Oakland Raiders: Rolando McClain's Tacky Social Media Use Should Be Last Straw
Chris Trotman/Getty Images
The rumor mill is swirling around about the future of Rolando McClain's current status with the Oakland Raiders. Although nothing is official, McClain himself stated earlier Wednesday on his Facebook page (all since removed) that he was "Officially no longer an Oakland Raider!".
No matter the rationale behind it, McClain's off-field troubles, his generally bad attitude and his less-than-stellar play on the field should make it clear to both GM Reggie McKenzie and head coach Dennis Allen that McClain should no longer be an Oakland Raider.
I am not the type to put blame for a 3-8 team on one player's shoulders. This is not a good football team as a whole and that's okay. What is not okay is having a lackadaisical middle linebacker who is essentially a one-trick pony acting in such an unprofessional manner. As reported by Steve Corkran of the San Jose Mercury News, McClain followed that first Facebook post with the following:
"Well technically I am. But I'm mentally done. Just waiting on my papers."
And: "I'd like to be anywhere besides here."
Well congratulations McClain. I am wholly confident that much of the fanbase you have alienated with your poor play and bad attitude would love that as well. For a guy that came in as a student of the game and a player with a reputation as a leader, McClain has been an abject liability for much of his tenure with the Raiders.
Whether it is his general lack of quickness to the ball, his inability to cover tight ends and big backs in the middle of the field, or just his halfhearted pursuit once the Raiders fall behind, the guy is basically the Beetle Bailey of the NFL: Lazy and undisciplined.
So whether it ends today, tomorrow or the end of the 2012 season when the Oakland Raiders can make it a formality, good riddance Rolando McClain. Much like another supposed Southeastern Conference first-round pick, you were big on style, but small on substance. Let's hope that McKenzie learns from this in next year's draft.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?