Quote:
Originally Posted by rams4life88
That doesn't sound like loyalty to me. But newayz, I meant it was good a move for the team (cap wise). Yes it sux losing Bruce. But like i said we tried to keep him. And if your trying, that means something in itself. No, i'm not arguing with you, nor intended to. Besides, we are all Rams fans here (least i hope so). But dude,let's be honest....if my sn was e.x TorryHolt4Life88 and had his avatar (not to mention defending him in a non-related thread), wouldn't it be fair to assume that i may be a little Holt fanatical? Doesn't make it true, but you can't blame someone for thinking so. Also, nobody said that keeping Bruce was a BAD thing. But the reality is the Ram's just can't afford him. Therefore releasing him was the best thing for the franchise in terms of stabilizing our cap situation. It's just not in the team's best interests to keep a guy that age for that amount of money. Now sorry but is that so hard to digest? The question was loyalty, I asked why he signed above all with the WHINERS, you said Mike Martz....that doesn't change the team from being the Niners.
|
My main point was more about the difference between opinion and fact and less about Bruce, but anyways. You can argue loyalty from both the Rams side and from Bruce's side of things successfully, just like you can argue keeping him or cutting him. There are valid points to both sides of the discussion.
So Bruce shouldn't sign with the Whiners and Martz who he likes, trusts, and already knows the offense only because it's the Whiners? Bruce should say ok the Rams just cut me but I won't sign with the Whiners because the Rams hate them. Sorry, I don't buy that. The Rams did what they had to do, and then Bruce did what he had to do. It's unfortunate that Martz went to the Whiners because it was fairly obvious to me at least that Bruce was going to follow Martz wherever he went if he wasn't a Ram.