Babe: Time To Seriously Consider Cutting McClain
- Thread starter darthseinfeld
- Start date
Nation
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,252
- Reaction score
- 1,919
That statement doesn't mean that one was better at one point than the other. If Ryan Leaf was coming out of college he'd go before Tom Brady in the draft. Brady James was never Brian Urlacher but his 2008 season was great, and better than McClain.
perrykemp
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 11,503
- Reaction score
- 9,274
I agree with you that McClain, when playing at his peak, is a much better player than Bradie James playing when he was at his peak.
The question with Ro is how often does he feel motivated to play at his peak? How often does he feel motivated to practice? How often is he going to pull himself out of game?
Bradie James was a lesser talent -- he was never better than a average 3-4 ILB.
What you can say about him is that he showed up (96 straight starts at one point) and he was consistently productive (averaged over 100 tackles per season from 2005-2010).
McClain 5 years into his career has never broken the 100 tackles mark. I'm sure if you asked him he would tell you all the reasons why it's everyone else's fault too.
Coaches deeply favor guys who show up and play consistently. Coaches hate, no despise, players who they can't count on for consistent effort. Look no further than the Cowboys making zero attempt to resign Bruce Carter despite Carter leading all NFL linebackers in interceptions last year (5 of them).
My point he is it is very easy to fall in love with player's peak performance as opposed to their 'typical' performance. I'd argue, that in the end Bradie James productivity and consistency, over the long run, will make his career much better than McClain's
Last edited:
JDSmith
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 5,273
- Reaction score
- 5,680
Whether he's cut now or not there is a very legitimate chance that he'll never suit up and play for the Cowboys again.
Edit: And I don't mean in preseason games.
xwalker
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 57,220
- Reaction score
- 64,734
You didn't answer my question about prohibition.
JDSmith
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 5,273
- Reaction score
- 5,680
You didn't ask me, but breaking the law is in no way indicative of morality. There are a lot of stupid laws.
JoeKing
Diehard
- Messages
- 36,678
- Reaction score
- 31,964
So do you just break any law you think is stupid? Isn't that indicative of your morality?
xwalker
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 57,220
- Reaction score
- 64,734
Are people that break the speed limit immoral?
JoeKing
Diehard
- Messages
- 36,678
- Reaction score
- 31,964
Is answering a question with a question something you do out of habit or just something you do to make yourself sound intelligent when you really have no clue?
xwalker
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 57,220
- Reaction score
- 64,734
Do you ask dumb questions out of habit or do you really not know that you are asking dumb questions?
JoeKing
Diehard
- Messages
- 36,678
- Reaction score
- 31,964
So you really have no clue about anything and make it up on the fly... good luck with that.
- Messages
- 102,774
- Reaction score
- 115,335
Isn't that you just did with this post? Look there is nothing wrong with his question and I think he has a point. No need to get into a back and forth over it.
xwalker
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 57,220
- Reaction score
- 64,734
Both of your replies to me were in the form of a question.
JoeKing
Diehard
- Messages
- 36,678
- Reaction score
- 31,964
I do it to get him to return to my original question that I want answered. He does it to deflect because he is clueless to the real answers in life. He moralizes his law breaking by calling them stupid. Who made him the arbiter of which laws are stupid and therefore okay to break? It must be so convenient to live life that way.
JoeKing
Diehard
- Messages
- 36,678
- Reaction score
- 31,964
And you are still deflecting because you have no answers to my original questions.
xwalker
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 57,220
- Reaction score
- 64,734
I think a mod just gave you a hint to quit derailing the thread.
FYI - I don't think I said the laws were stupid, that was another poster. I inferred that laws don't define morality.
Based on the hint from the mod to move on, I'm not going to respond to you on this topic any further.
The definition of morality gets into areas that are forbidden on this site (religion and politics).
JDSmith
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 5,273
- Reaction score
- 5,680
It's indicative of your willingness to follow rules, not morality.
Sportsbabe
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 9,968
- Reaction score
- 5,039
I was going to stay out of this "chapter" of the Ro debate (as is the Hardy debate) because I knew where it would be and will remain for weeks on end but decided to click on the end of the thread because it's Sunday and I thought I could handle it today.
Let me provide some actual factuals. I put Ro in the "weak" category when it comes to his substance of abuse (which we really don't know what it is).
I have a relative ... he can go to jail for 2 years come home for a good month and be drug free; on another occasion have major surgery on his intestines when they exploded, hospitalized for a month, come home bed ridden for 45 days clean and sober; on another occasion have major heart surgery hospitalized, under doctors orders at home for 3 months clean and sober. I ask him "how does it feel to wake up feeling good, looking good, have money in your pocket, food tasting better than it has in years? .... and he says GREAT!!! And you know where he is??? ... still doing drugs. He did it every time after every episode of getting clean and sober.
There's only one person who can fix this issue. They've got to want if for themselves.
I've lived it. Some people have no will power whatsoever. The drug is stronger than they are. Def Ro has his own demons he needs to tackle. Good luck with all that.