Again, my post wasn't in response to you or anything you said.
I reviewed post 67. It was in response to your claim that the Bears could cut Robbie Gould for unspecified cap purposes. My reponse was it would be stupid for the Bears to cut an established, productive player for no real reason. I responded to remydat in post 67.
I reviewed post 68. It was in response to Bear Pride's claim that the new coaching regime would be making big name cuts, with the reasons given being "putting their stamp on the team" (i.e. making the team worse for no real reason) and "not liking the player for any number of reasons". My response was that it would be short-sighted for Trestman to start getting rid of established, productive players for personal reasons. I responded to Bear Pride in post 68.
Hope that clears things up for you! Good luck in your future CCS postings!
But we were not talking to you Rory so why did you respond? You are bitching and moaning about me responding to you when you responded to two posts that were not addressed to you and did so by showing an ignorance regarding the context they were said it. When people pointed out your interpretation of our point was not correct, you ignored it.
As for the posts in question, I established in my very first post that no one was suggesting you had to cut any player. It was merely explaining the guys that could be cut to generate cap space. Gould was listed because of his cap savings and he plays a position you could get a comparable player for cheaper. Your response then was lifting a statement completely out of the context it was said and acting like I or anyone was advocating cutting Gould for no reason.
Bear Pride's statement was a direct response to one of my posts where I said a new regime may value these players differently. Hence his statement about putting a stamp on the team was in the context of our ongoing discussion in which the point was a new regime could for example look at the fact that 21 kickers had the same completion percentage as Gould and decide they don't need to spend 2.9 million on him. So your interpretation that Bear Pride was talking about getting rid of guys for
PERSONAL REASONS does not follow from the conversation that was the genesis of his statement. You can only really conclude that Bear Pride was referring to getting rid of guys for
PERSONAL REASONS if you didn't bother to read the preceding discussion.
So considering you had two quick posts that appeared to show an ignorance of the context the posts were made and you ignored Bear Pride trying to tell you the context, I being the person who Bear Pride was talking to and understanding that he did not mean cutting people for
PERSONAL REASONS chose to alert you to your ignorance. Bear Pride's statement was made to me not you Rory. I knew exactly what he meant because I was paying attention during our conversation. You jumped in half cocked and said sh*t that made no sense given the discussion Bear Pride and I were having. I am in a better position to explain to you what Bear Pride's statement meant because I was the person he said it to. Your response of "I was not talking to you Remy," is absurd because neither of us was talking to you Rory and yet you still decided to jump in and in doing so completely misinterpreted things. If you are going to butt in to a conversation, you should at least endeavor to understand what people are talking about.
