[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by DynamiteRave

Only Hankerson. The rest of the young guys, Royster, Helu, Austin, Paul... They've actually shown that they can be consistent if not decent. I've got no beef with the other rookies. I dunno why you're on the guy's jock so bad.

Indifference is the only feeling I have when I hear Leonard Hankerson's name.
I have not even said that he was good. I haven't even said that he was certain for success. You accusing me of being "all over his jock" is ****ing bullshit.
You have already deemed Hankerson to be doomed to failure. This is equivalent to having a 0% probability of providing value to us. Therefore, he will not provide any value. T.O will be guaranteed to provide value(100% certainty). Therefore, T.O should be picked up.

I don't believe Hankerson has a 0% probability of success, more like 5-7% ish of "making it", and something .03% of becoming a superstar. Well, Hankerson's low probability of success is still higher than T.O probability of even playing 2 years from now. And FA pickups are never 100% guaranteed either. T.O very well could pull a Randy Moss in Tennessee and not do much either.

I care about good personnel strategy just as much as good personnel execution. Hankerson might indeed fail and thus he becomes an example of failed execution in personnel acquistion. But I'm willing to take a chance on him over T.O because he might provide more than T.O.