None of the above QBs are remotely available compared to the QBs I listed so your argument is invalid.
In his 2nd year Manziel turned a top 10 receiving core into a bottom 5 one with his play being the only difference. Suffice to say, Manziel's consistent lack of ability (flashes aside) just wasn't deemed good enough to compensate for his off-the-field issues. This was why he was cut. Conversely Aldon (who literally crashed his vehicle into his QB's, made bomb threats, had gun charges, etc) was coddled in San Fran for years on account of his production.
You're entitled to your own opinion. NFL teams have shown they will accept worse off-the-field issues than Manziel's in exchange for worse play, so the evidence suggests you're wrong and it was Manziel's play that made the difference. You'll be wrong again when Geno starts in 2016.
The Jets are doing the right thing, you just don't understand it.How many times do I have to explain the concept of individual variation to you? Not all 2nd round QBs are made the same. Clemens was a different QB. Coming out Clemens was a game managing QB that had an average to below average arm, stared down receivers and couldn't escaoe the rush. Hence he was determined to have little upside and there would be little point in giving him 3 years like Geno (or even Sanchez, who had a stronger arm and had the athletic ability to elude the rush).
Again you have continued to say he was cut BECAUSE of his play. His play was what you would expect out of an extremely raw college QB and one everyone knew would need development and strength training. Not great, not awful, showed some flashes, showed some mistakes, missed time due to injury. There was no reason to cut him for his play on the field. He got cut because he was a coked out party animal that showed up drunk to practice, missed meetings because he was drunk, lied to his coaches, refused to stop partying in public when asked to, went to REHAB and THEN beat the shit out if his girlfriend and threatened to kill her. I can continue to explain it to you but I can't understand it for you too. _
You need to (i) get a life and stop stalking me, it's creepy and (ii) get an education. You sound like a moron. No disrespect to true morons. _
@Cman60 Hey CMan- how do you feel about dudes with no argument and just here to troll and bump this idiotic thread starting to throw out the race card? Is that something you appreciate? Kind of belittles true racism, no? _
Manziel simply didn't do enough on the field. If he was good enough the team would excuse all of the above and work with him, like the Browns are doing Josh Gordon (top 5 production) and the Niners did Aldon (top 5 production). Manziel sucked (had bottom 5 production) and has Gordon-like issues, and that's why the Browns cut him.
It is beyond idiotic to think Manziel was cut for anything besides his off field antics. was he bad on the field? sure. but he is still young and on a rookie deal. there is literally 0 benefit to cutting him if the issues where on-field related. Do teams hang on to great players with off field issues all the time? sure. but thats not the same thing. would manziel being brady/manning on the field have saved his job? probably. but the play in those instances are the extenuating circumstances, not the crux of why the guy is being consider cut. manziels off field antics and off field antics only are why he was cut. if he was a saint off the field he would still be on the browns. 100%
Then we agree that there's nothing idiotic about it. Josh Gordon has been suspended for almost 2 years and hasn't been cut. Why? Because he's a top 5 receiver. If Manziel was even as good as Matt Ryan in his 2nd year, let alone Brady or Manning, he'd be on the team. Going back to I said, teams would have allowed Manziel to stay on the team if he played well, regardless of off-the-field issues.
Dude your the one who stalks me. That why I ignore you most of the time. As for getting a life look at how many post you have to me. Now you want Cman to get involved? You sound like a cry baby. I bet you ran to mommy and daddy all the time saying "I don't like what the neighbor said to me can you please tell them to stop".
and teams would have let manziel stay on the team even if he was the worst qb in football if he didnt have the off field issues. you are missing the point entirely. there are alot of extenuating circumstances that could keep a guy on a team... if manziel was the owners son, he probably stays on the team. that doesnt mean the reason he was cut is because he isnt the owners son. Manziel wasnt very good. Manziel had tons off offield issues. he was cut because of the off field issues.
