Sheesh, people, do you even read my posts? I take great care to say exactly what I mean. :P
Let's read my statement again.
I believe that a lot of anti-Harrell bias is repackaged anti-Thompson bias, and insofar as that is true, I oppose it.
"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:
I didn't say all, or even most, anti-Harrell bias is symptomatic of anti-Thompson bias. I said "a lot of" -- that is to say, a significant minority of it -- is. Let's put that comment in context: I'm one of the most outspoken Ted Thompson supporters on this site, and
I'm biased against Harrell.
I understand that cutting him would not save the Packers any money. In fact, in an absolute sense, it could actually cost them more money, because they'd have to pay not only him, but also whomever they brought onto the roster to replace him. And yes, it's true he hasn't occupied a slot on the 53-man roster for most of his career. However, he has cost the Packers in non-financial ways, such as lost performance. He has occupied a slot on the 80-man roster in the preseason that could have been occupied by someone who was less injury prone.
So yes, it's true during the regular season he hasn't been occupying a roster slot. But he has reduced the Packers' opportunities to bring in other candidates, and that's my objection to keeping him around. The same can be said for Bigby and the others I've mentioned.
"Nonstopdrivel" wrote: