(09-28-2021, 08:43 AM)Mikey Wrote:

(09-27-2021, 05:52 PM)TheDuke007 Wrote: And you are saying this after week 3 of only his second season?!?!?  Injuries happen.  If Etienne happens to get injured next year, are we trading him for a peanuts too?  I'm glad Meyer/Baalke weren't around the Jaguars in the 90's.  They would have probably traded Fred Taylor for a late round pick.

out of 19 games, he's played 10. I think that qualifies as "as much time off the field as on"

I get that injuries happen. He's also had some head-butting with the team, too, where he may have been healthy, but his head wasn't in the game. I'm not happy that we got to the point where moving on was the ideal option. But based on his history, it's understandable. 

To be honest, one of the unsung parts of his game was his ability as a tackler. He wasn't the typical "dive at the ankles and pray" corner that prevails in today's game. CJ would wrap up and make stops. But if he's in a place where he didn't want to be here, or didn't want to do what coaches wanted him to, or couldn't get healthy, then yeah, I'd rather have peanuts than nothing.

---

(09-27-2021, 07:03 PM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: You wouldn't of taken Pitts?

no, because I don't of.

If a player has been injured for 5 of his 6 seasons, I could understand the availability argument.  To declare a player worthless and trade him for peanuts because of injuries when he's only been in the league 1 year and 3 games is ridiculous.  Again, I ask, if Etienne gets a minor injury early next season, are you advocating trading him for peanuts too?  Injuries happen.

As for Henderson's head not being in the game, a good coach would find a way to get his head into the game.  Even if not, you wait until he gets his head together.  We'll never be a good team if we keep trading away talent for peanuts.

---