- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 122,402
No guts, no glory, amirite?
Mosley: Don't expect Rolando McClain to be the answer for Cowboys
- Thread starter boozeman
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 122,402
That needs to be the way we look at it.
If he struggles in the least, I would hope we Brodney Pool his ass after a couple of days and give the younger players the reps.
Genghis Khan
The worst version of myself
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 37,709
Because a calculated risk comes with the realistic promise of a reward that mitigates the risk. A guy who is a flake, has retired twice before 25, and has character concerns, plus has not played in 2 years and didn't light the world on fire when he did play, is not a realistic chance for a reward. The odds are heavily in favor of this guy flaming out.
I know you guys in favor of this are saying, well we can just cut him then, no harm no foul. I disagree. we've already introduced part of the harm by trading for him. You don't think that erodes the message that hard work and dedication and production will be rewarded in this organization? I do. We just traded for a guy who has demonstrated, repeatedly, the opposite of that message.
And that's not to mention the negative influence his practice habits and lack of dedication might have on some of the younger players.
Maybe not, but it's certainly a high risk. If he makes the team and plays well by some miracle, thatv negates most of the negatives. But it goes back to, the chances of that are not realistic and thus, this is not a smart risk.
Genghis Khan
The worst version of myself
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 37,709
EXACTLY.
NoDak
Hotlinking' sonofabitch
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 22,993
I disagree.
It's been said by people here that if this trade was made by another team, we'd be LOLing at them. I think the opposite can be said for a few here. If this same exact trade with the way it was set up was made by another team, it would be lauded as being smart. Taking a chance with minimal risk to improve a position of need. But since it was Jerry...
It's been said by people here that if this trade was made by another team, we'd be LOLing at them. I think the opposite can be said for a few here. If this same exact trade with the way it was set up was made by another team, it would be lauded as being smart. Taking a chance with minimal risk to improve a position of need. But since it was Jerry...
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 122,402
Jerry did not roll out of bed one day and decide, "hey, maybe I better roll the dice on that Rolander fella".
This was probably a Garrett suggestion as a favor to Saban, who is still trying to get one of his players back on track.
If another team signed him, it would depend on that team's track record following the Al Davis blueprint for reclamation projects. The only person here who suggested it was a good move when Newsome took a shot was Schmitty.
The big difference here is the player themselves. This guy has literally quit, twice. He has called out his coaching staff in Oakland. But we are supposed to suddenly trust that hey, we got someone worth bothering with?
L.T. Fan
I'm Easy If You Are
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 21,698
Your position seems to imply that the entire team are mental midgets and will be adversely affected by being exposed to someone who is unstable. I have to disagree with this position. I am of the opinion that the team members will be able to identify and avoid a malcontent player. You underestimate these young men if this is your stance.
Carp
DCC 4Life
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 15,127
McClain is not important enough to make that kind of impact on the team...if he changes the entire tenor of the team then there is a bigger issue to worry about.
As an aside...this is still a young man, I think it is far too early to just count this guy as a non - entity for his entire life.
As an aside...this is still a young man, I think it is far too early to just count this guy as a non - entity for his entire life.
Genghis Khan
The worst version of myself
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 37,709
Didn't say that. But out of 90 or whatever guys in camp, you don't think at least a handful of them areimpressionable?
I've tempered everything I've said with maybes. I've never said, omg this team is ruined.
I've said all along this move isn't worth it because of the POSSIBILITY of negative influence combined with the near certainty that the player won't work out. It's a bad gamble.
Genghis Khan
The worst version of myself
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 37,709
Well, there is a bigger issue to worry about, there should be no doubt about that.
NoDak
Hotlinking' sonofabitch
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 22,993
L.T. Fan
I'm Easy If You Are
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 21,698
q
I think I see the primary difference here. You think it's a bad gamble and I don't see a gamble at all. He either shapes up as a player or he hits the road. Shouldn't take long to bring it about.
Genghis Khan
The worst version of myself
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 37,709
Yes, that's my opinion. It should be obvious that's not what I'm referring to when you don't take it out of context (hint: look at the next sentence). Nice try, though.
NoDak
Hotlinking' sonofabitch
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 22,993
What nice try? You said you tempered everything you've said with 'maybe'.
Saying that trading for McClain WON'T work out looked like an absolute to me. Did I miss the maybe in that sentence? If so, my bad.
Genghis Khan
The worst version of myself
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 37,709
It's the difference between tangibles and intangibles.
There isn't much at risk tangibly. Intangibly is to be determined.
Genghis Khan
The worst version of myself
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 37,709
Yep, your bad. Like I said, read the next sentence. It's pretty clear what I was referring to there and in most of that post when you keep it in context (potential negative influence on the team).
NoDak
Hotlinking' sonofabitch
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 22,993
Please explain it to me, then. What am I taking out of context? You're talking about the trade, right?
Then you stated a bit later you've tempered everything with maybe. I'm not seeing that maybe in here anywhere. Only where you say it won't work out.
So again, if I'm missing something here, please let me know. I'm apparently still missing it.
Edit: Just saw your edit/add in. So now it's a bit more clear what you were talking about. Still don't see the maybe, tho.
Genghis Khan
The worst version of myself
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 37,709
As an aside, my phone is screwing up some of my quoting and I'm too lazy to fix it, so my apologies if some of my quotes look weird.
Genghis Khan
The worst version of myself
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 37,709
We're talking about two different things. I don't think he'll work out. That's a "near certainty." I'm not claiming to have always been hedging on that (though I have at times).
What I'm referring to when I say "maybe," is whether he will negatively impact the team. It's the very next sentence and the topic of most of that post.
What I'm referring to when I say "maybe," is whether he will negatively impact the team. It's the very next sentence and the topic of most of that post.