Odell Thurman Cut:

[Dirtbag59]

If it was up to the people on the forums the Redskins would be made up of former starters from other teams, all with vet min + incentives contracts.

[70Chip]

The sad part is that the best indication that he shouldn't be signed is not his drug use, but the fact that the Bengals cut him. If he had anything at all he'd still be a Bengal regardless of his past. Good players rarely get cut no matter what they do off the field.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

The sad part is that the best indication that he shouldn't be signed is not his drug use, but the fact that the Bengals cut him. If he had anything at all he'd still be a Bengal regardless of his past. Good players rarely get cut no matter what they do off the field.

Exactly. If this was Carson Palmer he'd still be on the roster. Look at Chad Johnson? He's bitched and moaned and he's not going anywhere cause they know he can help them win. If it was someone else crying with less value they'd be gone.

[DGreene28]

On the flip side... every time I see a player available who I think could help the team I log onto this site and can't believe all the holier then thou posters who say a guy is a douche for getting a DUI or possession of Marijuana. None of you will ever have to work with the guy or even talk to him, if the FO decides that he's worth bringing in for a look at camp then they should.

If our country feels our president does not have to live up to your extreme "character" standards then acknowledge that you are in the minority Take a chill pill ... we're talking 'bout football.

Realize that you are not the only one with an educated football opinion on this board, and because you believe a certain way about this "character" conversation does not make you right. IMO the ones on this site who would make good FO people are the ones who look at these situations on a case by case basis, not making blanket decisions on personnel based on whether a player has a criminal record.

[DGreene28]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag359

If it was up to the people on the forums the Redskins would be made up of former starters from other teams, all with vet min + incentives contracts.

Hmm... having a 25 year old linebacker who was considered a top 8 talent overall at LB in 2007 as a backup on our team at a bargain salary doesn't make a lot of sense.

It's not even worth considering.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by DGreene28

Hmm... having a 25 year old linebacker who was considered a top 8 talent overall at LB in 2007 as a backup on our team at a bargain salary doesn't make a lot of sense.

It's not even worth considering.

I mean it's worth considering, but as a fan you're basically just banging your head against the wall. The Redskins don't like signing guys that are down in the count (ie two strikes). I'm surprised that people haven't mentioned that Odell has actually failed two drug test (the one he missed and another one that he actually took).

On top of that I have a problem with signing a guy that has f'ed up in the past as much as Odell and taking away reps in practice from guys that work their ass off while walking the straight and narrow. If history is any indication then one of the linebacker's on our roster will emerge as a solid contributer at OLB.

Take 2004 when the team got rid of Trotter, of course we signed Barrow but I think people knew that he wasn't going to suit up once we hit training camp. I'm pretty sure everyone was nervous as hell when they found out that Antonio Pierce would be our starting MLB and look how that turned out.

That same year Lavar was having problems staying healthy, and who emerged? Lamar Marshall. I doubt that anyone was talking about the guy before the season started but by the end of the year most of the people that followed the team knew who he was. And on top of that he gave us a pretty good year at MLB in 2005.

2006.......lets not talk about 2006.

2007 HB Blades emerges as a jack of all trades, and is now considered a possible succesor to Fletcher. Was anyone really talking about him before the season started? Doubt it, though some of the draft junkies probbly expected good things.

Plus if it turns out that we leave 2008 needing a LB, well your in luck because the 2009 draft is projected to be as good, if not better then the 2006 class in terms of LB's. Of course it's still early but at this point we're talking about LB prospects not QB's who seem to have a harder time staying on top.

If the team felt it needed another LB, then it would make a play for Odell, but they haven't so what does that tell you? The Redskins make me nervous sometimes but when it comes to Linebackers, 9 times out of 10 their usually right. Of course if history is any indication then Khary Campbell or Matt Sinclair will emerge as the mystery guy I'm alluding to, but Gatewood and Bryan Wilson also seem to be possible contribuers down the line though for now Wilson will play special teams as will Gatewood, but I can easily see the team using Gatewood as a rush LB on 3rd down situations. Not saying that those two undrafted guys are the answer, but as backups that will see extensive action in maybe 2 or 3 games well that I'm fine with.

And if worse comes to worse they'll probably just sign a former starter shortly after the season starts like they did last year with Godfrey, but next time please just pick on Matty instead of me. That way I won't feel compelled to write an essay.

Almost forgot, for what it's worth Matt Sinclair was one of the better players in NFL Europa when he played for Frankfurt, and on top of that he has experience at all 3 LB positions.

news - NFL: EUROPE: Matt Sinclair replies

Plus if Odell is the same player that you alluded to being a former top 8 linebacker, then why hasn't anyone else taken a chance on him? Theres 30 other teams he could go to. Why did he get suspended for two years? I'm sure there were some things he did during his first year off that compelled Godell to give him another year, and even the Bengals said they "had not seen the right steps taken by him."

Look my point is theres more to this story then a skiped drug test, DUI, and dropped assault charge. The problem is we don't know what it is, but I'm pretty sure that every director of personel around the league does. Otherwise teams would be salavating over the chance to get a guy that was playing at the level Thurman was.

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by DGreene28

On the flip side... every time I see a player available who I think could help the team I log onto this site and can't believe all the holier then thou posters who say a guy is a douche for getting a DUI or possession of Marijuana. None of you will ever have to work with the guy or even talk to him, if the FO decides that he's worth bringing in for a look at camp then they should.

If our country feels our president does not have to live up to your extreme "character" standards then acknowledge that you are in the minority Take a chill pill ... we're talking 'bout football.

Realize that you are not the only one with an educated football opinion on this board, and because you believe a certain way about this "character" conversation does not make you right. IMO the ones on this site who would make good FO people are the ones who look at these situations on a case by case basis, not making blanket decisions on personnel based on whether a player has a criminal record.

Excellent post, especially your last point, picking up a fa doesn't mean you don't value the draft, there's no absolute method.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by DGreene28

On the flip side... every time I see a player available who I think could help the team I log onto this site and can't believe all the holier then thou posters who say a guy is a douche for getting a DUI or possession of Marijuana. None of you will ever have to work with the guy or even talk to him, if the FO decides that he's worth bringing in for a look at camp then they should.

If our country feels our president does not have to live up to your extreme "character" standards then acknowledge that you are in the minority Take a chill pill ... we're talking 'bout football.

Realize that you are not the only one with an educated football opinion on this board, and because you believe a certain way about this "character" conversation does not make you right. IMO the ones on this site who would make good FO people are the ones who look at these situations on a case by case basis, not making blanket decisions on personnel based on whether a player has a criminal record.

I think you're taking this to an extreme just a bit here. I think most of us are willing to look past some character issues, but when it comes to guys like Thurman who have quite the checkered legal history and is coming off a 2 year suspension from the league, sorry but that raises some pretty significant red flags to me.

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I think you're taking this to an extreme just a bit here. I think most of us are willing to look past some character issues, but when it comes to guys like Thurman who have quite the checkered legal history and is coming off a 2 year suspension from the league, sorry but that raises some pretty significant red flags to me.

I don't think he's taking it to an extreme, actually I felt he was replying to those in this thread that did just that.

Some comments in this thread, e.g. Dirtbag's (whose posts I usually like btw), went further than saying simply that signing Thurman was not a good idea, and actually said that people on this board would just sign other teams cuts & free agents to field a starting team. That was extreme IMO.

I didn't take DGreene's post as so much of an opinion on Thurman himself, rather he's just stating that any player can be evaluated by the front office regardless of their past, yet some on here are taking a "holier than thou" stance on character & criticizing those who don't. Which is again, another "extreme" which he is alluding to.

[MTK]

Is it too extreme to say that someone with Thurman's legal past isn't worth looking at?? I'm not understanding why that's a 'holier than thou' attitude.

[T.O.Killa]

I think every is entitled to their opinion. He has been nothing, but a problem.

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Is it too extreme to say that someone with Thurman's legal past isn't worth looking at?? I'm not understanding why that's a 'holier than thou' attitude.

No, but I don't think that's the point.

See this post (#46 this thread) from Dirtbag (no intention of picking on him, I'm just saying I think it was this post or this kind of post that DGreene was referring to):

"If it was up to the people on the forums the Redskins would be made up of former starters from other teams, all with vet min + incentives contracts."

[MTK]

Originally Posted by freddyg12

No, but I don't think that's the point.

See this post (#46 this thread) from Dirtbag (no intention of picking on him, I'm just saying I think it was this post or this kind of post that DGreene was referring to):

"If it was up to the people on the forums the Redskins would be made up of former starters from other teams, all with vet min + incentives contracts."

I don't think he meant that literally, but it does hold some truth when you think about it. I'm sure some people would been in favor or signing the likes of Tank Johnson, Chris Henry, Pacman Jones, and now Thurman.

Some people are big on character, some not so much. It all depends on what you value.

[GTripp0012]

Odell would only make sense if he was going to succeed Washington or Fletcher here.

As far as a depth veteran goes, we can do so much better, and get a guy with better character.

[hooskins]

Most people do not pick up on dirtbag's sarcasm.