RELEASED Lucky Whitehead Cut **merged**

[Sydla]

How dare the NFL punish Elliott! No crime was committed! You can't suspend him for a DV that he didn't commit!

Absolutely, cut Lucky. Doesn't matter that he was largely punished for a crime he didn't commit!

 

[erod]

Again, the "distraction" wasn't Lucky's fault.

I mean seriously, are you really suggesting that being falsely accused of a crime is that person's fault?

According to Mike Fisher, the Cowboys are saying privately that Lucky was involved in the Virginia incident, just not the arrest. Same for the dognapping.

 

[Stash]

The Cowboys can really only go by what the police reports says.

The one that said that the "perpetrator" never had ID confirming that it was, in fact, Lucky Whitehead and just "took some guy's word for it"? Again, that makes the most every bit as complicit in this mess as the incompetent police were.

Look, there are 40 guys in Oxnard that are already cut. They're camp bodies. Lucky was a camp body this year. And camp bodies aren't worth the trouble of dognapping and false arrest drama.

Nice diversion attempt. Has nothing to do with this whatsoever. Fail.

 

[DFWJC]

The distraction was not real. It's a contrived excuse to justify the fact the Cowboys made a PR blunder. They cut a guy for committing a crime that he didn't actually commit. The fact the Cowboys didn't believe Lucky and literally two hours after they cut him the story breaks that he wasn't likely involved is an even worse look.

Isn't Wilson's crime also a "distraction"?

I don't think that's entirely true, Sydia.

In Dallas circles, I've been hearing stuff on Whitehurst on and off for 18 months or so. Nothing terrible, but a pretty consistent pain in tail with the more minor things.

And on the field, he had not shown growth as a WR--certainly not enough for them to feel good about him if Beasley went down.
Also, unlike a guy like Dwayne Harris, he's not really bringing anything as a WR blocking or a guy on coverage teams.
And as a return guy he is JAG.
You need to be an outstanding return guy if you bring so little elsewhere.

They drafted Switzer for a reason.

 

[Idgit]

What are you "pointing out"? That you're a fan who thinks they have to rally in defense of their team. Well done. That's proven.

Explain to everyone the "shadows" and what's "completely untrue"? Back up your baseless talk in defense of the team's obvious screwup?

I've got the facts of what happened supporting my position, you've got hearsay and wishful thinking...

Sure. I always try to back up my arguments when asked.

Here's an example of what I consider to be barking at shadows from last camp:

http://cowboyszone.com/threads/david-moore-lowdown-on-dez.358028/page-5#post-6854111

In retrospect, how would you measure 'the impact of a selfish player doing whatever he wants, whenever he wants, and an organization that tries to cover it up for the sake of perception' on last year's 13-3 season? Would you say Dez Bryant's missed MRI had a major impact on the team's performance last season? Or was I right when I suggested 'in two weeks, nobody will remember it. And if anybody asked the players about it now, they're not going to care.'

Like I said then, and am saying now. Barking. At shadows.

Next year I'll be asking you how significant the Great Lucy Whitehead Release had on another season and you'll be googling 'lucky whitehead release' to familiarize yourself on the details of what I'm talking about so you can come and tell me how I'm spinning things again.

 

[Stash]

It is irrelevant to your argument and unimportant to what you (and those that are upset by the move) are saying. That doesn't make it right to be this upset by it. Had it been a player that was important to the team, they wouldn't have cut him without having all the facts. You know that's what they'd do because they do it all the time. Thus, they didn't cut him because of his shoplifting alone.

He was taken off the field minutes after the shoplifting story broke? If you want to make the case that it was conincidenve, please do

People don't know that the Cowboys hadn't already made up their mind that Lucky was gone. They likely just needed him as a camp and PS game body and knew he was going to be cut. When this came out they probably just said, let's go ahead and do it.

I do understand that a large portion of the sports fan population thinks it was terrible and want to crucify the team for it (PR)... but that doesn't make it the right way to think. Particularly if what some are saying is true (that he has a connection to the shop lifting and "dognapping" along with several other things).

I wouldn't put up with that from a guy who is going to be cut anyway. From Zeke? Yes. From Dez? Yes. From Whitehead? No.

Nobody is asking them to "put up" with anything. Just have your facts before you release a guy for something he didn't do and try not to look like morons.

 

[Sydla]

It is irrelevant to your argument and unimportant to what you (and those that are upset by the move) are saying. That doesn't make it right to be this upset by it. Had it been a player that was important to the team, they wouldn't have cut him without having all the facts. You know that's what they'd do because they do it all the time. Thus, they didn't cut him because of his shoplifting alone.



People don't know that the Cowboys hadn't already made up their mind that Lucky was gone. They likely just needed him as a camp and PS game body and knew he was going to be cut. When this came out they probably just said, let's go ahead and do it.

I do understand that a large portion of the sports fan population thinks it was terrible and want to crucify the team for it (PR)... but that doesn't make it the right way to think. Particularly if what some are saying is true (that he has a connection to the shop lifting and "dognapping" along with several other things).

I wouldn't put up with that from a guy who is going to be cut anyway. From Zeke? Yes. From Dez? Yes. From Whitehead? No.

Even if the Cowboys had largely decided that Lucky's time was coming to an end anyway, it's a bad PR look that you find out a guy committed a crime, you cut him immediately and then literally hours later it turns out the justification for cutting him, the final straw, turns out to be completely false.

That's bad PR. It just is.

PS - Until we have actual facts on him being tied to the shoplifter and the dog incident, it's nothing more than made up justification to defend the Cowboys from a PR blunder here. If news comes out that further implicates Lucky, I will be the first to apologize.

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

According to Mike Fisher, the Cowboys are saying privately that Lucky was involved in the Virginia incident, just not the arrest. Same for the dognapping.

Oh and if that comes out then what are the other side going to say? Whoops. Of course the Cowboys know more about this then they're letting on.

 

[AsthmaField]

How dare the NFL punish Elliott! No crime was committed! You can't suspend him for a DV that he didn't commit!

Absolutely, cut Lucky. Doesn't matter that he was largely punished for a crime he didn't commit!

He was going to be "punished" anyway (cut). We know he wasn't good enough to beat Switzer and that he had multiple other things. That's a bad combo and why he was cut (punished not).

 

[Sydla]

Because they didn't believe him. If you don't believe somebody then why put up with him? The guy has a history of slacking off. Whether he did or did not commit this crime is irrelevant. It was just one more distraction that the Cowboys didn't need. Best to move on now. If this was the first time this happened to a player and he had no history then I'd agree with you.

Wait, so the defense here is "they didn't believe him"?

Hahahahaha. Equally laughable is now the notion that committing a crime or not committing a crime is irrelevant.

Regardless of his background and other problems, they didn't cut him at those times. They cut him an hour or so after news broke he had been accused of a crime. Then a few hours after that, it comes out he wasn't involved in the crime.

And then every major news outlet carries a story that the Cowboys just cut a guy for a crime he didn't commit. Yeah, that's bad PR and makes the Cowboys look kind of foolish.

 

[Stash]

Sure. I always try to back up my arguments when asked.

Here's an example of what I consider to be barking at shadows from last camp:

http://cowboyszone.com/threads/david-moore-lowdown-on-dez.358028/page-5#post-6854111

In retrospect, how would you measure 'the impact of a selfish player doing whatever he wants, whenever he wants, and an organization that tries to cover it up for the sake of perception' on last year's 13-3 season? Would you say Dez Bryant's missed MRI had a major impact on the team's performance last season? Or was I right when I suggested 'in two weeks, nobody will remember it. And if anybody asked the players about it now, they're not going to care.'

Like I said then, and am saying now. Barking. At shadows.

Let's see, said "selfish player" did the same thing this year and dint show up when he was supposed to? How's that look in retrospect? I guess you didn't think it through?

Next year I'll be asking you how significant the Great Lucy Whitehead Release had on another season and you'll be googling 'lucky whitehead release' to familiarize yourself on the details of what I'm talking about so you can come and tell me how I'm spinning things again.

And Dez Bryant will be missing something else while you and the team say "it's no big deal". Lather Rinse Repeat. Great example once again.

 

[Sydla]

He was going to be "punished" anyway (cut). We know he wasn't good enough to beat Switzer and that he had multiple other things. That's a bad combo and why he was cut (punished not).

Very true.

So cut him when he loses his roster spot based on merit. Or cut him if he has another off the field incident that is provable. Or cut him when it comes out that he was somehow involved in the crime in Virginia.

Cutting him for a crime he didn't commit is just bad PR.

 

[AsthmaField]

Even if the Cowboys had largely decided that Lucky's time was coming to an end anyway, it's a bad PR look that you find out a guy committed a crime, you cut him immediately and then literally hours later it turns out the justification for cutting him, the final straw, turns out to be completely false.

That's bad PR. It just is.

PS - Until we have actual facts on him being tied to the shoplifter and the dog incident, it's nothing more than made up justification to defend the Cowboys from a PR blunder here. If news comes out that further implicates Lucky, I will be the first to apologize.

I did say if it comes out. Not that it was true.

Did I stumble into bizzarro world? He was going to be cut for performance. Shoplift or not. Dallas knew this. The public who is throwing a fit is doing so over minutia.

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

Wait, so the defense here is "they didn't believe him"?

Hahahahaha. Equally laughable is now the notion that committing a crime or not committing a crime is irrelevant.

Regardless of his background and other problems, they didn't cut him at those times. They cut him an hour or so after news broke he had been accused of a crime. Then a few hours after that, it comes out he wasn't involved in the crime.

And then every major news outlet carries a story that the Cowboys just cut a guy for a crime he didn't commit. Yeah, that's bad PR and makes the Cowboys look kind of foolish.

Because they needed him for camp. He wasn''t making the roster. Can't believe all this arguing over Lucky. I feel like I'm in The Twilight Zone.

 

[Stash]

Oh and if that comes out then what are the other side going to say? Whoops. Of course the Cowboys know more about this then they're letting on.

I'll gladly apologize - based on facts, not some fan rally hearsay and baseless, unsupported rhetoric like some people are trying to now.

 

[Idgit]

Again, the "distraction" wasn't Lucky's fault.

I mean seriously, are you really suggesting that being falsely accused of a crime is that person's fault?

I'm suggesting that it doesn't matter whether it was his fault or not. What matters is what's good for the team, not what's fair to Lucky Whitehead. I agree with you that the report was obviously unfair to Lucky Whitehead.

 

[Stash]

I did say if it comes out. Not that it was true.

Did I stumble into bizzarro world? He was going to be cut for performance. Shoplift or not. Dallas knew this. The public who is throwing a fit is doing so over minutia.

You want to call it "minutiae" so you can feel better about it. It's far from it. It was an NFL roster move and a career impacted based on false information and nothing less.

 

[Sydla]

I did say if it comes out. Not that it was true.

Did I stumble into bizzarro world? He was going to be cut for performance. Shoplift or not. Dallas knew this. The public who is throwing a fit is doing so over minutia.

So then cut him when he doesn't perform.

Cutting him an hour after news breaks that he committed a crime only to then find out a couple of hours later he wasn't even in the state the crime was committed makes you look kind of silly.

 

[AsthmaField]

Very true.

So cut him when he loses his roster spot based on merit. Or cut him if he has another off the field incident that is provable. Or cut him when it comes out that he was somehow involved in the crime in Virginia.

Cutting him for a crime he didn't commit is just bad PR.

I get what you're saying. Understand it completely. I just think the people throwing a fit over it are unjustified to do so.

This is a real question because I don't know the answer to it: When was the last time an NFL player was accused of a crime and the police had the wrong name?

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

Cowboys bad PR-Lucky doesn't even make the top 100.