JoeSixPat
Pro Bowl Player
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2004
- Messages
- 10,671
- Reaction score
- 1,043
Dude, no one is saying the money he was owed had something to do with him being let go. We all knew when he signed his contract it was a "Prove It" deal. What *I* am saying is his money had NOTHING to do with his loss of playing time to Jabar Gaffney. He finished the season as the #4 WR because Gaffney worked harder and is a better route runner. He didn't prove he was worth the $6 million he was owed and the team let him go.
What *you're* saying (as I am understand it) is that Bill Belichick didn't play Stallworth BECAUSE he was going to be getting that big pay raise at the end of the year. And that makes no sense at all...why would the team sign him to a prove it deal and then bench him?
To answer your question, I would keep NEITHER. Jabar Gaffney is not worth 11 million dollars, and Dante Stallworth is lazy and not a real "Patriots" type of guy. Now, please, answer my question...do you honestly think he was sitting on the bench because of his upcoming contract?
Unlike you I don't deal in absolutes.
I can't rule out the fact that Belichick, knowing that there was no way he was going to bring back Stallworth at $11 million for 2008, would have seen some benefit into transitioning towards the much more cost effective WR in Gaffney that he had signed for 2008 and that was ONE of many factors.
Yet you seem able to say with 100% what Belichick was thinking and that there is NO WAY that could have been one of many factors. Amazing.
Thanks for admitting that you'd cut Gaffney at $11 million a year by the way - even though you refused to answer the question as posed.
I think that's your way of trying to save face and admit that Stallworth's salary - even with a "lazy" 46 catches last season - WAS a factor in why he was cut.
By the way - which games was Stallworth "benched" for again?
Last edited: