We have a difference of opinion on a few things, some of which, on scouting matters, are to be expected. But a few fall into a different category.
In the former case, you find it unlikely he has lost it. Again, if he looks the same this year as last, two years after the nebulous leg injury, would you at that point concede he may not be the same. Or do you need another two years? Three years?
When you say the following (see 1 & 2 below), I disagree at this point. If he can't play any more, history should mean nothing... you just said the following - "IF he isn't capable of performing, no one is saying he should still be here.".
I don't know how to reconcile THAT, with point #1, when you don't qualify it. THE ONLY CONSIDERATION or basis for whether he should be retained or not, is his ability to play, NOT history. Oherwise that is contradictory. If he can play, history doesn't matter. If he can't play, history doesn't matter (or shouldn't).
1) "He and Fisher have to much history, so, as I said before, it wont shock me for him to be brought back."
Later, after an exchange, you did add this qualifier ("if even for a look at training camp"). That is shifting the boundaries a bit from your previous statement. For me, the default assumption for "brought back" is retained, not having a look see. If you had said that initially, not only I wouldn't have questioned it, but being for it was implied in wanting Fisher to evaluate him to make the right call (though I did qualify it by alluding to the following - "There could be timing issues regarding when would be the best time cut or restructure him, if that is the directon they choose.").
2) "And yes, the history will have some bearing on whether they bring him back, if even for a look at training camp."
You said why would they address previous injuries (before the eye), and than, whether there were any or not? Not so fast, lets back up for a moment, because that is imo important enough to table PR talk for later, being a more substantive issue. Upthread you strongly implied thinking he had a lingering leg injury, on the basis of observing him not looking like he "had the jump of what he had the previous year", and radio people comments. Just for the record, for his sake, he better have had a lingering leg issue to explain his horrible performance. That could be cause for optimism. If he didn't have lingering leg injuries issues, that would seem to suggest as a corollary that he has hit the wall and is done (or why else would he have played so badly?).
Moving on, your PR argument (for not revealing previous injuries) doesn't make sense to me. The reason why it DOES make a difference either way, is that there ALREADY IS A PR STORM. Here we are talking about it and questioning it. Nobody is perfect, I don't think the fans will be calling for Fisher and Snead's head because they made a mistake (in retrospect, he DID make a mistake in not pulling him sooner, and it isn't a big secret, everybody knows it). People are smart enough to figure out for themselves the stated timeline doesn't fit. He was already terrible BEFORE the eye injury. Either he had a lingering leg (or SOME other) injury that caused his poor play, or he is done. IF their intent was to defuse bad PR, I don't agree that there thought process was to withold information from the fans in the hopes that saying nothing would cause less questioning of how they handled it, than if they had just simply said he had a leg injury but thought he could play throuh it, or it worsened durig the season. I don't know about you, but in the absence of any explanation, I'm questioning how they handled it MORE, not less. I might not, or IMO would be less likely to, with an explanation like the above.
Several times you have mention reasons why Finnegan could be back.
Young secondary. Again, if he can't play, it is irrelevant. And if he can, he would be back even if it was an intermediate age or old secondary, so age also irrelevant in that case. Now I'll qualify this and say if he can kinda, sorta play, and isn't as good as he was earlier in his career, but is better than the 2013 iteration (low bar there, if he isn't done and did have a lingering leg or some other kind of injury from 2012), than that might recommend having him work with a young secondary as a mentor, and I agree with that scenario. But if he is done, of course not.
As to Gregg Williams? Again, if he is done, it will be irrelevant. And if is capable of returning to form, than that is why he would be back, not Williams. I don't see how it will have a bearing on or influence their thought process. IMO, he will make the roster based on merit, or he will be cut. You concurred with this, just not sure why be a stickler about the history and TEN connection points. Since you aren't saying he should make the roster even if he doesn't deserve to, than that takes primacy over everything else. Not history or previous connection.
