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!

     

Is our secondary actually any worse?


Eazy-E

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Eazy-E said:

Do you have reading comprehension issues? When did I say I was a professional? All I did was state my opinion and how I was able to come to form that opinion. 

What do you do and how do you come to the conclusion that we are worse?

Do you have PTSD?  I'm not going to argue with you.  Find someone else to argue with.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea, sadly we’re slightly worse imo. Seymour and Worley are a push, but I think Coleman is better than Colin Jones, and that’s who we’d have in replacing Coleman now. Bring in someone like Parker or Reid, and that would make us better. I’d also like to see us bring in a vet CB and/or draft a young CB.

Another question is Bradberry. If 2016 Bradberry returns then we’re in some sh*t, because he was bad last year. If he struggles, then we’ll have to consider replacing him next year and that’ll be 3 CB’s from the previous regime that would have been replaced, making that 2016 draft a total dud. Potentially 3 CB’s drafted, and all 3 of them being replaced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, NJPanthers12 said:

Lol hit us where it hurts. By calling us pricks over the internet. That's cyber bullying.

You're probably a prick in reality so I wouldn't have a problem saying the same thing in your face.. it's calling a spade a spade.. sorry..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Too late to edit above but the quote is from this Diane Russini article in the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5941684/2024/11/23/russinis-what-im-hearing-the-day-the-jets-fell-apart-and-the-broncos-rallied-belichick-best-fits/ Okay.. there you have sorry I left that out the first post.  Also waivers keep the contract intact. That is the major difference in released and waived. It's all in that link from the other post.
    • Okay so I am reading something in The Athletic and it says that Jones had to pass through waivers. So I don't know. I looked this stuff up when we were number one there all offseason and I thought it said 4 years in the league got you vested, as they call it.  Vested gets you out of waivers as I understood it. I probably got something wrong, but when I think about the slack quality of journalism these days I wonder about that. So I went and looked, again. Well, well.  For everyone: "When a player has accrued at least four seasons in the NFL, they are considered a vested veteran. When these vested veterans get cut, they are released and their contract is terminated. When a vested veteran is released, they are an unrestricted free agent that can sign with any NFL team, and the team that released them doesn’t need to provide any additional compensation." It runs it all down here, where the quotes came from: https://www.profootballnetwork.com/waived-vs-released-nfl/ As far as Jones, the team turned down his 5th year option so I knew that meant he had 4 years in, because they re-signed him anyway, after turning down the much cheaper extra year.  The Athletic is owned by the New York Times so I shouldn't be surprised. That paper was an institution once upon a time but they let their standards go.
    • Well, we got our answer on Army today.
×
×
  • Create New...