his first year or so, but your postings have been objective and honest this past year in regards to RW.
I agree with Florio...I think he should be let go also. I'd wait till Dez has the offense and playbook down first, and make sure we make it through the summer with no injuries, and or upon another team suffering a big injury at WR then trade RW to that team...but in my always humble opinion, I think he's the bull in the china shop in terms of team chemistry and progress and we'd be a lot more "natural" imo without him.
I'm interested to hear your reasoning for why you would cut Roy Williams this year.
Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 8:53 am Post subject: Re: Seven big-name players who should be cut
[quote="Danderoo_17"]If the team can carry coach Staypuft's lack of intensity, the Cowboys might even win the Superbowl in spite of having an inferior HC. At least by losing 40 lbs Wad should be somewhat easier for the team to carry in 2010!quote]
Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:55 am Post subject: Re: Seven big-name players who should be cut
CowboyRoy wrote:
[..]
I'm interested to hear your reasoning for why you would cut Roy Williams this year.
1. I don't think he is worthy of the time he is going to see on the field due to his contract which impedes progress and production which impedes our chances for success.
2. I think he is going to hurt chemistry. It seems like we've had a lot of guys in recent years who have played this role and it's cost us games.
Like I said above; IF Dez gets the playbook down, and if our other WRs remain healthy, and IF RW doesn't show much improvement, then imo, he should be let go or traded so that our best team can be put forward.
I'm not one of the guys on here that is enamored with the guys name, school he went to, his contract, or size...I go strictly by his production, and since he came here, he's been a total waste.
Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 10:00 am Post subject: Re: Seven big-name players who should be cut
Jhalp wrote:
Roy is guaranteed somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 million this year. He gets that from us whether he plays or not. Does that fact change your opinion?
What if Dez Bryant were to go down in game #3 and Crayton goes down in game #5? Knowing this could happen, would you still cut Roy Williams?
Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 10:10 am Post subject: Re: Seven big-name players who should be cut
Jhalp wrote:
Your paranoia seems predicated on the fact that you dont think the coaches will play the more prepared or better option. I think that is a little naive.
The coaching staff could easily accomplish EXACTLY what you want by simply starting Dez if he is ready. Cutting Roy makes little sense. You want him cut simply because it would gaurantee you the starting spot for Dez. Coaches dont have the luxury of making biased decisions like that.
Essentially, what your saying, is that you are willing to cut Roy, and live through any growing pains Dez may have, to the detriment of the team, simply so he can get up to speed quicker.
Fortunately for us, we dont have to do that. We have a Roy Williams to bridge the gap. Dez will play as much as he is effective.
The biggest thing however, is that since were paying Roy some 15 million this year, you might as well keep him for injury purposes.
Roy has shown ZERO issues with character or chemistry. IN fact, he has been the model of chemistry despite a terrible tenure here since he arrived. The guy keeps his mouth shut. Chemistry should be NO concern what so ever.
Roy is also nowhere as bad as you make him out to be. He is just a major bust of a trade.
Roy's days here are numbered. And if you are so confident that Dez will pick up the offense and he will be head and shoulders against the pathetic Roy Williams, then you should have no fear at all. Dez will be starting much sooner then later over the hapless Roy Williams then.
Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:02 am Post subject: Re: Seven big-name players who should be cut
CowboyRoy wrote:
I can't be any more succinct than I've been. I think he's the elephant in the room when it comes to chemistry and I think it's going to create tension on our team going forward. He is the last major mistake on this roster and the sooner he is gone, the better.
What happens when Dez outplays him...then what? You have a 9 million dollar guy who comes in from time to time or who is not activated, or is only getting plays and playing time because Jerry is playing him....AND EVERYONE ON THE TEAM KNOWS IT?
And until proven otherwise; yes, RW is as bad as I say he is.
Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 12:04 pm Post subject: Re: Seven big-name players who should be cut
Jhalp wrote:
Again, your course of action is based on the fact that you hate Roy. Its also based on the assumption that if Dez is better, they will play Roy anyway. I think you are naive in that thinking, and I also think you are naive in thinking Dez can learn the entire play book and NOT hold back the offense at the beginning of the year.
Dez will play as much or as little as he is capable of doing. None of that has anything to do with Roy Williams. If you are paying Roy Williams 15 million gauranteed this year, you better get somethign out of him. This team is a better football team with Austin, Dez, and Roy on it then Austin and Dez.
Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 12:45 pm Post subject: Re: Seven big-name players who should be cut
CowboyRoy wrote:
[..]
Again, your course of action is based on the fact that you hate Roy. Its also based on the assumption that if Dez is better, they will play Roy anyway. I think you are naive in that thinking, and I also think you are naive in thinking Dez can learn the entire play book and NOT hold back the offense at the beginning of the year.
Dez will play as much or as little as he is capable of doing. None of that has anything to do with Roy Williams. If you are paying Roy Williams 15 million gauranteed this year, you better get somethign out of him. This team is a better football team with Austin, Dez, and Roy on it then Austin and Dez.
1. I don't "hate" Roy. I hope he proves me wrong and elevates his game. I'm not going to let myself turn blue in the face holding my breath, however.
2. You're the one being naive, my friend. Jerry Jones has proven he's going to force his investment on the coaches regardless of production. I'm hopeful that Jerry's pride in taking Dez and his financial investment in him will override his pride in his RW' investment and the best players will be on the field by the time we start making our playoff run later in the year.
Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:03 pm Post subject: Re: Seven big-name players who should be cut
Jhalp wrote:
[..]
1. I don't "hate" Roy. I hope he proves me wrong and elevates his game. I'm not going to let myself turn blue in the face holding my breath, however.
2. You're the one being naive, my friend. Jerry Jones has proven he's going to force his investment on the coaches regardless of production. I'm hopeful that Jerry's pride in taking Dez and his financial investment in him will override his pride in his RW' investment and the best players will be on the field by the time we start making our playoff run later in the year.
Another paranoid, unfounded theory in my opinion. Jerry does NOT tell the coaches who they must play. In fact, Wade has said on several occassions that the best players will be on the field. That is EVERY bit telling a guy like Roy that if Dez is better, he will be riding the pine.
Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:11 pm Post subject: Re: Seven big-name players who should be cut
Jhalp wrote:
[..]
1. I don't "hate" Roy. I hope he proves me wrong and elevates his game. I'm not going to let myself turn blue in the face holding my breath, however.
2. You're the one being naive, my friend. Jerry Jones has proven he's going to force his investment on the coaches regardless of production. I'm hopeful that Jerry's pride in taking Dez and his financial investment in him will override his pride in his RW' investment and the best players will be on the field by the time we start making our playoff run later in the year.
Although I do know how you feel. When Carter was here, I hated his guts and all I wanted was for them to cut his ass. didnt matter if we had another QB on the roster or not. For the most part, I agree with you on much about Roy. I just feel like with the money we are paying him, its better for the team if we hold onto Roy for at least depth purposes. I also think, for the money draft picks we paid Roy, the team owes it to itself to give Roy one more year to play up. Were paying him any way. I also like the idea of Dez earning his starting job and not just being handed it. For me, its a better way with Roy being here this year. I dont believe that by at least half way through the season, that if Dez is kicking ass and has learned the offense, and Roy is struggling that he wont be starting by then.
Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:14 pm Post subject: Re: Seven big-name players who should be cut
CowboyRoy wrote:
[..]
Another paranoid, unfounded theory in my opinion. Jerry does NOT tell the coaches who they must play.
And we know this....why?
In the coaches meetings I saw on HBO Hard Knocks a couple of years back...and in those meetings it was Jed layin down the law on rosters, roles, right on down to "jocks and sox" (quoting Jed again). The fat guy sat there with a stupid look on his face, mostly nodding like the yes-man he was hired to be.
We have absolutely no evidence that Jed doesn't tell the coaches who to play. Or...well...he probably lets them keep their pride and delusions, and only "suggests strongly" who will play. LOL
Don't believe for a moment Jed sits in the luxury skybox and let's Staypuft make the decisions. We've never seen any actual evidence that is the case...whereas we've seen plenty of evidence that Jed is calling the shots. All the shots. Marshmallow boy is only a DC, who calls himself HC so Jed doesn't have to stand on the sidelines during games--until the last quarter, when Jed's expertise at glad-handing is needed the most to win the game! LOL
Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:46 pm Post subject: Re: Seven big-name players who should be cut
Danderoo_17 wrote:
LOL.......quite the contrary, there is zero evidence what so ever that Jerry tells the coaches who to play. What episode, zero that I saw. IN fact, Jerry has more then once made it clear that he doesnt decide who plays and how much on Sundays.
Jerry decides ultimately who we draft, 100% has the final say, but he in NOOO way tells the coaches who to start and how much to play them. No chance.
Thats just a bunch of laughable BS that Jerry haters and Wade haters like to chirp about.
Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 11:29 pm Post subject: Re: Seven big-name players who should be cut
Cowpunk wrote:
[..]
I've always said that this team will never win a championship with this coach. I want to be proven wrong.
The team not being prepared or motivated against the Vikings solidifies my opinion. This team may be further from a championship than most think.
A voice of reason.
I have this feeling that we may not even make the playoffs. That would be a complete failure. We should at the very least make the playoffs. More than 1 playoff win would be a surprise.
Joined: Aug 31, 2007 Posts: 1575 Location: Dallas on Sundays otherwise Cleveland
Status:
Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 10:27 pm Post subject: Re: Seven big-name players who should be cut
CowboyRoy wrote:
[..]
Roy is guaranteed somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 million this year. He gets that from us whether he plays or not. Does that fact change your opinion?
What if Dez Bryant were to go down in game #3 and Crayton goes down in game #5? Knowing this could happen, would you still cut Roy Williams?
Would you want TO on this team if he played for free? Salary should have no bearing on keeping a guy on a team, especially in an uncapped year. At some point you have to cut your losses, something that, can't believe I'm saying this, Al Davis was able to figure out this year. We all know Jerry's ego is the real thing keeping RW from being cut.
Even if Dez and Crayton went down, there would be some run of the mill WR available in exchange for a 7th round pick that could do whatever it is RW can do.
Posted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 7:11 am Post subject: Re: Seven big-name players who should be cut
DeWare94 wrote:
[..]
Would you want TO on this team if he played for free? Salary should have no bearing on keeping a guy on a team, especially in an uncapped year. At some point you have to cut your losses, something that, can't believe I'm saying this, Al Davis was able to figure out this year. We all know Jerry's ego is the real thing keeping RW from being cut.
Even if Dez and Crayton went down, there would be some run of the mill WR available in exchange for a 7th round pick that could do whatever it is RW can do.
What losses? this guy is NOT a team cancer. He is a good receiver that simply has NOT lived up to the trade. Cutting him would be plain dumb. You overzealous types waaaaaayyyy over blow this guy in every way negative. Try looking at this unbiased for once.
Despite what you may think, he has value to this team if not as an insurance policy. And add on the fact that you are paying him 15 million whether you keep him or not, you might as well keep him.
None of you have come up with ONE good reason why he should be cut, not ONE.
But its no biggie. You would pay him 15 million and dump him. Not me, and not the coaching staff. Next year, if things remain the same and he has a salary of 9 million, then hell yah, dump his ass.
Joined: Aug 31, 2007 Posts: 1575 Location: Dallas on Sundays otherwise Cleveland
Status:
Posted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 10:58 pm Post subject: Re: Seven big-name players who should be cut
CowboyRoy wrote:
The same argument was used for TO, 'he just signed a contract and got a signing bonus, you can't cut him'. Yet it was shown we were better without him. Addition by subtraction does happen, time will tell what the story is with RW.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
NAV
