Originally Posted by Runner
He had a good year as number 2 receiver by Texans standards. People talk about him having a bad year because he is no longer a Texan. That is really the only thing that matters. The assumptions are that:
Major premise: Kubiak never make mistakes
Minor premise: Moulds was cut
Conclusion: Moulds sucks
If the conclusion is wrong, one of the premises is wrong.
Your logic is faulty regardless of the truth of the premises. You have assumptions that have not been specified. For example:
Premise: Kubiak cut Moulds.
Premise: Kubiak only cuts people who suck.
Premise: Kubiak identifies sucking players with 100% accuracy.
Conclusion: Moulds sucks.
Now we've got something that we can work with. NOW we can say that at least one of the premises is wrong and possibly, all three.
The decision to cut Moulds may or may not have come from Kubiak. Moulds might have been cut for reasons other than his supposed suckage. Kubiak definitely cannot identify sucking players with 100% accuracy although I think he's not very bad at identifying suckage.
And finally, Moulds may or may not suck. He might suck and that still not be the reason he was cut.