I don't know where to start with this column by Rob Parker in the Detroit News. First, I want more detail on these trade offers the Lions got for Charles Rogers. What are teams willing to give up for him? Given his production during his three years in the league, I find it extraordinarily unlikely that any team was offering anything of substance for him. Secondly, Parker writes that the Lions "never had a legal leg on which to stand" when trying to get some of Rogers' signing bonus back after he was suspended for drug use. If that's the case, why did Parker's own paper report a few months ago that the situation does not appear close to being resolved? How could it be hard to resolve a situation in which one party has no legal leg on which to stand? Third, Parker writes, "The other ill-fated push to get Rogers to respond on the field was the staff's decision to give Scottie Vines more playing time. If Vines was so great, as the Lions proclaimed, why isn't he on the roster?" Um, Vines is on the roster. And I don't think the Lions have ever claimed Vines is "great." They've claimed he's better than Rogers. Which anyone who knows anything about football and has watched the two of them play these past couple of years would have to agree with.
Rogers Still Appealing to Lions
6 May 2006, 11:56am by Michael David Smith