JohnBonhamRocks Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 Week 2. Have to wait. Whys that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAJBobby Posted September 5, 2017 Author Share Posted September 5, 2017 great but he's on the PS for a reason And Colt was cut for a reason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
par73 Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 great but he's on the PS for a reason And Anderson has been awful in limited action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r00tabaga Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 Whys that? Vet contracts are guaranteed wk 1. Forsett treatment. Was told that him and Colt were probably coming back at some point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 (edited) Whys that? Being on a roster for week 1 guarantees your salary for the entire season if cut. If you are signed after Week 1 only 25% of your post-cut salary must be paid to you. Edited September 5, 2017 by Fingon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnBonhamRocks Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 Vet contracts are guaranteed wk 1. Forsett treatment. Was told that him and Colt were probably coming back at some point. Ah, I see - thanks! So if we bring them back after that time, then the money is not guaranteed? Being on a roster for week 1 guarantees your salary for the entire season if cut. If you are signed after Week 2 only 25% of your post-cut salary must be paid to you. EDIT: Nevermind, above. Much appreciated! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Arnold Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 And Colt was cut for a reason They had to cut someone to be at 53. Couldn't release Yates while he was in concussion protocol. They had no intention of going into Sunday without Anderson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAJBobby Posted September 5, 2017 Author Share Posted September 5, 2017 They had to cut someone to be at 53. Couldn't release Yates while he was in concussion protocol. They had no intention of going into Sunday without Anderson. So he is not that good as a Safety. That willing to cut him. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sig1Hunter Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 So he is not that good as a Safety. That willing to cut him. Thanks Well, he's not a starter. So, infer from that whether or not he is Pro Bowl caliber. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r00tabaga Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 So he is not that good as a Safety. That willing to cut him. Thanks He is a good STer... everyone knows The fact that he can play safety is just a rumor. Don't believe. Fake news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Arnold Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 So he is not that good as a Safety. That willing to cut him. Thanks Who's saying he's that good? He's a backup. D-e-p-t-h Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAJBobby Posted September 5, 2017 Author Share Posted September 5, 2017 Who's saying he's that good? He's a backup. D-e-p-t-h And as Yolo said with his he is on the PS for a reason comment to Sanders I responded with Colt was cut for a reason. So one snarky comment gets another Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r00tabaga Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 And as Yolo said with his he is on the PS for a reason comment to Sanders I responded with Colt was cut for a reason. So one snarky comment gets another Snarky comments are like elbows. Everyone's got 'em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 (edited) Here we go again. Colt Anderson is a fringe 53 guy. He's a 4th safety. When you are a fringe/depth guy at your regular position you must also be able to play ST. He is good at ST. Rinse and repeat for other positions like WR, RB, CB, LB. why is this so hard for some people? Teams don't have roster spots availabl for depth guys who aren't good enough to start AND can't or don't play ST. Edited September 5, 2017 by YoloinOhio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAJBobby Posted September 5, 2017 Author Share Posted September 5, 2017 Here we go again. Colt Anderson is a fringe 53 guy. He's a 4th safety. When you are a fringe/depth guy at your regular position you must also be able to play ST. He is good at ST. Rinse and repeat for other positions like WR, RB, CB, LB. why is this so hard for some people? Teams don't have roster spots for depth guys who can't or don't play ST. So why was he cut again? And i love how he is Good at ST. Why because you are told he is good on ST? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 So why was he cut again? And i love how he is Good at ST. Why because you are told he is good on ST? I don't get what you are trying to argue. I do pay attention to football. Even teams other than the Bills. No one "tells" me things. He's a player who has been strong at ST his whole career (8 years), which is how he had hung on to rosters (similar to Lorenzo Alexander) and even made the PB as a ST player. Why do you feel the need to argue everything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dablitzkrieg Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 I would anticipate Hodges is back week 2. Hopefully Yates is cut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAJBobby Posted September 5, 2017 Author Share Posted September 5, 2017 I don't get what you are trying to argue. I do pay attention to football. Even teams other than the Bills. No one "tells" me things. He's a player who has been strong at ST his whole career (8 years), which is how he had hung on to rosters (similar to Lorenzo Alexander) and even made the PB as a ST player. Why do you feel the need to argue everything? Except last year. Did Nada except be injured. Hmmm injured all camp too. Its fine he was re-signed. He was also cut. So instead of making Snarky Comments to a post of Well is on PS for a reason maybe this will put you on pause. There are a big group of posters that like to call others out or put snark in other posters but yeah they are the "good" ones here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thurst44 Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 So why was he cut again? And i love how he is Good at ST. Why because you are told he is good on ST? Well, coaches, and people who evaluate this stuff has said he's good on ST. It's the same as the person (may or may not have been you) who said that he's been terrible in limited action at safety. I've never particularly noticed him as bad, and I have to wonder whether that person watched every play of Colt and deduced that, saw him make one bad play and concluded he was bad, or was just conjecturing. My money would be on one of the last two. He was cut b/c he wasn't vital enough to keep when they needed to drop someone. However, as with the people they put on the PS, they apparently did want him back if they could swing it. I have trouble with anyone seeing this as worse than neutral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAJBobby Posted September 5, 2017 Author Share Posted September 5, 2017 Well, coaches, and people who evaluate this stuff has said he's good on ST. It's the same as the person (may or may not have been you) who said that he's been terrible in limited action at safety. I've never particularly noticed him as bad, and I have to wonder whether that person watched every play of Colt and deduced that, saw him make one bad play and concluded he was bad, or was just conjecturing. My money would be on one of the last two. He was cut b/c he wasn't vital enough to keep when they needed to drop someone. However, as with the people they put on the PS, they apparently did want him back if they could swing it. I have trouble with anyone seeing this as worse than neutral. Thats because you never noticed him ON THE FIELD as a Bill. Meaning he didnt play Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts