semantics, I said semantics.
I think the example was made.
As poorly as C.Brown played, there was a stretch there, that Kubiak needed him. Now, we're talking post Jacksonville, when Slaton is already on IR.
We already know Moats can't block a sneaze much less Jason Taylor, and you want to cut the only RB worth a crap in pass protection.
Precedence has already been set with Slaton, there's your example.
And we were still in the play-off race.
Regardless whether I think he should have been cut or not, I know he wasn't. Trying to look at it from Kubiak's POV, I see a few reasons he may not have been.
I may not agree with those reasons, but they do seem plausible.
If you are watching the Vikes game, try to understand. I know CBrown isn't Adrian Peterson. But AD put the ball on the ground 3 times (maybe 4) and he is still in the game. Risk, Benefits... it's something the HC has to balance.
CBrown never put it on the ground more than once in any 5 week stretch. Matt dropped back over 600 times, sacked 25. Risk, Benefit...
For the sake of argument, let's say I agree with you, he should have been cut. On the real, I'll be very, very disappointed if he thinks he is a member of this team right now.
Kubiak kept him through the end of the season. As a fan, I need to try to understand why. Do I think Kubiak should be fired, because Brown fumbled the ball in the Miami game? No, Did you see that hit? You do know those guys get paid too don't you?
Again, cut him, castrate him.. don't really matter to me. Kubiak didn't do what I would have liked to have seen. But the end results were about the same.
Last edited:
