Quote:The difference between people with functioning eyes and you sticking to the company line and having no clue is you could tell he wasn't the best receiver on the team in the preseason. Some don't need a whole season to play out to tell you what was quite evident from the jump. Who cares what he's done in previous years because he wasn't killing it then, he was alright. He's not good and a gimp. Fortunately nobody really listens to the dumb you speak so it really doesn't matter in the big scheme of things. Keep up trying to be witty and clever though champ.

 

And yet, he was still the only proven entity on the roster when the season started. 

 

What he did in previous years is why he was still here.  Is it really that confusing for you?

 

The funny thing about saying nobody listens to the "dumb you speak" is that you obviously have, and still, what you've completely missed in this entire debate is that in the end, I was actually right.  Even in the preseason, I said the only reason he'd be retained is because of his experience and because Blackmon wasn't going to be available.  The expectation was that at least 2 of the rookies would rise and take the starting roles, and we actually saw 3 guys have an impact.  There was no guarantee that would happen when the season started, especially if you're a student of the game and understand that history shows receivers do tend to struggle as rookies. 

 

Shorts was the only receiver on this roster with at least some success in the NFL.  That's a simple fact.  He didn't rise to the challenge and assert himself in a way that would warrant a contract extension.  It hasn't hurt the team one bit to keep him around in order to see what we have in the new receivers. 

 

I know, that's more "dumb" I'm speaking, and someone as intellectually superior as you can't possibly wrap your  big brain around the logic.  I've tried to type slowly so you could keep up, so hopefully it sinks in. 

---