Bills sign Brandin Cooks

[Utah John]

On 11/25/2025 at 8:05 PM, Scott7975 said:

 

Thats what they did. They cut him, or they released him, or they waived him. It all means the same thing after the trade deadline because even vets have to go through waivers at that point.

Sure, but that means the Saints didn't collude, they just gave up on a player who didn't want to be there.  

[Utah John]

On 11/25/2025 at 4:03 PM, Psautcsk said:

Even if the league allows the Saints to waive Cooks (as Rule No. 24 is written, it should not), there is (as the source put it) “a full-blown conspiracy involving the Saints, another team, and Cooks’s agent.”

Added the source, “They all worked together.”

And if the NFL allows Cooks to be waived despite the language of Rule No. 24, the league is part of the conspiracy, too.

 

This is from an NBC article I read on Saturday.

https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/poison-pill-aimed-at-helping-brandin-cooks-clear-waivers-could-keep-saints-from-releasing-him

Well, this indicates it's possible the Saints were rigging things.  But why would they do that, if they were just going to get Cooks off their roster?  If it subsequently turns out that the Bills and Saints do something fishy, like having a trade next season where the Bills don't get close to full value of what they sent the Saints, that could indicate a quid pro quo.  

 

Or it could be the Saints were trying to do a solid for a player they liked but didn't want anymore.  Cooks likely didn't want to be picked up by a bad organization (cough cough Dolphins cough cough) or a division rival, so it could be the Saints helped avoid that.  

 

The language in the rules would seem to mean the Saints couldn't have eventually waived Cooks, and yet the NFL let them do it and then approved the Bills signing Cooks.  There's a contradiction here and I don't see how this got done.  

Edited 1 hour ago by Utah John