Discharge The Soldier, Browns
To cite everyone's favorite cliche', hindsight is 20-20. Now, like most of you who are critical of cliche's, I don't know what this really means. However, what I believe people mean when they say it is they've taken a risk that doesn't pan out months or even years later. Furthermore, they try to justify their mistake by saying it was worth it at the time. Nevertheless, can there be any doubt that the Browns have had their fill of I'm a -------- soldier, (if you want to fill in the blank, be my guest) Kellen Winslow? Yes, it did seem awkward for Winslow to be holed up in the hospital and if you're Al Lerner or Phil Savage and have had an embarrassing outbreak of staph infections on your team, you'd probably want someone else infected with it on the squadto be quiet about it. I will be fair to Winslow, yes, it's understandable that people want their privacy. However, is it plausible all the time? I would have to say no, especially when you're a prominent athlete and all the paparazzi want to hear what you think, how you feel, and so one. Nevertheless, it was totally sophomoric and petulant for him to use this same media to take potshots at his team. Romeo Crennel is coaching a team which is not living up to the lofty expectations placed upon them and the last thing he needs is to have one of his better players (Winslow was a 2007 Pro Bowler to his credit) call out the organization in public. The Browns had supposedly resuscitated themselves when they decimated the Giants a couple of weeks ago, but to fast-forward to October 22, that seems more far-fetched than ever. Additionally, Winslow is planning to appeal his suspension and with super-agent Drew Rosenhaus, as snarky and boorish as ever, in his camp, one would think he has a good chance of succeeding. Still, kudos to the Browns for having the gumption to do a difficult thing. Regrettably, for Browns fans everywhere, things will probably be rough for a little while. Even though it's difficult to critique teams for rolling the dice on controversial players (especially if those players turn out well), NFL front offices have to weigh the pros and cons meticulously in order to ascertain whether the victory is worth it or is merely Pyrrhic.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?