Well, there you go. You ask why the Pats have no loyalty and let players go? When only two Dolphins who were let go are mentioned, you get defensive and have reasons why they were let go, including the excellent reason that his salary was too high for what he provided. Do you think only the Dolphins have reasons like this for letting players go? This isn't rude, but is a legitimate question: Since you have excellent reasons why the Dolphins let players go, why do you then assume that when the Patriots let players go there it is not because of a good reason but because there is a problem with loyalty in New England. I think if you just look at it as teams acquiring players and releasing players, you will not be pointing fingers at New England's "problem" with loyalty, but will see that this is how the league operates. Just curious: How many current Dolphins were on the team five years ago? Five? Six? Less? Do you see this as the Dolphins having a problem with loyalty? Neither do we. Try to see things on a league scale rather than an "evil Pats cold-hearted front office" stance.