The multiple drug suspensions say he is a trouble maker. A 2 time drug offender getting cut in May is a major red flag for anyone paying attention. Talented players don't just get cut in the summer.
He was no more cut for missing workouts than Travis Henry was. He was cut because the Bengals knew he was using again. Teams can't say they cut a guy for drugs without violating the CBA.
They can't cut him for missing voluntary workouts, either, but that didn't stop them from using that excuse.
It's easy to say something was obvious in hindsight. It was neither obvious nor the prevailingly report. It was a possibility, just as his being clean was a possibility.
The fact of that matter is that none of us knew (or know now) all of the facts - and there was (and is) absolutely nothing wrong with suggesting that if a player is clean there is no harm in bringing him in for a try-out.
Maybe it has soemthing to do with Randy Moss never being suspended as opposed to Thurman's two season suspension? Or that Thurman had trouble on an 11-5 team that some were picking as a Super Bowl favorite, not a team like the Raiders? Or maybe that Thurman was cut and Moss never was? Is that enough reasons that your comparison is apples to oranges?
Randy Moss was turned down at Notre Dame and Florida State because of pending court cases and marijuana use. Moss fell in the first round for questionable decisions and a rather sordid past. In Minnesota, he was fined for squirting an official, walked off the field in a loss, was jettisoned from an 8-8 team despite being in his prime and dogged it in Oakland.
I think Moss is great and I totally dig him on the Patriots, but just because he is a Patriot does not mean he didn't come here with a whole load of question marks (uh, isn't that why we got him for a fourth round pick and restructured his deal?).
Prior involvement in the substance abuse program didn't prevent the Patriots from pursuing Stallworth either, even though a failed test would have resulted in his suspension. The Pats have shown that they can and will overlook prior transgressions whether it be because of an affordable, risk-reduced contract; great talent; or showing that those pockmarks are in the past. All three of those applied to Thurman provided the information we had at the time of his release.
I don't give a **** if you disagreed at the time, you are entitled to your opinion, but there was nothing wrong with anyone saying "bring him in" at the time of his release if he meets certain, rather concrete qualifiers.
