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!

     

Why didn't Sam Darnold play against the Patriots?


hepcat
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, hepcat said:

Considering Baker Mayfield has been named the Week 1 starter after not playing at all in their last preseason game, I have to wonder, why didn't Sam Darnold play?

Sure, sit McCaffrey, DJ Moore, Burns, your top guys. The Patriots are dirty, they try to hurt people, I get it. 

Seems like Baker Mayfield was already going to be the starter before the Patriots game even happened, so hold him out if he's your starter. 

Why didn't Darnold play then? He's a backup. He should play.

Are they concerned Darnold would look so bad he wouldn't have any trade value? He already doesn't have any trade value due to his ridiculous contract. 

Worried about him getting hurt? Well, anyone they trotted out there could get hurt. But again, he's a backup.

I just never understood why Rhule babied Sam Darnold so much. He's earned literally nothing in the NFL and gets treated like he's an established Pro Bowl level veteran by this coaching staff. Including last season when he barely played during the preseason as well. 

Nothing this coaching staff does ultimately makes sense. 

Reasons why rhule should be fired. Like in know capers had a his little notepad, but damn the decisions from rhule are stupid.

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

    • 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...