(05-03-2019, 03:03 PM)Jags02 Wrote:

(05-03-2019, 07:40 AM)Bullseye Wrote: I'd say it's better to cut a guy a year too soon than a year too late.

If he has another great year for us, I would be ecstatic.  But then next year he will be 34.  Maybe, maybe he's one of those rare guys like Bruce Matthews and Jackie Slater who are seemingly ageless and can play at a high level well into his late 30s, but how can you tell? I'm too lazy to look it up at the moment, but won't he have a high cap figure next year?

Forget about his age and cap hit. The guy can play.

You're right about it being better to cut a player a year early than a year late, but age isn't the only determining factor. When a player in near the end of his rope, there are telltale signs in the form of declining skills. For instance, we cut Jimmy Smith too late, and you could tell over his final years that he was dropping way too many passes. How many times did we have to hear the announcers say "that's a rare drop by Jimmy Smith" before it wasn't so rare anymore? Another example is how long the Packers stuck with Favre even though you could see his INTs skyrocketing, although Favre was so great he still played with two more teams. The point is, you can see the declining skills. With Poz you could see his declining speed in coverage. With Calais Campbell, I don't even know that he's reached his peak. His best years have been with us, and I see no sign of decline. 

J-Smooth's play didn't decline because he got older/slower. It declined because of his drug habbit at the time. The only reason that the Packers jettisoned Favre's was because Aaron pitched a fit w/respect to Favre keeping him on the bench for four years. Poz NEVER had coverage skills to begin/w and he stepped aside to make room for Miles. Poz still, (In my opinion) had a couple good years left in him. Especially in the Run stopping game. Campbell too have a couple of good years left in the tank. I do agree to allow a player to walk prior to him not being able to run at his previous performances though.

NH3...

---