Jump to content

Sunday 9/1 Cut /Waiver Update thread


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Bangarang said:

 

I don’t get the obsession with adding a PS QB. If we are down to our 3rd QB then it doesn’t really matter who’s out there. We gon get our peckers smashed.

 

Just grabs vet off the streets in case of emergency 

Exactly my feelings. Any team in this league that’s on their 3rd team QB is toast anyway. Best just to get an Anderson type just to finish out the season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Bangarang said:

 

I don’t get the obsession with adding a PS QB. If we are down to our 3rd QB then it doesn’t really matter who’s out there. We gon get our peckers smashed.

 

Just grabs vet off the streets in case of emergency 

This is mostly true -well, maybe not specifically peckers.., BUT, just last season, there was a QB who hadn’t played in years, signed on Monday, started on Sunday and delivered a very competent upset victory.. some So. Cal kid from years back..

  • Like (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, fansince88 said:

Looking over this list I see a punter upgrade but feel confident in the remainder of the team. Feels good. I wonder if this is what it is like to be a Pat's fan?

I'll bet it's a lot better being a Pat's fan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Ta111 said:

Exactly my feelings. Any team in this league that’s on their 3rd team QB is toast anyway. Best just to get an Anderson type just to finish out the season.

 

While that is true aren't you better with a 3rd guy who at least knows the playbook?

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Bangarang said:

 

I don’t get the obsession with adding a PS QB. If we are down to our 3rd QB then it doesn’t really matter who’s out there. We gon get our peckers smashed.

 

Just grabs vet off the streets in case of emergency 

Is it really an obsession? Teams generally have players from many positions on the PS. It kinda makes sense.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I understand the rules properly, wouldn't the Bills be able to sign Colquitt right now... without waiting for the noon waiver period deadline?  I think that he's got something like 10 years in the league.  It's the same reason that KC was able to sign McCoy yesterday.  Maybe they're trying for one of the younger options.  I read that Colquitt had a surgical procedure on his knee and subsequently missed Cleveland's mini camp last spring.  Based on his track record, I've got to believe that he'd be the guy they wanted if he was 100% healthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

While that is true aren't you better with a 3rd guy who at least knows the playbook?

Sure... but I think that everyone is missing the point.  You don't put a quarterback on the practice roster with a plan to have him play for you this year.  If injuries happen and you needed another QB on the active roster, you'd probably still sign someone from the street (like we did last year with both Barkley and Anderson). If you like a young prospect well enough, it just gives you the opportunity to work with the guy for the next 12 months... get him ready for training camp next year.  Mind you... to go to all that trouble, you'd have to really see something special in that young quarterback... like Gruden sees in Peterman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jamie Mueller said:

Sure... but I think that everyone is missing the point.  You don't put a quarterback on the practice roster with a plan to have him play for you this year.  If injuries happen and you needed another QB on the active roster, you'd probably still sign someone from the street (like we did last year with both Barkley and Anderson). If you like a young prospect well enough, it just gives you the opportunity to work with the guy for the next 12 months... get him ready for training camp next year.  Mind you... to go to all that trouble, you'd have to really see something special in that young quarterback... like Gruden sees in Peterman.

 

I am not missing the point. I just think why would you say "oh well we can have any old guy on the Practice Squad" when you could say "who are the best PS eligible guys out there?" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Jamie Mueller said:

If I understand the rules properly, wouldn't the Bills be able to sign Colquitt right now... without waiting for the noon waiver period deadline?  I think that he's got something like 10 years in the league.  It's the same reason that KC was able to sign McCoy yesterday.  Maybe they're trying for one of the younger options.  I read that Colquitt had a surgical procedure on his knee and subsequently missed Cleveland's mini camp last spring.  Based on his track record, I've got to believe that he'd be the guy they wanted if he was 100% healthy.

 

Yes.  The Bills may have a bid in on a waived punter that they would have to sign, so we just got to wait and see.

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Jamie Mueller said:

Sure... but I think that everyone is missing the point.  You don't put a quarterback on the practice roster with a plan to have him play for you this year.  If injuries happen and you needed another QB on the active roster, you'd probably still sign someone from the street (like we did last year with both Barkley and Anderson). If you like a young prospect well enough, it just gives you the opportunity to work with the guy for the next 12 months... get him ready for training camp next year.  Mind you... to go to all that trouble, you'd have to really see something special in that young quarterback... like Gruden sees in Peterman.

 

Agree!  The only way a guy like Jackson (or whatever QB may be on the PS)  would play on Sunday is if on a road game Allen fell down the stairs getting off the plane and landed on Barkley and they are now both out 24 hours before the game.  Or even if one were hurt, he'd get promoted to active 53 and be the backup for Sunday, but on Monday, they'd be looking to sign a new experienced guy and would then cut Jackson (or other) and maybe hope they can re-sign him to PS again.

 

On another note, I don't believe and undrafted rookies made the roster this season correct?

Edited by Ed_Formerly_of_Roch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, klos63 said:

Is it really an obsession? Teams generally have players from many positions on the PS. It kinda makes sense.

 

The only QB that matters is Allen. If he doesn’t work out then we’ll be starting over. Having a QB on the PS is pointless to me. We pulled Barkley off the streets last year and he played well with little preparation. If I’m down to my 3rd QB to start a game then I’d rather go with a vet who just signed a week ago.

31 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

While that is true aren't you better with a 3rd guy who at least knows the playbook?

 

I don’t think it matters. The game plan is likely going to be real limited regardless of having a developmental QB from the practice squad or a vet signed a week ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Jamie Mueller said:

Sure... but I think that everyone is missing the point.  You don't put a quarterback on the practice roster with a plan to have him play for you this year.  If injuries happen and you needed another QB on the active roster, you'd probably still sign someone from the street (like we did last year with both Barkley and Anderson). If you like a young prospect well enough, it just gives you the opportunity to work with the guy for the next 12 months... get him ready for training camp next year.  Mind you... to go to all that trouble, you'd have to really see something special in that young quarterback... like Gruden sees in Peterman.

 My GAWD....Peterpick STILL has a job???  Amazeballs!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...