Nothing new, just the same concerns as before. Inconsistency, inability to win big games, lack of toughness, etc. And he’s two years older now.
When you cut three players because of the same vague reason, it either speaks to poor scouting/due diligence in the signing process, or some other reason such as conflict/irreconcilable differences with the coach. Either way it’s strange and bad optics.
Maybe they just got cut cause they were out performed?
The reason cited publicly in the press releases was specifically “they didn’t fit the culture.”
Okay.
I see that.
Oh, okay. I thought it was something along the line of your earlier thoughts about the organizations treating players badly by cutting them, for example.
My issue isn’t in treating players badly, it’s in cutting players (some are over the hill vets, others are actually talented and can still play well) for vague reasons not necessarily related to performance on the field. It’s questionable asset management on top of the bad optics.
Who cares what they say is the reason. Would you feel better if they used the time honored cliche, "We decided to go in a different direction"? Guys get cut/traded all the time for various reasons, and the coaching staff doesn't owe us all the little details. The rest of us are trying to provide some potential plausible reasons.
If it actually is about building a culture, then it raises questions about the scouting and due diligence process of the organization that they signed the player in the first place. It also raises questions about what the culture is that you’re trying to build and whether it’s too strict or narrow minded, resulting in losing talented players because of it.
The culture is to keep the most talented players, the ones with the best attitude under the team first concept, and also fit everyone under the cap. Any other questions?
Like I said earlier, this management team does not have the track record nor reputation to accord them the benefit of the doubt. I’ll be happy to eat crow if I’m wrong though.
