- Joined
- Jul 8, 2000
- Messages
- 26,148
- Reaction score
- 54,892
- Age
- 44
Online
Why can't it be as simple as the fact that there were 5 other receivers better than him and, when forced to cut the most dispensable player on the active roster to address a critical need at OL, the team did the entirely logical thing of cutting the most dispensable player on the roster.
The vested interest in someone who made an extremely marginal impact last year and then promptly got beaten out by 5 (FIVE) other players at the same position is remarkable. Truly remarkable.
Comments from Allen. Sounded like a player in the doghouse, and demoting to weekly healthy scratch status and releasing a player with his background and had shown promise was an oddity, as was him electing to go to another team’s practice squad.
Things were not all kushy there. It’s very clear to me, but it’s fine to disagree.