Skip to content

Colts contend Ed Johnson was cut due to performance only

The last time the Indianapolis Colts opted to unceremoniously dump starting defensive tackle Ed Johnson, they did so after he was arrested for marijuana possession.

This time around, the team says that the move came for different reasons. 

“I know that some might be wondering whether or not it was a character issue.  It was not,” coach Jim Caldwell said, according to the Indianapolis Star.

“Probably, just over all, I’d probably like to like to just keep it
rather general and say it was production, it was a lack thereof,” Caldwell added.

Regardless of whether that’s the truth, the Colts likely learned from their last experience with Ed Johnson that the best way to deal with player terminations based on off-field conduct is to claim that it was due to on-field contribution or lack thereof.  That way, the Colts can avoid grievances based on a decision to take action against a player for behavior that falls within the exclusive province of the league office.

And even if the Colts cut Johnson this time because of his performance, the perception of his poor performance likely was tied to his off-field habits.

“He’s fat and lazy,” one source opined.  And we wouldn’t be surprised to eventually learn that Johnson has recently tested positive for marijuana.

 We’re definitely not saying that Johnson has tested positive for marijuana, or that he has ever smoked it.  We’re only saying that news of a positive test (in light of his history) on the heels of the Colts’ decision to cut Johnson wouldn’t surprise us.

UPDATE:  We’re told that Johnson definitely did not test positive for marijuana, and that marijuana was not an issue in the decision.

Permalink 12 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Indianapolis Colts, Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories
12 Responses to “Colts contend Ed Johnson was cut due to performance only”
  1. milehiclown says: Oct 15, 2009 8:59 AM

    Hurting headline of the day: “Colts contend the Ed Johnson was cut due to performance only”
    THE ED Johnson? Like THE Mike Florio? I’m gonna start implementing that where i work.
    It is THE Milehiclown, thank you.

  2. raybin says: Oct 15, 2009 8:59 AM

    So does this mean Fili Moala will be active now? Interested to see what he can do.

  3. Milhouse says: Oct 15, 2009 9:01 AM

    Ed Johnson has tested positive for marijuana?!?!?!

  4. ar1888 says: Oct 15, 2009 9:25 AM

    The Colts can say what they want. I m not buying it. Ed has played very well, and the rush defense has never looked better. You dont go from starter to out on the street 2 days after only allowing 34 yards rushing to the NFL rushing leader. The rush D looks bettter because teams are not able to run between the tackles. With 2 300lb DT in there they are running outside more.

  5. aspence7 says: Oct 15, 2009 9:28 AM

    Fili Moala has been injured and I believe still is. Would love to see what he can do as well.

  6. Guy Incognito says: Oct 15, 2009 10:05 AM

    Generally speaking, we probably didn’t cut him due to any character issues; but rather probably just due to his performance in general.
    Now if you’ll excuse me, if have an errand to run at the department of redundancy department.
    Probably.

  7. Jimmy V says: Oct 15, 2009 11:52 AM

    ar1888: I completely agree with you! After 5 games I don’t recall us ever being #7 overall defense.
    If we were just making a roster spot for Stover to join the team, why wouldn’t Aaron Francisco or Hank Baskett go.
    Gonzalez is supposed to be back soon…we have great young receivers…Baskett has proved nothing. Take him off the roster, keep Ed. I Hope the D doesn’t take a big hit.
    Also, Francisco only plays on special teams. Once Bob comes back (soon), Melvin Bullitt will do more on special teams than Francisco can dream of. Other than Bob, our safeties stay pretty healthy.
    I’m with ar1888…not buying it.

  8. bian8 says: Oct 15, 2009 11:53 AM

    ar1888 he had one tackle against the Titans. His most tackles came in the Dolphins game where they gave up 200 yards of rushing. He wasnt performing.

  9. ar1888 says: Oct 15, 2009 12:07 PM

    I understand he had only 1 tackle against the Titans. Chris Johnson was running to the outside to either Robert Mathis side, or Dwight Freeney. The LBs did their job. Ed was taking up spce in the middle so they couldnt run through there with ease, like they have in the past.

  10. Howie Feltersnatch says: Oct 15, 2009 12:42 PM

    “You dont go from starter to out on the street 2 days after only allowing 34 yards rushing to the NFL rushing leader.”
    I don’t remember the Colts on Cincinnati’s schedule this year. Benson is, and has been, the league’s leading rusher. I’ll say it before the Dolts’ fans yell at me–yes, the Dolts would beat Cincinnati.

  11. gmitch23 says: Oct 15, 2009 12:51 PM

    Duh bian8, lineman arent gauged on how many tackles they get to be considered effective. Getting tackles is just a plus, make educated comments please. And they could have easily let go someone else go for a roster spot. see Tim Jennings or Chad Simpson.

  12. ColtFan21 says: Oct 15, 2009 12:52 PM

    A DT’s primary job isn’t to pile up tackles. It’s to clog running lanes and push the OL back, so that the LB’s can clean up the play.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!