First of all, my recollection of Dave Archer's comments was that Grimes was not using the team's facilities to rehab his Achilles injury, and was doing it elsewhere. Again, this is a fairly common occurrence in the league, and there have been numerous times over the years where a player has chosen to work out on his own or rehab on his own. Sometimes it has to do with being upset over a contract, other times it doesn't. In the case of Grimes, I'm sure it had everything to do with his contract situation. And as I've stated several times before, I have no issue if a player is disgruntled over the fact that he was tagged by a team that has little to no intention of getting signed long-term. It's a common occurrence in today's NFL. Some players suck it up and just go to work every day like it's no big deal (see Randy Starks), other players sulk and complain. There are no judgments from me on which a player does, because to each his own.
I make judgments about football, not personality traits. Because I don't know any of these guys, and don't pretend to. I think Roddy is dumb as a stump, but he's a baller on the field, and thus I don't care that much. I'll call him out for saying stupid stuff on twitter, but never once has that ever bled into what he does on the field, nor have I ever suggested that because he posts dumb stuff online means that he should lose his job.
Take Ray Edwards for instance. He got cut because he was "openly insubordinate" to the coaching staff in front of the team and ownership, and that was for the team
the straw that broke the camel's back and led to his release. If I supported that move, it would have little to do with his insubordination, it would have had everything to do with the fact that he wasn't producing on the field.
My general mantra is that I don't give a crap what players do off the field, as long as it doesn't affect what they do on the field. Ray Edwards could be a "me first" player, but if he was getting 8-10 sacks a year, I really wouldn't have cared if he was in it for the women and money as opposed to the fame. In the case of DeAngelo, I supported his departure in '08 because he quit on the team (i.e. his effort went downhill) IMO after the release of Grady Jackson, and despite his production on the field, I didn't believe his performance merited the elite CB money that he so wished (and ultimately was proven correct). In the case of Michael Boley, I think his performance suffered in 2008 because of his less than stellar effort, so I understood completely why the team chose to move on from him, but as you may or may not recall, I would have supported his return to the team at the right price and possibly with a change in position (from SLB to WLB).
I wouldn't have a problem if Randy Moss was on the team, just that the Falcons would have to pay him a salary commiserate with his status as a "mercenary." I'm not going to pay a guy $40 million if I don't think he's a team-first rah rah rah guy, but paying a guy $1 or $2 million, no prob Bob. As long as your production on the field is fine, then you got no problem with me.
Going back to Vick. Vick quit on the team twice. My arguments against Vick were those instances proved he wasn't a franchise QB and worthy of the $130 million contract he received from us. I've always maintained that if Vick was given Jake Delhomme $$$ instead of Peyton Manning $$$, the amount of complaining I do/did about him would significantly decrease.
I didn't care that Michael Turner got a DUI from coming home from Magic City on his off night. Unlike others
And you're right, because Snelling is a former 7th round that is a 3rd string RB, that makes $1.2 million, I'm not going to hold him to the same standard that I would Matt Ryan, a former #1 pick, starting QB that makes $104 million. Matt Ryan's standard of leadership is going to be factored a lot differently than Snelling's. You're right, if Ryan "pulled this stunt" my reaction would probably be different.
If you want to take the tact that all players should be held to the same standard, then that's fine and dandy in youth football, HS, and college to a certain extent. But it's complete BS in the pros. Brett Favre and Brett Swain (Google him) aren't going to be held to the same standard by any human being out there.
Now you could say that Snelling's actions off the field affected his ability to produce on the field. But it's a 1-time incident. I have no cause to question Snelling's commitment in 6 years prior to this weekend, and more than likely will have no cause to question it again for the remainder of the season, and the remainder of his contract (thru 2014).
If it becomes a pattern of behavior (like it was with Vick), then it's something that merits being addressed. But until then, life goes on. No big deal.
But in your eyes, it is. Which is fine, that your eyes. You said back in 2012, that because Grimes didn't go the extra mile to play in that all-important end all-be all Giants playoff game, you believed he didn't have a place on your favorite football team. That's fine. But don't be shocked if/when other people don't hold players to such high standards.
Don't be shocked when others, fanboys
like myself, tend to view players as human beings
. And thus the fact that they aren't 110% committed to the ideal of the team 24/7/365, isn't a slap in the face, isn't some flaw that must be purged from the franchise immediately.
Don't act like your right is the right/only way of how things should be. I don't give a s*** that Snelling missed this game. I don't give a s*** if any player is in a situation where in their eyes, something besides football is the #1 priority in their life, whether that's family, friends, legal issues, or a stripper named Mirage.
I know you believe that because these guys are employees of the Atlanta Falcons, that the team has dominion
over all/most aspects of their lives. I understand that there are companies/corporations that believe that just because you receive a check from me, I have a say in how you live your life. But I don't think that should be the case.