Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

If Cotch is back for Seattle who gets cut, if anyone?

WesleyM

By WesleyM,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

WesleyM Newbie

WesleyM

Posted
Posted

Today coach Rivera said it was possible Cotch would be healthy for the Seattle game. My question is does anyone get the axe with him becoming active? I honestly believe Bersin has contributed enough over the last few weeks to stay on the roster. He is a great posession guy. My thought is to cut the guy from Seattle and if he clears waviers add him to the PS. It is clear he hasnt picked up the system and I would think if a danger of him getting picked up existed we probably would have given more than a conditional 7th to get the guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kuhndog94 Grand Master

Kuhndog94

Posted
Posted

Man I'm glad none of you are GMs cutting a guy that's barely seen the field? Who has potential and is young? Y'all are getting crazy in the Huddle these days

I'm sure no GM wants to cut a guy. But it has to happen. 

It's not that you want to cut guy, but we are playing to win. If Norwood can't help that right now, bye. Say hi to the practice squad. His turn might come again this year. Who do you propose we cut?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
Posted

I mean he is on the roster, we could just make a different player inactive, but that would be too logical.

Correct.

Cotchery isn't on IR.  They don't absolutely have to cut anybody if he's healthy.  They can just deactivate someone.

Now, it is possible that they might, but they don't have to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thorrez Collaborator

Thorrez

Posted
Posted

Correct.

Cotchery isn't on IR.  They don't absolutely have to cut anybody if he's healthy.  They can just deactivate someone.

Now, it is possible that they might, but they don't have to.

Stop, the both of you!

Knowledge of the rules and logic have no place in the huddle!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Mistuh Jones
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By Mistuh Jones · Posted

      This is gonna be longest six weeks ever 
    • PNW_PantherMan
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By PNW_PantherMan · Posted

      This 1000%.  Hey who wants to sign with the guy that couldn't even get his client the guaranteed contract of a 3rd round pick?  Lmao
    • tukafan21
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By tukafan21 · Posted

      I don't think it's any weird or unique clause, it's the offset language, same thing so many contract disputes are over. It just means that including it, if a player is cut and then signed by another team, the original team would be able to subtract how much they're getting paid by the new team from what they still owe him on their guaranteed money. For example, it's why Russell Wilson signed for the minimum last year with the Steelers as that was included in his Denver contract.  So if he signed with the Steelers for $1 million, he'd get $1 million less from the Broncos, if it was $2 million, he'd get $2 million less, basically he couldn't make any more money than he was already going to make, so you sign for the minimum to not take unnecessary cap room from your new team while giving extra cap room to your old one. The problem with trying to include it in rookie deals is that a team trying to include it, it says they think they don't really believe the player will make it 4 years with the team before they cut them.  And this usually comes up with one or two rookies in most seasons, the difference is it's usually handled much more quietly and not as public and ugly as this one. The other difference is that it's happening with the Bengals, which I believe I saw are one of the few (or only?) team that doesn't have protections for rookies in rookie and mini camps to be able to participate even if they haven't signed their contract yet.  The other teams have injury protections that allow them to still play, but the Bengals do not, which is also why this one is so public and ugly, as most the time this happens, the rookie is still participating in the rookie and subsequent mini camps, giving them more time to get the contract done before training camp when they'd then hold out.
×
×
  • Create New...