View Full Version : Unconditional Release of Starting Players - You be the GM

04-28-2005, 11:53 AM
I wish someone would do an interview with a current NFL general manager, or perhaps a few ex-GM's and get their insight on what they think about the events relating to the release of Sharper and Glenn from a GM's perspective.

Questions I would ask these GMs in this interview:

1. How much did each of the following concerns effect the Texan's willingness to grant Glenn and Sharper their outright release?
a. The team's salary cap situation;
b. The player's feelings and their requests to be released;
c. The effect on the Texan's public relations and the pereceived identity and character of the team around the league.
2. What do you expect will be the effect on the morale of the Texan's players and on the motivational climate for the Texan's team resulting from these moves?

3. What impact will these moves have on free agents who are considering the Texans as a new employer during the offseason?

4. Why do we not see more of this type of move from other GMs who are dealing with big contract players who are in the twighlight of their careers?

5. Do you believe that these moves will help the Texans to be a better football team, and if so, how?

If an interview like this is conducted, whether it be by Sportscenter, or whoever, I hope anyone who participates in this board and sees it will post back and keep us informed.

Until then, you be the GM. What do you believe the answers to these questions are?

El Tejano
04-28-2005, 12:40 PM
I think production wise, Sharper and Glenn would have been fine this season, but think of 2007. How much drop in production will they have?
This statement pretty much says it all. The Texans have made it clear that when they go to the playoffs, they want to go in and be a winning playoff team and I am sure they would like to do this for a long time. Having these young guys have to take the responsibility now will help them get there or address the real needs this team has.

04-28-2005, 12:50 PM
i agree 110 percent tejano. i wrote something like this on another thread and got dogged for saying it.

04-28-2005, 12:52 PM
i think the reason we keep guys like mckinney, payne, and walker around is because they're lineman and alot harder to replace than a LB or CB. plus i think we wait one more year to see how the line plays, then make a decision on mckinney.

04-28-2005, 01:05 PM
I just don't think this was a good season to find a C to replace McKinney. This was dubbed the worst O-line draft in the past 20 years.

I also think they blame Palmer for some of the sacks. His scheme leaves Carr out to dry.

04-28-2005, 01:55 PM
Here is what I think Casserly would say:

1) We don't like losing veteran players and leaders like Aaron and Jamie, but these moves show our commitment to improving our team for the future. We have gotten younger and faster and have freed up more cap room for future years. We treat our players with respect and give them the opportunity to find the best possible situation, if they are no longer in our plans. I think we are viewed as a team that doesn't settle for the status quo and is always looking to improve.

2) These moves show our trust and belief that our current players will step up and produce. As for motivation, our players are professionals and they realize this is a business. Our organization has rewarded veteran players with generous extensions when they produce (Walker, Payne, Coleman, etc...), but it will always look to improve the team in anyway. Players will always prefer to work for an organization that is up front and honest with its players.

3) Free agents see these moves as a positive. It shows that we always treat players fairly. If a player's situation with us changes (salary cap, reduced playing time, etc…) , we give them the maximum opportunity to latch on with someone else, so they can find the best fit and max salary.

4) The cutting of established veterans is STANDARD PROCEDURE in the NFL. Here is a list of well-recognized veterans who were cut from their long-time teams in 2004:

CB Ray Buchanan
DE Marcellus Wiley
DE Tony Brackens
DL Chad Bratzke
DT Chad Eaton
DT Daryl Gardener
DT Gilbert Brown
DT Luther Elliss
G Dave Fiore
G Ron Stone
G Ruben Brown
LB Jason Gildon
LB Jeremiah Trotter
LB Jessie Armstead
LB John Mobley
LB Marvin Jones
LB Mike Barrow
LB Mo Lewis
QB Brian Griese
QB Jeff Blake
QB Jeff Garcia
QB Kerry Collins
QB Kurt Warner
QB Vinny Testaverde
RB Eddie George
RB Garrison Hearst
RB James Stewart
RB Troy Hambrick
S Brock Marion
S John Lynch
T Derrick Deese
T Ephraim Salaam
T Marcus Spears
T Todd Steussie
TE Byron Chamberlain
TE Ken Dilger
TE Roland Williams
WR D'Wayne Bates
WR Tim Brown

5) These moves help us get younger and faster. Speed is the key to a great defense in the NFL. Youth allows our playoff-contention window to be open longer.

04-28-2005, 02:07 PM

Thanks for your excellent and well considered answer. I think that is a great first post. :thumbup

However, one point I would make: Cutting players is routine, but granting unconditional releases to players who are under contract, have large salaries, were starters in the last game played, and appear to be reasonably effective at the time that they are being released - I don't beleive that happens very much at all. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I am not aware of many examples of this happening.

04-28-2005, 02:15 PM
I wonder what someone like Jimmy Johnson, Dan Snyder of the Redskins, John Madden, Mike Ditka or perhaps Bum Phillips would say. There are a host of NFL personalities that might offer different perspectives on these questions.

Mr Shush
04-28-2005, 03:14 PM
I imagine that a major rationale for both moves was that it will allow us to rework the contracts of a number of our remaining players to be, in one way or another, more front-loaded, thus freeing up space for the next few years. I very much doubt we intend to pursue free agent signings who will take up anything like the $7-8m plus we must just have freed up.