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!

     

Keeping 3 QBs #theory


Evil Hurney
 Share

Recommended Posts

It's fairly obvious the original plan was to keep Baker, Sam, and Corral as the 3 QBs. When asked if they still might keep 3 Rhule didn't rule it out (no pun intended). To most this seems like a way to keep PJ on the roster, but I have a different theory.

What if the team is considering using the spot originally intended for Corral to poach a promising rookie or 1st year QB off another team? Most teams only keep 2 guys and some will try to hide developmental guys on their practice squads. By using the now vacant 3rd QB spot, the team gets an additional swing at the QB position for very low investment while also ensuring we have multiple guys under contract for the near future.

What QB, that is a possible cut candidate, would you want Fit to steal?

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

25 minutes ago, Evil Hurney said:

It's fairly obvious the original plan was to keep Baker, Sam, and Corral as the 3 QBs. When asked if they still might keep 3 Rhule didn't rule it out (no pun intended). To most this seems like a way to keep PJ on the roster, but I have a different theory.

What if the team is considering using the spot originally intended for Corral to poach a promising rookie or 1st year QB off another team? Most teams only keep 2 guys and some will try to hide developmental guys on their practice squads. By using the now vacant 3rd QB spot, the team gets an additional swing at the QB position for very low investment while also ensuring we have multiple guys under contract for the near future.

What QB, that is a possible cut candidate, would you want Fit to steal?

You truly are the Anti Hurney. I would love to see something like this happen. No idea on the who, but it beats keeping in PJ, which is probably what's going to happen in the end if we keep 3 QBs.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, DJ feed me moore said:

nah lets just roll with baker and sam.

probably best to do. i mean keep PJ i guess on the practice squad and if he gets picked up by someone 🤷‍♂️.  i mean we'll need someone for the practice squad, but just being real, if it's not Corral and we're down to the 3rd QB...we're kind of screwed anyways. 

  • Beer 1
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 is gonna be longest six weeks ever 
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...