It is currently Fri Aug 22, 2014 12:59 am

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Dunta
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2012 11:30 am 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25831
Location: North Carolina
OTOH, let's say a player like William Moore, a safety. Safeties and running backs have the shortest career spans of any position on the field, and we know in looking around the league, it's rare for safeties to play a full 16-game slate.

Moore is a FA after this year, and so if you concluded because of hte nature of the position he plays, that the Falcons might be better served with not paying him a huge sum of $$$ because of the possibility that he gets hurt in the future, then IMO that would be valid. William Moore simply by stepping onto the field Sunday is at higher risk of suffering some form of injury than any other defensive player simply because of the position he plays.

But in the case of Grimes, I don't believe those concerns were valid. If you wanted to say he was too old and was on the downslope of his career, that would be a valid concern. But injuries IMO were not valid.

I don't follow Miko on twitter so I don't know, but I thought I heard through the grapevine that she did address the rumors surrounding her husband fairly early in the off-season.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dunta
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2012 2:32 pm 
Offline
Draught Guru
Draught Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 4927
Pudge wrote:
OTOH, let's say a player like William Moore, a safety. Safeties and running backs have the shortest career spans of any position on the field, and we know in looking around the league, it's rare for safeties to play a full 16-game slate.

Moore is a FA after this year, and so if you concluded because of hte nature of the position he plays, that the Falcons might be better served with not paying him a huge sum of $$$ because of the possibility that he gets hurt in the future, then IMO that would be valid. William Moore simply by stepping onto the field Sunday is at higher risk of suffering some form of injury than any other defensive player simply because of the position he plays.

But in the case of Grimes, I don't believe those concerns were valid. If you wanted to say he was too old and was on the downslope of his career, that would be a valid concern. But injuries IMO were not valid.

I don't follow Miko on twitter so I don't know, but I thought I heard through the grapevine that she did address the rumors surrounding her husband fairly early in the off-season.


Ok, BUt Grimes really was injured twice, one a hip ( which he played on ) and then the knee...

WillyMO injured himself in his rookie season in 2009 ( after struggling with injuries his senior year in 2008) , had a good 2010, then got injured again and missed 4 games in 2011. Now, if in 2012 he gets injured AGAIN, then yeah, given the position he plays I wouldnt break the bank for WillyMo, even if he claims he is 'always ready'. And he is what, 1 1/2-2 years younger then Grimes? :shock:

I get your point that the achilles was most likely a fluke, and not related to the knee...But, if he had injured his knee instead, would that color your decision?

As far as the 'grapevine', and anyone complaining about the FO, it is wrong. Miko had no problem going on 790 the Zone and publically blasting Dled when he reported Grimes 'turned his nose up' at 2.6 million August 2011... And Grimes dumped his agent and he hired super-agents Ben Dogra and Tom Condon of CAA. Agents like THAT do not let blatant lies get floated that could affect thier clients. They just simply do not.

So either: someone in the Flowery Branch lied, and he, his lippy old lady, AND his super agents did not see the need to complain about it, or Grimes DID sit himself out ( which you have already said was OK) . Riiiight. :roll:

So unless you can show me ( and maybe it is out there somewhere ) where where the accusation was denied, Im going with my gut and jumping to the reasonable conclusion here. Grimes may have made a smart decision to sit last January, but Karma has a way of catching up :ninja:

And, he was a first round tender, right? Doesn't that mean any other team could offer up a 1st round pick for the services of Grimes? So 31 other teams did not feel he was worth a 1st, but we should have locked him into a 3-4 year deal?

TD got this one right. Not just because of injury, but I bet that played a small role. If Grimes did not injure himself last year, I bet that deal gets done. Fast...But everything else ( holding out last year with his wife whinging about it, sitting in the playoffs, etc.) combined probably made the one year deal the best option...

If they lied about Grimes sitting out, Im right with ya. I'll be pissed off too. But I just dont see it.

Occam's Razor! :ninja:

_________________
"what if there were no hypothetical situations?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dunta
PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 11:44 am 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25831
Location: North Carolina
You're not using Occam's Razor correctly fun gus.

As I showed before at no point in Parr's article did it say Grimes "sat himself." That is purely something that you and others implied from his words. Don't you think Dan Parr, being a professional sports writer would have put that in his post, the idea that Grimes opted not to play in the game because of his contract issues.

You're interpreting the words "surprised" and "disappointed" to mean things that Parr does not say they mean. Of course people within the organization were disappointed Grimes didn't play, because he's their 2nd best defensive player. They were surprised of course because they expected him to play. The people inside the organization aren't the team doctors.

They expected him to play because he was sat that week, with the expectation that it would allow him to heal in time to play. It didn't. That's it.

If we used Occam's Razor (the simplest answer is usually the correct one), then it would tell us that the reason why Grimes didn't play is because he wasn't cleared by team doctors. Brandon Flowers didn't choose to sit himself against the Chiefs, when he was expected to play but he was added to the inactive list the morning of the game this past weekend.

I'm not accusing the team of lying about Grimes sitting himself. Because that's not how I interpreted Parr's article, nor do I think anybody else should. Grimes didn't play because he wasn't cleared to play. Until we get an article that clearly indicates that Grimes was cleared to play, and he chose not to, is the only scrap of evidence you can use to support your theory that Grimes sat himself.

And I never accused them of lying. I accused them of using Parr to wage a calculated PR campaign to win the hearts and minds of the fan base. Something they accomplished whether it was calculated or completely accidental, because you have people like yourself who have done a complete 180 on Brent Grimes, and now in your mind you question his heart/toughness as well as his durability.

My anti-team rant was based off the assumption that the team had made the decision within a week of the season being over that they were planning on getting rid of their 2nd best defensive player. That was fueled by disappointment that the organization had already come to the conclusion that they were a better football team without Brent Grimes on the field. And we'll see over the next 15 weeks that opinion being born true.

That opinion of course became invalidated once they decided not to get rid of Grimes.

fun gus wrote:
TD got this one right. Not just because of injury, but I bet that played a small role.

And you're right, TD did make the right decision by not giving Grimes the extension. BUt again, I say if his primary factor for that was due to risk of injury, then his decision making process on who should get paid and who should not is entirely flawed system/process.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dunta
PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 3:29 pm 
Offline
Draught Guru
Draught Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 4927
Pudge wrote:
You're not using Occam's Razor correctly fun gus.

As I showed before at no point in Parr's article did it say Grimes "sat himself." That is purely something that you and others implied from his words. Don't you think Dan Parr, being a professional sports writer would have put that in his post, the idea that Grimes opted not to play in the game because of his contract issues.

You're interpreting the words "surprised" and "disappointed" to mean things that Parr does not say they mean. Of course people within the organization were disappointed Grimes didn't play, because he's their 2nd best defensive player. They were surprised of course because they expected him to play. The people inside the organization aren't the team doctors.
They expected him to play because he was sat that week, with the expectation that it would allow him to heal in time to play. It didn't. That's it.

I'm not accusing the team of lying about Grimes sitting himself. Because that's not how I interpreted Parr's article, nor do I think anybody else should. Grimes didn't play because he wasn't cleared to play. Until we get an article that clearly indicates that Grimes was cleared to play, and he chose not to, is the only scrap of evidence you can use to support your theory that Grimes sat himself.

And I never accused them of lying. I accused them of using Parr to wage a calculated PR campaign to win the hearts and minds of the fan base. Something they accomplished whether it was calculated or completely accidental, because you have people like yourself who have done a complete 180 on Brent Grimes, and now in your mind you question his heart/toughness as well as his durability.


fun gus wrote:
TD got this one right. Not just because of injury, but I bet that played a small role.

And you're right, TD did make the right decision by not giving Grimes the extension. BUt again, I say if his primary factor for that was due to risk of injury, then his decision making process on who should get paid and who should not is entirely flawed system/process.



Pudge, I havent seen this kind of doublespeak since they cut Grady. :roll:

First: I didnt say injury was the primary reason ever in any of my posts. here is what I said exactly "TD got this one right. Not just because of injury, but I bet that played a small role. If Grimes did not injure himself last year, I bet that deal gets done. Fast...But everything else ( holding out last year with his wife whinging about it, sitting in the playoffs, etc.) combined probably made the one year deal the best option..."

That's pretty cut and dried right? I said without Grimes getting injured, his deal gets done:fast. There is nothing in there to suggest injuries were the 'primary reason'. :lol:

Second, going by your definitions, GWBUsh did not 'lie' about WMD's in Iraq, instead he simply "used the media to wage a calculated PR campaign". :roll:

Cmon pudge, be reasonable. You cant honestly say stuff like that and believe it. Because even if it is true, that means that Grimes superagents were too stupid to see that one coming and counter it, or deny it. And his wife, who lives online, clammed up. And Grimes, who fought thus far, also decided NOT to counter this *cough cough* 'calculated PR campaign'...And that is where Occam's Razor works. Because the simplest answer is usually the correct one. Your doing Clintonian doublespeak and parsing words to cover for the fact that you were indignant about something that probably never occurred. You clearly inferred in your posts about this in January that TD had done something untoward, and that Dan Parr was either an accomplice, or a 'useful idiot'. And I pointed out there really is nothing to suggest that: and given that in the past, when things like this was leveled against Grimes ( like when Dled said he was holding out last August, he his wife, and his former agent ALL said that was 'NOT TRUE'..and Grimes appeared on local media to say he was NOT holding out on practicing due to his contract negotiations) they were proactive in dealing with it.... All this is easily verifyable!

Thats where it works. The simple answer is: what was written was probably true, because in the past when something untrue or damaging found it's way into the media:it was dealt with. This time, with a charge that is even worse then just 'holding out, silence. THAT is not the simplest answer.

The team doctors know perfectly well what they are doing. The people they work for know as well: they work together. They were suprised and dissapointed. The inference there is they 'expected' him to play. He did not. Now there are two reasons why: either he didn't 'heal' in time, (even though these medically trained people make a living doing this sort of thing, and had expected him to suit up) or Grimes 'helped' them reach this decision, and that makes some sense, since if he reinjures himself or struggles he considerably damages his worth.

Grimes acted in his own best interests. The jocksniffing part is some people would rather believe that Brent Grimes would not do such a thing, that if he had a leg amputated he would be fighting to get out there and hop along trying to shut down Hakeem Nicks. And that TD and Smitty, literally DAYS after the loss, conspired to use the media to gain leverage. That is, whenever they aren't out buying muostache-wax

Image

I dont know how it can get any 'clearer' then that..

Look, we all get one wrong every now and then. Embrace it. Learn from it! :whistle:

_________________
"what if there were no hypothetical situations?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dunta
PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 4:13 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25831
Location: North Carolina
There is a clear disconnect here.

fun gus wrote:
First: I didnt say injury was the primary reason ever in any of my posts. here is what I said exactly "TD got this one right. Not just because of injury, but I bet that played a small role. If Grimes did not injure himself last year, I bet that deal gets done. Fast...But everything else ( holding out last year with his wife whinging about it, sitting in the playoffs, etc.) combined probably made the one year deal the best option..."

That's pretty cut and dried right? I said without Grimes getting injured, his deal gets done:fast. There is nothing in there to suggest injuries were the 'primary reason'.

I know what you said in your latest post. I was addressing your earlier posts that implied that the #1 and #2 reasons why the Falcons shouldn't have given Grimes were because A-He quit on the Giants game B-He was more susceptible to injury than your average player in a similar situation.

And the disconnect here is because I believe you are wrong on both of those issues. Dan Parr never said that Grimes sat himself for the Giants game. If trying to figure out the answer to the question: "Why did Grimes not play vs. the Giants" if you used Occam's Razor then, then you would have concluded it was because he was not cleared to play, which is why players don't play 99.9999999% of the time.

If there is no denial of Grimes sitting himself, it's because it was never written or suggested by anyone, not even Mr. Parr. That myth was fabricated by the fan base. So unless his agents and his wife were scouring message boards or poorly produced podcasts, they wouldn't have heard anything about it. Now again, I will state that I believe there was a denial by Miko based on what a fan said to her on twitter. But I could definitely be wrong there. But even if I am, it is meaningless again because there is really no reason to deny it because it would have never come to their attention, because it was something that only fans believed. Frankly, you and my podcast partner, Ryan are the only people I'm aware of that believe Grimes didn't play against the Giants because he chose not to.

If you're accusing me of doublespeak because of perceived changes of opinion from January to now, then you've missing the point. My opinion in January (and the accusations I leveled at the organization) were based around the false assumption that the team was getting rid of Grimes. My accusation that they were publicly campaigning to get rid of Grimes was built of your assumption that Grimes sat himself in that game (which is also wrong). As you re-read that original thread, you'll see that the tenor of the conversation is rapidly changed once you insert your 2 cents on the matter.

Go back and re-read your initial post in that thread:
fun gus wrote:
If Grimes sat out when he could have played vs the Giants because he was unhappy with his contract and did not want to risk injury, in that context if we tagged him and got a 1st round pick I think that is a wise move.

Now you know I love me some Grimes, but really? A 30 yr old munchkin CB coming off knee surgery and with bad blood between him and his agent/wife, the front office? If he sat out when we really needed him on purpose, sorry, I'd rather have that first round pick no matter how much Dunta sucks.

I do think you have a right to be pissed at the management for letting it get to this point. There might be something we dont know about his injury, and maybe that had something to do with TD not getting his extension done....But if he sat himself then buh bye lil man. I 'll miss ya, but dont let the door hit ya where Good Lord split ya.


At this point, your entire premise as I see it is this:

"TD was right from the start because he did not pay Grimes. He was justified in doing so because Grimes is a quitter and/or has injury concerns."

I'm saying this:

"TD was right in not paying Grimes only in hindsight. Had he given him market value and he had suffered a Week 1 Achilles tear, then we would have been up s***'s creek. But ecause the Achilles injury is completely random and unforeseeable event, you cannot use that as a reason why in Jan/Feb he was right in not paying Grimes."

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dunta
PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 5:41 pm 
Offline
Draught Guru
Draught Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 4927
Pudge wrote:
There is a clear disconnect here.

Go back and re-read your initial post in that thread:
fun gus wrote:
If Grimes sat out when he could have played vs the Giants because he was unhappy with his contract and did not want to risk injury, in that context if we tagged him and got a 1st round pick I think that is a wise move.

Now you know I love me some Grimes, but really? A 30 yr old munchkin CB coming off knee surgery and with bad blood between him and his agent/wife, the front office? If he sat out when we really needed him on purpose, sorry, I'd rather have that first round pick no matter how much Dunta sucks.

I do think you have a right to be pissed at the management for letting it get to this point. There might be something we dont know about his injury, and maybe that had something to do with TD not getting his extension done....But if he sat himself then buh bye lil man. I 'll miss ya, but dont let the door hit ya where Good Lord split ya.


At this point, your entire premise as I see it is this:

"TD was right from the start because he did not pay Grimes. He was justified in doing so because Grimes is a quitter and/or has injury concerns."

I'm saying this:

"TD was right in not paying Grimes only in hindsight. Had he given him market value and he had suffered a Week 1 Achilles tear, then we would have been up s***'s creek. But ecause the Achilles injury is completely random and unforeseeable event, you cannot use that as a reason why in Jan/Feb he was right in not paying Grimes."



Pudge, were just rehashing the same damn argument we had the 2nd week of January. Go back, and reread the entire thread...

""And I'm betting you're saying that because of the sliver of doubt that has been inserted in your brain because of this article that was mentioned in the first post, where you read into it that Brent Grimes lacks heart. Had Dan Parr never written this story, I'd bet that you would be alongside me saying that he was the one free agent that the Falcons must re-sign."

"Not really Pudge, I had come to this conclusion waaaay before Mr Parr's broadside. I was just to timid to voice it because I knew the riot it would create. My mind was made up not to sign Grimetime for anything more then 3 years because I saw Grimes struggle more this season against bigger faster WR's then in the past...It may be completely perception too. Grimes used to own Brees. In the first game, before he was injured, he seemed a step off to me. Again: you'll probably find a cute stat to blow that up. But when he came back on the MNF game, and he wasn't 100% it hurt watching him against 6 foot 6 Graham. It was then I started to think about it. I know it's 'unfair' and it probably speaks to Grimes 'heart' positively, but after that display I started thinking more about Grimes contract.... I began to wonder if we locked him up for a 5-6 year huge deal, if it wouldn't be a Nnamdi Asomugha situation.

I know this will get me flamed, but I cant see spending 60 million 6 yrs with 25 guaranteed for Grimes. I'm sorry, but nobody is worth that, not Dunta Not Grimes, not Brandon Carr, Not Cortland Finnegan, Not Carlos Rodgers, Not Eric Wright, William Gay or Al Harris."

http://falcfans.com/forums/viewtopic.ph ... 3&start=25

Now, I said in this thread that had Grimes not been injured, he would have had a deal, fast. No problem. But even then, I was concerned that his size/position and age were a concern going down the road. Im being consitent here.

I was worried if we gave Grimes the $$ we would have a 'Nnamdi situation'. Now you can say that the achilles inury is a 'fluke' injury, that's a fair point. I conceeded that.

But earlier in this thread I said 'for 10 million dollars, I want at least 12 games'. I know it's speculation, but I dont and did not think Grimes was really going to do that this season. I think because of the age/position and style of play ( combined with injuries ) that Grimes was more then likely to get reinjured.Just like Sam Baker is probably more likely to reinjure his back, but that doesn't mean he cant suffer an achillles. right?

As a matter of fact, I think he probably would have blown out his knee again, either this year or next, only this time much worse then his current achilles injury. BUt then, we would be on the hook for the $$. And I was even scketchy about a 3 year deal, but Grimes wanted more then that. If they could have given hims a three year deal, front loaded with the third year mostly incentive pay, that might have been okay: but even then I was worried he wouldn't see the contract through...But what was being reported is that Grimes wanted waaaay more thena 3 year deal...

The stuff about sitting in the playoffs, or holding out last year,ancillary: but combined it doesnt make sense for a long tem deal, considering the likelyhood of injury.

I have held the same positon about this since last year: the only difference is in hindsight you admit you changed your opinion.

The fact is TD made a wise decision. He didnt back up the money truck, but he kept our best CB on a one year deal to see if he could make it through the season, and be productive. Nothing stopping us from signing him next season. As a matter of fact, if you reread the thread I wanted to let Grimes test the market for a 1st round pick. Nobody thought that was a good deal, right? Should that not tell us something? ( Full disclosure: I wanted Dre Kirkpatrick, and guess what: he injured himself in preseason and missed his first NFL game :doh: AFTER getting busted..remember?)

I've been completely consistant all along! Even if we had let Grimes go for a first round CB pick, I still believe in the long run, we would have been 'better off' then signing Grimes to a long term contract...As a matter of fact, Asante Samuels could have taken this pic and taught hm up to be a contributor by next year, locking up that position for years to come. Now, we HAVE to use a pick to fix this situation.

In the end, I was wrong, you were wrong and TD was right.

you can come out of the corner now Pudge;-)

Image

_________________
"what if there were no hypothetical situations?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dunta
PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 6:13 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25831
Location: North Carolina
Like I've said numerous times before, I think there were valid reasons/concerns/issues not to pay Grimes. You outlined some. I disagreed with them in January, and still do now.

I believe using hindsight, you can say that opinion (that we should pay Grimes) was wrong. I'm ready to admit that. But at the same time, I believe that decisions should be evaluated with as little hindsight as possible. I think you have to go largely on the facts and issues as they existed at the time of the decision. It's why I think the move to sign Ovie Mughelli was a bad decision, because at the time, we were overpaying for a player/position that was useless in the Petrino offense. The Falcons brass should have known that FBs were hardly used in Petrino's offense, so it made little sense to go out and pay premium dollar for one. Now obviously, thanks to Petrino's dismissal and the arrival of the 3 Mikes (Turner, Mularkey, and Smith), the presence of Ovie on the roster was extremely valuable.

IMHO, that makes it a bad decision (at the time) that worked out in the end.

I think this Grimes contract issue is basically the same thing. A bad decision (at the time) that worked out in the end.

Now you obviously disagree that it was a bad decision at the time. And I respect that opinion. But I'm not quite willing to say now due to the subsequent events that it was a good decision to not pay Grimes at the time. To me, it's really just a decision that could have gone any number of ways. And just because it went one way does not automatically make me second-guess how it began.

IMHO, there was much less risk with signing Grimes long-term than the majority of the other big decisions TD has made over the years.

BTW, Dunta still blows...

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dunta
PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:15 pm 
Offline
Draught Guru
Draught Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 4927
Pudge wrote:
I think this Grimes contract issue is basically the same thing. A bad decision (at the time) that worked out in the end.

Now you obviously disagree that it was a bad decision at the time. And I respect that opinion. But I'm not quite willing to say now due to the subsequent events that it was a good decision to not pay Grimes at the time. To me, it's really just a decision that could have gone any number of ways. And just because it went one way does not automatically make me second-guess how it began.

IMHO, there was much less risk with signing Grimes long-term than the majority of the other big decisions TD has made over the years....


And, you thought cutting Grady was the 'right decision', and you were proven wrong. Although it almost took 3 years for you to even admit it might have been 'wrong', you eventually came around: kind of.

I expect you to come around in a couple years :mrgreen:

It's okay to be wrong every once in awhile, Pudge. 8-)

You wont give TD credit, that's okay: it's your forum. But the simple facts are TD just saved us millions upon millions of dollars. He made the right call: you did not. Period. If it helps you sleep that it was an achilles, and not a 'knee' thats fine. But, you are wrong. TD was right. That is simply just the facts.

Sleep well, my prince! :wink:

_________________
"what if there were no hypothetical situations?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dunta
PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2012 6:54 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25831
Location: North Carolina
Look, you know I see wrong as two forms. Dead wrong, and sorta wrong. I think I'm sorta wrong on this Grimes issue, and that doesn't really count. :wink:

As for Grady, I admit that I was wrong in the sense that it was a smart move by the Falcons at the time. But I still vehemently disagree with your assessment that the move was as bad as you thought/think it is. It didn't kill the team. It made the quitters (like D Hall) quit, but from it we got Jonathan Babineaux (instead of Trey Lewis like I expected at the time) to emerge, and we didn't really miss Grady at all on the football field. It was definitely a poorly conceived miscalculation on Petrino, but the negative impact on the football field was minimal if not non-existent. It hurt Petrino in the locker room with a number of players, but all of them were gone come 2008. So cutting Grady actually made TD's job easier.

Look, I'll give TD his due in the sense that he saved us from pissing away $25 million. He made a good decision in that sense. But again, I'm not ready to concede that not making that decision was necessary a bad decision. But I'm definitely not going to give him his due under some pretense that he was smart enough to foresee Grimes get hurt.

And another thing, that I talked about in the January thread. TD's decision not to pay Grimes IMHO has very little to do with Grimes and concerns about his potential longevity. I think 99.9% of that decision has everything to do with the fact that the Falcons are gave up WAY TOO MUCH $$$ to a Mr. Dunta Robinson. Had the Falcons been able/willing to get out of that contract, IMHO they would have had no qualms paying Grimes his market value.

So the notion that this was TD being clever enough is BS. It's just like Ovie, he sorta stumbled his way into good fortune.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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 post attachments in this forum

Jump to: