[sportscurmudgeon]

Matty:

If I piece together the chronology here, Coles and Gibbs talked about his dissatisfaction with the offense and his desire to leave. If Coles went to Snyder, then obviously, Danny had to talk to him even if only for thge courtesy of that act. HOWEVER, the conversation between Coles and Snyder OUGHT to have made it clear that Joe Gibbs makes 100% of the football decisions. Unless of course that's all a smoke screen...

So, how does Snyder allegedly throwing his weight around by telling Coles that he'll see to it that Coles is benched and not even dressed out for games make that kind of remark without inserting himself ever so rudely into the "football decisions".

My problem is that I think Gibbs - allowed to act on his own in a football sense - would have found a way to do something other than the worst outcome of all. They lose Coles; they take the biggest cap hit possible; they get a guy bqack in a trade who will want some heavy bread real soon; whatever continuity anyone wanted on offense just took a shot in the shorts. Danny Boy's tough guy act was pretty difficult for anyone to walk back from, no?


Brud Lee:

Coles and his agent are much better off the way they are now than they would have been if the team had kept Coles. So, why would they leak info to the Post that would hinder him leaving the team? The info that led to the original story made Coles' release/trade much more difficult and caused everything to slip past the 1 March date. That was not guaranteed to help Coles.

I agree with you that the leak could have come from that side of the table, but it could also have come from the other side too - - and that other side has behaved like this in the past.


To those folks who think Coles is a $9M asshole:

He'd only be a $7M asshole if Danny Boy had only paid him what he was asking for in terms of a signing bonus and not jumped the bid by an extra $3M or so... Size does matter!