Do we pick up a compensational pick for dropping Allen?

no you don't get picks for cutting guys, only when they leave as a FA, and only then subject to some secret formula that always ends up in us getting nothing and the pats getting 9 extra picks

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> secret formula that always ends up in us getting
> nothing and the pats getting 9 extra picks


Always seems that way.

This was, and continues to be, a bad move all around. Why did we put him on IR in the first place and not let him play for another team THIS season? Why cut him NOW rather than use him, or Carroll or Sapp, as trade bait? This is nothing more than a cost-cutting move and a bad decision on a list of moves that included David Martin, Donald Thomas, Jason Allen, Jake Grove, and Charlie Anderson. ALL guys that (save Grove, who I have no idea what his health is like) could have contributed this season and/or next.

montequi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This was, and continues to be, a bad move all
> around. Why did we put him on IR in the first
> place and not let him play for another team THIS
> season? Why cut him NOW rather than use him, or
> Carroll or Sapp, as trade bait?

He was injured, and not back up to par, by putting him on IR or cutting him would have cost us the same, we just controlled his rights for the time period so to speak at no greater cost to the organization...

There is no trade bait right now....There is no trading with the CBA problems, this is not a normal year. Teams are expecting free agency to most likely happen after the draft instead of before so that throws everything into a spin. IT should be a very different offseason.

not sure if he was referring to Jason Allen or Will Allen. Will Allen was a bad move for sure but as far as I know he hasn't been picked up by anyone. I also think cutting Jason Allen was dumb as he was leading the team in INTs and was our best ST guy, but that's been beaten to death around here. Bottom line both were head scratching moves by a FO that's made plenty of them that hurt the team, and was just rewarded with contract extensions.

Crowder52 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> montequi Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > This was, and continues to be, a bad move all
> > around. Why did we put him on IR in the first
> > place and not let him play for another team
> THIS
> > season? Why cut him NOW rather than use him,
> or
> > Carroll or Sapp, as trade bait?
>
> He was injured, and not back up to par, by putting
> him on IR or cutting him would have cost us the
> same, we just controlled his rights for the time
> period so to speak at no greater cost to the
> organization...
And there's the rub. It's all about the organization...NOT the player. The way they discarded ZT and JT is proof that this organization has no regard for players or people. That kind of reputation gets around. Soon almost no one will want to play for us.


> There is no trade bait right now....There is no
> trading with the CBA problems, this is not a
> normal year. Teams are expecting free agency to
> most likely happen after the draft instead of
> before so that throws everything into a spin. IT
> should be a very different offseason.
It's an unknown. Will there be a new contract? Will there be a lockout? Who knows. I see more upside to keeping him than cutting him right now. Why throw the baby out with the bathwater?

montequi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Crowder52 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > montequi Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > This was, and continues to be, a bad move all
> > > around. Why did we put him on IR in the
> first
> > > place and not let him play for another team
> > THIS
> > > season? Why cut him NOW rather than use him,
> > or
> > > Carroll or Sapp, as trade bait?
> >
> > He was injured, and not back up to par, by
> putting
> > him on IR or cutting him would have cost us the
> > same, we just controlled his rights for the
> time
> > period so to speak at no greater cost to the
> > organization...
> And there's the rub. It's all about the
> organization...NOT the player. The way they
> discarded ZT and JT is proof that this
> organization has no regard for players or people.
> That kind of reputation gets around. Soon almost
> no one will want to play for us.
>
>
> > There is no trade bait right now....There is no
> > trading with the CBA problems, this is not a
> > normal year. Teams are expecting free agency to
> > most likely happen after the draft instead of
> > before so that throws everything into a spin.
> IT
> > should be a very different offseason.
> It's an unknown. Will there be a new contract?
> Will there be a lockout? Who knows. I see more
> upside to keeping him than cutting him right now.
> Why throw the baby out with the bathwater?


Your argument perplexes me. At first you say it is wrong to be all about the organization and it was wrong to keep control of Allens rights, but it is wrong now to let him have his rights back and try and go and find a new team. And now cutting him is throwing him out with the bathwater but before it was the right thing to do. As i said you have me a bit confused as to what you support?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2011 08:29AM by Crowder52.

it was a bad move, b/c if he was healthy we should have kept him, we sure could have used another CB. that's what the PUP list and inactive list is for. so we kept him b/c we were afraid when we cut him he'd sign with and help another team? why couldn't we be the team he helped?

It was a weird move...

Hard to figure any logic in that at all.

Why cut him right now? We've already paid him for 2010, and we don't start paying him for 2011 until games start (I think...not sure about roster bonus or other bonuses). There's a virtual freeze on signing deals throughout the league, so who's going to sign him? We can't really sign anyone of note to replace him at the moment for the same reason.

I'm with you re: 3rd or 4th CB (if that's truly what he is w/no real chance of being a starter in 2011)...it's the timing that makes no real sense to me.

Why not cut before IR?

BigNastyFish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why not cut before IR?


Why cut before IR, if you are paying the guy for the season anyways. SO some team like the Jets can sign him for nothing because he already got paid bank from us for the year, and get all of the information about our defense and players, weaknesses to our divsion rivals.......come on guys, what happens to players after being cut by us the Jets pick them up...
You guys would be fired in the NFL for being nice guys. The NFL is a business
Stop looking for reasons to attack the regime that arent there...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2011 08:27AM by Crowder52.

Gotcha, makes sense. Either way I still don't think it was as big of a deal as others on here that we put him on IR earlier in the year.

If we had cut him early in the season and he went and played for the Jets, helping them win out, everyone on this board would be calling for Ireland's testicles on a chopping block. You can't win every time out.

Odenn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If we had cut him early in the season and he went
> and played for the Jets, helping them win out,
> everyone on this board would be calling for
> Ireland's testicles on a chopping block. You can't
> win every time out.


proves my point, if that's the thought process (we were scared he'd get healthy and joint the pats/jets and help them) we should have kept him last year and not put him on IR (either PUP or inactive list)

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> proves my point, if that's the thought process (we
> were scared he'd get healthy and joint the
> pats/jets and help them) we should have kept him
> last year and not put him on IR (either PUP or
> inactive list)

seriously? I guess everything no matter what it says proves your point, because you are completely wrong on ths one...
We were not scared of anyone, they followed the correct and proper protocol when handling this situation and a bunch of haters are just gonna hate on these guys for no reason and even make up reasons when they feel like the regime is not getting bashed enough that week...lol



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/28/2011 11:51AM by Crowder52.

Crowder52 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> berkeley223 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > proves my point, if that's the thought process
> (we
> > were scared he'd get healthy and joint the
> > pats/jets and help them) we should have kept
> him
> > last year and not put him on IR (either PUP or
> > inactive list)
>
> seriously? I guess everything no matter what it
> says proves your point

DAMN STRAIGHT!