Quote:
Originally Posted by sherck
Really?
Teams make decisions all the time to move on from high priced talent because they have lower priced talent behind them that they believe will fill the void left.
Trading Allen created a void as a receiving option on the 2017 Colts. I am going to judge that trade based on if the lower priced talent on the team fills the void or not.
If the offense don't not skip a beat in 2017, then good trade. If it struggles because no one steps up as a 4th trusted pass catching option, then bad trade.
What is hard to understand about that?
Cheers,
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dam8610
The complaint is about management being smart and managing the limited resource of salary cap dollars wisely. I would never blame a player for taking more money, but a GM who overpays a bunch of players is going to end up with a flawed roster.
|
Right but that turns into hatred for the player when he's perceived to underperform, which makes no sense. I'm not attached to the guy and I don't think this was a bad trade, I've thought about it and Allen and Doyle duplicate each other with Allen being the better athlete and Doyle being more consistent, but to hate a guy because he played poorly when by all accounts he wasn't slacking, he didn't get paid and quit working he didn't do anything wrong other than not play well. There are plenty of guys who don't play well that the coaches constantly go back to that don't receive the kind of hate that Allen does.
Logically it doesn't make sense to hate him if he didn't sleep with your girlfriend.