Do you cut a guy for a historically bad game?

[Dustdevil]

No, you don't cut a player who has a historically bad game.

You do consider cutting a guy who...

1. Can't stay healthy and never seems to be able to get on the field in 3 years.
2. Never lived up to his potential after 3 years of seasoning when he does play.
3. Doesn't work well at Tackle or even Guard after 3 years of opportunity.
And....

4. Has a historically bad game.



Yes, I think you consider that.

 

[bbgun]

That b/s dude. Why wasn't he dominated by better players on the other teams he faced then? The fact is he wasn't.

We're talking about a pathetically small sample (two games at LT before Atlanta). Furthermore, LT is not his natural position, so struggling shouldn't shock anyone.

I don't think it had anything to do with wanting Prescott to be hammered, I think it's that he is acting like a pissy little bitch because he lost the starting job he thought he was entitled to, but lost because he couldn't stay healthy.

I simply refuse to believe that he'd put Dak in danger because he lost his job to Cooper. He's injury-prone, not malicious.

Adrian Clayborn has never been a superior player to anyone. He's a jag supreme himself, something his career stats clearly show.

Green is an oft-injured 4th rounder, ergo lots of players qualify as superior to him.

 

[Doomsday]

No, you don't cut a player who has a historically bad game.

You do consider cutting a guy who...

1. Can't stay healthy and never seems to be able to get on the field in 3 years.
2. Never lived up to his potential after 3 years of seasoning when he does play.
3. Doesn't work well at Tackle or even Guard after 3 years of opportunity.
And....

4. Has a historically bad game.



Yes, I think you consider that.

Post of the year finalist.

 

[TheZoneSucks]

No, you don't cut a player who has a historically bad game.

You do consider cutting a guy who...

1. Can't stay healthy and never seems to be able to get on the field in 3 years.
2. Never lived up to his potential after 3 years of seasoning when he does play.
3. Doesn't work well at Tackle or even Guard after 3 years of opportunity.
And....

4. Has a historically bad game.



Yes, I think you consider that.

I covered all your shit with:

So yes, you DO cut a player after a bad game, especially one who isn't valuable at all, and is not a starter with a history of getting it done.

You, and the assholes liking your post have reading comprehension problems.

 

[Doomsday]

You, and the assholes liking your post have reading comprehension problems.

Yep we got us a really surly bunch here.

Dustdevil was just more succinct and had more brevity is all. I gave you a like toooooo!

 

[dbair1967]

We're talking about a pathetically small sample (two games at LT before Atlanta). Furthermore, LT is not his natural position, so struggling shouldn't shock anyone.



I simply refuse to believe that he'd put Dak in danger because he lost his job to Cooper. He's injury-prone, not malicious.



Green is an oft-injured 4th rounder, ergo lots of players qualify as superior to him.

STFU BB

Green tanked, end of discussion.

 

[yimyammer]

STFU BB

Green tanked, end of discussion.

 

[bbgun]

STFU BB

Green tanked, end of discussion.

I can't believe you'd use that type of language so close to Christmas

 

[dbair1967]

I can't believe you'd use that type of language so close to Christmas

Its close to fucking Thanksgiving

 

[bbgun]

Its close to fucking Thanksgiving

I like dark meat

 

[Dodger12]

We're stuck with Green. The reality is that he's hard to cut now and will most probably get picked up by another team. Also, who does he get replaced with? We don't evaluate players based on on-field performance. We evaluate them because of draft status.

 

[Scot]

Ask Jimmy Johnson

 

[Doomsday]

Ask Jimmy Johnson

Jimmy would give Dustdevil's answer.

 

[dbair1967]

So they are benching Chaz Green, which tells me that after our dumbass coaches watched the tape they saw what I saw all along, that Chaz Green tanked.

Only a fucktard organization like ours would still have him on the roster though.

 

[yimyammer]

So they are benching Chaz Green, which tells me that after our dumbass coaches watched the tape they saw what I saw all along, that Chaz Green tanked.

Only a fucktard organization like ours would still have him on the roster though.

Does he have guaranteed money or something?

This stinks of jeri and his disdain for cutting players. I remember when he was pissed Jimmy cut Curvin Richards without being consulted first, I get the feeling jeri doesnt give two shits about the performance of 3rd rounders on up but has put out an edict that they will play out their contract regardless of play on the field.

Its always some fucking bullshit over there

 

[dbair1967]

Does he have guaranteed money or something?

This stinks of jeri and his disdain for cutting players. I remember when he was pissed Jimmy cut Curvin Richards without being consulted first, I get the feeling jeri doesnt give two shits about the performance of 3rd rounders on up but has put out an edict that they will play out their contract regardless of play on the field.

Its always some fucking bullshit over there

Not really on guaranteed money, he's still under his rookie deal.

 

[English Cowboy]

Does he have guaranteed money or something?

This stinks of jeri and his disdain for cutting players. I remember when he was pissed Jimmy cut Curvin Richards without being consulted first, I get the feeling jeri doesnt give two shits about the performance of 3rd rounders on up but has put out an edict that they will play out their contract regardless of play on the field.

Its always some fucking bullshit over there

Probably keeping hold of him hoping beyond hope some other clusterfuck of a franchise like Cleveland signs him when he becomes a free agent and we get a comp draft pick.

 

[ThoughtExperiment]

Why shouldn't players keep their jobs after a terrible game? Garrett has kept his after about 50 of them.