I'll stick with bad decision. I don't think the ghost of Carl Nicks or Miles Austin is enough of an argument to raise "bad" to "fair", I don't believe in bogeymen.
Even if Livings had stuck around 2 or 3 years, he was a bad player coming in and a bad player going out. The only reason he landed in Dallas is because we scraped the bottom of the barrel and surprise, surprise, we can up with sludge.
That's simply not true. Livings had started 32 straight games for one of the top 5 OLs in football. He came in here and started 16 more.
He wasn't close to garbage in.
He was a mediocre starter, but a starter nonetheless and vastly better than David Arkin, Nagy or other spares we had in place already.
We didn't immediately jump to plus at that position so you (and many others) cry.
But if we had of signed Carl Nicks for 50m we'd have been far worse as a team.
Worse because he ended up out and worse and we'd have had to play a back up that is below Livings and worse because we'd have eaten twice as much in cap hit year 1 and 2.
With benefit of hindsight we know what the ACTUAL players have done.
Had we drafted DeCastro 2 years ago he would have played 4, starting 3 games last year.
Had we signed Carl Nicks he wouldn't have played for us yet.
But Livings STARTED 16 games for us.
Add in Cooper's IR stint for this season and virtually every suggested move for Dallas at OG would have turned out worse than what Livings did.
That means not a bad decision.
The logic isn't complicated.
Low risk signing, low (but 16 game starter) return.
It's a wash at worst.
People cry because they don't like the results but their own suggestions haven't fared any better which would suggest people shut up but of course they won't.
Why waste a perfectly good excuse to cry.
