Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Cuts Have Begun

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by FairOaks View Post
    If he was legitimately injured, they didn't have a choice. Usually players will come to an injury settlement, but if they can't agree on one, then this could be the result.
    Poor bastard's whole career has been on IR. Too bad.
    "Hey Giants, who's your Daddy?"

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Eagle60 View Post
      Now that's a screwy rule. It basically means that you CAN cut an injured player.
      It's a means to prevent teams from cutting a player because he's injured. He accrues NFL time while he heals, he gets to use the facilities, and I think he even gets paid.

      On one hand it's weird that they can't keep him after he's healed, but if they didn't do that teams would use that as a loop-hole to say a player has phantom injury, and carry the player on their roster indefinitely just to avoid making roster decisions.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by YourPalChrisMal View Post
        It's a means to prevent teams from cutting a player because he's injured. He accrues NFL time while he heals, he gets to use the facilities, and I think he even gets paid.

        On one hand it's weird that they can't keep him after he's healed, but if they didn't do that teams would use that as a loop-hole to say a player has phantom injury, and carry the player on their roster indefinitely just to avoid making roster decisions.
        Gotcha Chris. Thanks!
        "Hey Giants, who's your Daddy?"

        Comment

        Working...
        X