Michael Sam cut by Cowboys

Jerry Jones picked him up for the publicity. Now that his team is unexpectedly a super bowl contender, he has decided they better use that spot for someone who can help their team

Someone else posted on here once. He's weak, slow and undersized for his position in the NFL. The question is why did the cowboys ever pick him up? Because he sacked a Browns second string QB in a pre-season game? Because he lead his conference in sacks in college one year? Or because of the publicity that follows him?

Not my idea wrote:

Someone else posted on here once. He's weak, slow and undersized for his position in the NFL. The question is why did the cowboys ever pick him up? Because he sacked a Browns second string QB in a pre-season game? Because he lead his conference in sacks in college one year? Or because of the publicity that follows him?

Just curious but how does a guy who is weak and slow manage to lead the SEC in sacks? Now, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you as I know he had a bad 40-time, etc. However, one would think that to lead the most dominant college conference (basically the strongest conference in the world that is not in the NFL), you'd have to have the ability to at least make it as a backup in the NFL. Have there been other examples in the past two decades of guys who have lead the SEC in a major non-QB stat that then couldn't make it even as a backup at the next level?

It's an unusual stat, you actually only need to have 12 good plays in an entire season to lead the league. It's not like yards per carry or a different stat that's more telling of ability. The guy had 11.5 sacks and seven more tackles for a loss. When you look at how many snaps he played, 19 tackles for loss including 11.5 sacks isn't that dominate. Honestly I don't know how a guys who's weak and slow leads any league, but he is weak and slow for his position. That's quantifiable.

whatsmyname wrote:

Just curious but how does a guy who is weak and slow manage to lead the SEC in sacks? Now, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you as I know he had a bad 40-time, etc. However, one would think that to lead the most dominant college conference (basically the strongest conference in the world that is not in the NFL), you'd have to have the ability to at least make it as a backup in the NFL. Have there been other examples in the past two decades of guys who have lead the SEC in a major non-QB stat that then couldn't make it even as a backup at the next level?[/quote]

Not my idea wrote:

Someone else posted on here once. He's weak, slow and undersized for his position in the NFL. The question is why did the cowboys ever pick him up? Because he sacked a Browns second string QB in a pre-season game? Because he lead his conference in sacks in college one year? Or because of the publicity that follows him?

Yes I'm upset although a few points.

1) I, who publicly stated I was going to buy a Michael Sam jersey when he was activated, had almost forgotten he was on the team, as had everyone else. All of the old-school bigots who said he was going to be a big distraction sure were proven wrong.

2) I can't believe they cut him. Despite our 6 and 1 record, we have one of the worse pass rushes in the league. It will be hard to beat a truly elite team with an awesome QB if we have to try to out score them 45 to 42. Sam had a tone of sacks in the pre-season.

Is there no such thing as a guy who is truly a game player, not a practice player. Guys like Tebow and Sam don't even get a chance yet when they actually got into games, they either won a playoff game (Tebow, remember Manning lost his in year 1 with broncos) or got a lot of sacks (Sam).

Wouldn't he have a propensity for going for the sack?

So are then suggesting outside of those 19 'good plays' he did nothing else of value in his last season at Missouri? Never altered a play by pressuring the QB? Never stopped a rush for a short game? He ONLY came up with a couple really good plays a game and otherwise did nothing... Is that what you are suggesting? I hope not. BTW, even with 11.5 sacks he wouldn't have won the SEC Defensive Player of the Year on that alone. If you watch SEC football with any regularity you would know this. Simply too many significant game changers on defense in that conference to win that award while rarely making a difference, or doing anything at all, for the overwhelming majority of plays.