Egret Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 Didn't he just make some comments about his wide receivers needing to jump higher to catch his passes? I'm guessing his comments about his teammates didn't go over too well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 Which are all fine reasons to cut Garrard... 2-3 weeks ago. Did they honestly learn something in the last few weeks that they didn't already know? absolutely....that Peyton Manning would possibly be out an extended period of time, and that they didn't want a division rival afforded an opportunity to sign him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sugar Magnolia Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 I didn't realize Garrard was suckin so bad or I'da never made Mike Thomas my WR3 in 2 leagues Ditto, I'm screwed with what I own on the WR bench behind Thomas in two leagues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 absolutely....that Peyton Manning would possibly be out an extended period of time, and that they didn't want a division rival afforded an opportunity to sign him Ahhh, that does make a ton of sense... I knew there had to be another reason besides just Del Rio's racist bigotry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 thought i read that Garrard had a health issue, shoulder injury or something can't remember what it was. but that on top of the fact that he wasn't that great to begin with may have been the reason. They did trade up in the draft to grab Gabbert. And Gabbert will prob be starting by week 5 or 6 so doesn't really matter that much. and now when Gabbert goes in he won't have someone looking over his shoulder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grogansghost Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 absolutely....that Peyton Manning would possibly be out an extended period of time, and that they didn't want a division rival afforded an opportunity to sign him Besides just being indecisive, or something else chaning their view of the player (injury or behavior) - I wondered if the timing was to keep him from a rival as well. Hou - definitely doesn't need him Tenn - already has Hasselbeck. Indy - maybe they would have kicked the tires on Garrard, if he'd been available. I don't really get it. They're current players and players they may want to acquire will notice the timing - seems like they could make business a bit tougher with no real upside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.