- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 49,634
- Reaction score
- 28,360
"And people were debating whether the Pats should cut Chris Slade or Willie McGinest in 2000 (and there was plenty of people arguing on both sides). I don't get your point. McGinest was good his first few years, inconsistent for about 5-6 years and really didn't rebound again until he started to play a lot more standing up in 2002. Both players have their warts."
Post #13. How else should I interpret that comment?
Like you actually read the post. Fact of the matter is that in 2000 many people thought McGinest was done. The Pats needed to cut either Slade or McGinest. There was a lot of debate which one.
The Pats ended up cutting Slade and Willie had a major rebound in production from about 2002 through 2005.
Slade has no right being in the Hall, but if Willie didn't revive his career around 2002, he wouldn't have had a right to be in the Hall either.
I was responding to your post about Gray not deserving to be in because he wasn't here long enough and I mentioned that Willie had his warts too.
I mentioned Slade because it was a coin toss between Slade and McGinest on who should be cut in 2000 which just shows how low McGinest's career was at that time.