Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon
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?
|
Very true, but I don't think we can pin all the blame on Snyder or Gibbs for things unraveling and ultimately falling apart. From what I've read it seems like Gibbs and Coles were close to patching things up, then the WPost story leaked on Feb. 21 and that's when things went downhill quickly.
Things could have, and probably should have been handled better regardles of the story being leaked. For that I think both sides have to shoulder some blame. Snyder got emotional and threatened Coles, not a good idea. Coles then squashed the first trade attempt to NY by saying he wanted a new deal and in the process cost us the $5M bonus. That only added fuel to the fire. Sure I can understand Coles not wanting to be cooperative at that point, but two wrongs don't make a right.
I guess we'll never really know who was more right than wrong. Personally I don't think Gibbs would have set anything in stone regarding releasing Coles outright. The possibility was probably presented and Coles might have assumed they had an agreement, but I just don't see Gibbs making a big decision like that without consulting Snyder/Cerrato and exploring all avenues available.