First, let me quote the exact text written by Dan Parr back in January on this very issue because it's going to become important in a little bit...
Dan Parr wrote:
Our Falcons sources expect CB Brent Grimes, who is due to become an unrestricted free agent this offseason, to be playing for a different team next season.
Grimes, who underwent knee surgery in late November, missed four of the final five games of the regular season as he recovered from the procedure. He practiced on a limited basis two days prior to the Falcons' playoff loss to the Giants, though. The team was expecting him to suit up vs. the Giants, but he was added to the list of inactives the morning of the game and we hear some inside the organization were very surprised, and disappointed, that he didn't play.
However, the Falcons were encouraged by the performance of CBs Dominique Franks and Chris Owens down the stretch, and the team will be looking to have the cap flexibility to re-sign some of its other core players. We hear that Grimes, the team's top corner, is likely to price himself out of the team's range.
fun gus wrote:
When the media reports surfaced saying he sat himself, you were adamant that this was a trial balloon 'leaked' to gain leverage in off season negotiations. And IIRC, you were not 'pleased' about it. Right? For the record, I dont know what really happened.
BUt, you cant on one hand say 'look at how this FO and coaching staff has dealt with 'non team players' in the past, and at the same time accuse them of leaking an untruth in order to gain negotiating leverage. Because where have the done this despicable practice in the past? Since 2009? That is called 'cognitive dissonance'.
Yes, I did basically say the team leaked this information to create leverage and condemned them for it. But that was based off a key aspect of what Parr wrote, "The Falcons were planning to let Grimes walk because he was deemed too expensive."
My whole point was that if that was the decision the Falcons had already made as of January 13, 2012 when Parr's report was first published, 5 days after their playoff loss to the Giants, then it was because Mr. Parr's sources were doing so with a calculated intent, most likely to due with future potential negotiations. Given how quickly that turnaround was from season's end to "inside sources" made it very fishy. That's not how teams operate, teams have not made firm decisions on the futures of their players 5 days after the season is over. It takes weeks
before they come to those types of conclusions.
But guess what? I don't have that opinion any longer. Why?
Because that previous opinion was built with the caveat that Grimes was gone. But Grimes wasn't gone. The team tagged Grimes and not with the mind of shopping him as the original thread suggested
, but tagged him fully intending on keeping him.
So really what Parr's report indicates now that we have the value of 7.5 months of hindsight, is that the Falcons had already made the decision that they weren't going to give him a long-term extension.
Which is fine, as I've said there are valid reasons to come to that conclusion, which I don't agree with, but still they make some sense.
fun gus wrote:
Secondly: the idea that the 'team doctors' cleared him to play has alot to do with the diagnosis..
I also think this is the crux of the issue. In Parr's piece, he said the following: The team was expecting him to suit up vs. the Giants, but he was added to the list of inactives the morning of the game and we hear some inside the organization were very surprised, and disappointed, that he didn't play.
And I think you read from that essentially Grimes and the Falcons had gone to bed Saturday night expecting him to play vs. the Giants, and then in the morning wake up to discover that wasn't the case, presumably because Grimes had slept on it and made the decision to sit out.
But I think you're missing something here. First, there's absolutely no reason to think that Saturday night that the doctors had cleared him. What happened Saturday night was probably something along the lines of the doctors saying something doctor-y like "if the swelling goes down by tomorrow morning, you can play." And so those same "inside sources" that are discussing the ins and outs of the Falcons organization probably then assumed, "Oh Grimes is tough as nails, no way he doesn't play regardless of the swelling."
Then guess what, when the doctors checked out Grimes Sunday morning to make sure he was ready to go, the hypothetical swelling did not go down, and thus they could not clear him.
Now, maybe you could say maybe the doctors still left a very small window that with a heavy taping and a large dosage of cortisone, they could give Grimes a shot if he was dying to be on the field. Something with the warning that even with it, you're still only going to be 70% of yourself and you're going to need surgery again in 2 weeks, and the less you do means that you'll have a quicker turnaround on your surgery on the back-end.
And given that situation, if the team doctors essentially gave that lay-up to Grimes, basically saying "Given my Hyppocratic Oath, I have to tell you these likely outcomes but as I Falcon fan/employee, I also want to do what's best for the team."
And then Grimes then said, "Nah."
Even then I would not blame Grimes for not being ride-or-die, and would still want him back.
See the problem is that fun gus, you bought into the "Character Concerns" BS about Grimes, a guy that has epitomized high football character for 5 years. And all of a sudden because of this report which IMHO you misread, you do a complete 180.
That's exactly what propaganda is supposed to do. Make you think things that your normal logical brain would immediately reject. And all of sudden Grimes is a bad locker room/character guy, especially in comparison to some of the questionable character guys that we have on this team, that we had showed no intent to dump.
And so to me given the fishy nature of when this inside source decided to "leak" this info to Mr. Parr, that it was all part of their propoganda program. My paranoid mind told me that mean that in a backroom this was said:
"If we're going to convince this fan base that getting rid of their fan favorite, Brent "Optimus" Grimes, is a good idea, we have to get on the ball as early as possible. Johnson, call your friends at Pro Football Weekly, we'll give them something juicy..."