My "theory" has nothing to do with who was cut or who should have been cut. I've never mentioned anything about that. Nice deflection though. _
And yet, other than throwing around words like "naive", you haven't explained much of anything and have yet to tell me how my logic is flawed. Again, finding an already wildly unpopular player responsible for a locker room fight would have been the PERFECT excuse to get rid of an unwanted quarterback who the previous, much-vilified, regime stuck them with.
Again, who said ANYTHING about who should have been cut? You're spiraling out of illogical control. You've never worked in big business have you. _
I'm not believing anything I'm just going by what I've heard from someone who was there. I've never taken one side or the other. Hell I even said if Geno did put his finger in IK face he should had been punched.
Indefensible? You mean like defending the proposition that it wouldn't have helped the jets reputation to reprimand a player already seen as an immature bust who their current management didn't even draft in the first place?
Unless there is a "mountain" of evidence spoon fed to you by the organization. Then you must believe it. _
So you think there were three people in the locker room. Geno. IK. Geno's best friend. Got it. Those other stories and the teammates texting support to IK? Just made up. _
No! The whole situation surrounding why this happened in the first place. THAT'S what's indefensible. Geezuz this is like arguing with pcl. I'm taking my daughter to dinner, I'll laugh at your deflections later. _
I'm sure those text are true and I don't see nothing wrong with texting him. I'm sure IK has friends also on the team. Hell even Aaron Hernandez got support from the Pouncey twins. So what that tell us?
Stokes, what you guys are arguing doesn't make sense. What the jets did doesn't protect their reputation at all. They could have taken the perfect opportunity to blame the whole thing on geno and get rid of a very unpopular player who they had no responsiity for drafting in the first place.
And yet, you have yet to refute my definition of it (which I have explicitly given). Is it possible that you don't know what it means?