What is this article even saying. Cut players and replace with lesser experienced players to save money. Doesn't sound like a sound theory for winning.
Then when / if needed, rely on them, only to make a huge rookie mistake and cost us the season or a chance for the playoffs.
I know they need something to write about and to give us something to post about.
the McFadden hate continues, people ridiculed him at this time last year, but he proved to be worthy of keeping. We drafted Zeke, which is fantastic. Then drafted a RB in the 6th which even by college standards doesn't have a lot of experience. But yet people still want to think DMC is some kind of a bum.
I would bet that if Dallas did not draft Zeke, many of these same people would be saying DMC is a valuable RB until X round RB is ready. I doubt anyone would be saying Jackson will replace DMC as the starter. Though some would say Morris would.
Now is the article, iI say if anyone should be cut to save money would be Church, and save 4.5 million. But that would have happened by now. Frazier pushing Wilcox off the roster is the only other option, but how much do you really save.
As posted above, you cut one player to save, but you still need to pay that new player. Then what experience do you lose. But this is supposed to happen from drafted players too. Frazier for Wilcox is the better scenario, pay Barry, keep the better player for a little more money.
So why is not Witten the odd man out to save cap space? I am not saying get rid of Witten at all, but but wouldn't keeping youth and less paid be along the theme of the article?