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!

     

Does Gonzalez get to stay?


Khyber53
 Share

Recommended Posts

Well, we actually have to keep him for the next 2 weeks because we signed him off another team's practice squad, so he will be our kicker on Thursday. But he didn't do much yesterday to convince me he's the guy. I say keep looking until we find the right guy, we will get it right eventually right?

Edited by BlackPanther21_
  • Pie 2
  • Beer 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Khyber53 said:

So, are we keeping Zane Gonzalez after yesterday's performance, or is he shown the door like Santos and Slye before him?

FG's 2/3 (long of 42) and PAT's 2/3.

Will he get a pass because of the short week ahead of us or will Rhule make another move?

No choice. Since we signed Gonzalez off the Lions practice squad, he has to stay on the active roster for three weeks.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 45catfan said:

Yes, the block wasn't his fault, 100% on the blocking unit and his missed PAT was by a hair.  Missed kicks will happen, you have to look at how they were missed.  Slye was utterly shanking kicks.  Gonzalez just slightly misjudged his angle.

I'm surprised the Vikings didn't sign Slye, they seem to like those types of kickers. Remember last year when we played them and he missed the game winner wide by like 10 yards? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BlackPanther21_ said:

I'm surprised the Vikings didn't sign Slye, they seem to like those types of kickers. Remember last year when we played them and he missed the game winner wide by like 10 yards? 

I rewatched that Minnesota game over the offseason and Slye got freaked out because he had one blocked in that game. The final kick flew way off to the side because of the fear of it getting blocked from earlier in the game

  • Pie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DaveThePanther2008 said:

It would be a waste of a roster spot but it doesn't mean we can't bring someone else in and kick for the next two games. 

Yeah, I could see us doing this to be honest…bring someone in to compete in practice and whoever looks better gets the start.

Edited by Shocker
  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BlackPanther21_ said:

I'm surprised the Vikings didn't sign Slye, they seem to like those types of kickers. Remember last year when we played them and he missed the game winner wide by like 10 yards? 

That's why I'm not souring on Gonzalez yet.  He has the correct form and seems to kick consistently. That PAT miss was about leaving the ball a little inside kicking from the same side hash.  I would have much more concern if he would have missed wide right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • 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
    • 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.
    • adamantium? adam? adam thielen super bowl game winning catch ?
×
×
  • Create New...