gjv001 Posted September 12, 2016 Posted September 12, 2016 He wasn't on the team very long, and judging by watching him play yesterday, Gronk was not ready for the big leagues yet. I wish him well. By the way, this action has me wondering about the competence of the people Pegula has on his payroll evaluating roster talent.
r00tabaga Posted September 12, 2016 Posted September 12, 2016 It was all about Felton's guaranteed money. It's been discussed at length today.
Best Player Available Posted September 12, 2016 Posted September 12, 2016 Kind of sucks would have been nice too see him play at the home opener. Something he probably dreamed of for years. It was rumored Brandon was making the UDFA calls after round 7. Russ is the guy who has no input on personel matters I heard.
CountryCletus Posted September 12, 2016 Posted September 12, 2016 It was all about Felton's guaranteed money. It's been discussed at length today. Yup- after week 1, $$$ not guaranteed
PatsFanNH Posted September 12, 2016 Posted September 12, 2016 Lol you had me worried then I remembered you guys had picked up Gronk Little brother lol. I am sure he will land on a prescribe squad somewhere....
White Linen Posted September 12, 2016 Posted September 12, 2016 Yup- after week 1, $$$ not guaranteed Exactly. At the same time of getting his $$$ off the books they gave little Gronk a shot. It didn't work out so they made the move. It just doesn't matter - when you lose, the criticism is going to come. If we won the game and this move was made it would be taken in a different light.
Kirby Jackson Posted September 12, 2016 Posted September 12, 2016 Gronk was a terrible football player that had no business in camp let alone on the roster. He should feel fortunate to have the last name Gronkowski.
Mr. WEO Posted September 12, 2016 Posted September 12, 2016 Exactly. At the same time of getting his $$$ off the books they gave little Gronk a shot. It didn't work out so they made the move. It just doesn't matter - when you lose, the criticism is going to come. If we won the game and this move was made it would be taken in a different light. Couldn't they have saved even more money by not having a FB?
ricojes Posted September 12, 2016 Posted September 12, 2016 The Bills will sign him to their practice squad...
K D Posted September 12, 2016 Posted September 12, 2016 (edited) He will be fine. The Gronks reality show is still in the works right? Plus he has the annual booze cruise to look forward to. Big things in his future Edited September 12, 2016 by kdiggz
gjv001 Posted September 12, 2016 Author Posted September 12, 2016 It was all about Felton's guaranteed money. It's been discussed at length today. Yes is was discussed today. However you have not a shred of evidence that corroborates your assurtion it was the guaranteed money that led the Bills to choose Gronk over Felton.
John from Riverside Posted September 12, 2016 Posted September 12, 2016 If we are going to bring Felton back can we please at least use him more?
26CornerBlitz Posted September 12, 2016 Posted September 12, 2016 The Bills will sign him to their practice squad... Would not be surprised by this at all.
Big C Posted September 12, 2016 Posted September 12, 2016 If we are going to bring Felton back can we please at least use him more? As long as it does not involve him carrying the football at any time.
boyst Posted September 12, 2016 Posted September 12, 2016 Couldn't they have saved even more money by not having a FB? this sounds like an insurance commercial tagline. The only thing worse is the Peyton manning...holy crap those are nationwide commercials.
White Linen Posted September 12, 2016 Posted September 12, 2016 Couldn't they have saved even more money by not having a FB? I don't think so. I'd imagine they'd spend it somewhere else.
JM57 Posted September 13, 2016 Posted September 13, 2016 Yes is was discussed today. However you have not a shred of evidence that corroborates your assurtion it was the guaranteed money that led the Bills to choose Gronk over Felton. Evidence is on the fact that they're eating $750k in dead money for cutting Felton and still brought him back. If they were happy with his previous salary he'd still be making it. Instead they get him back at a fraction of the cost, and because it is now week 2, with no guaranteed money.
Doc Posted September 13, 2016 Posted September 13, 2016 Maybe it's similar to what the Ravens did with Forsett, except they brought Felton back after game 1 and only have to pay him on a per-game basis.
Mr. WEO Posted September 13, 2016 Posted September 13, 2016 I don't think so. I'd imagine they'd spend it somewhere else. Maybe they could spend it on a value player/position.
Doc Posted September 13, 2016 Posted September 13, 2016 Maybe they could spend it on a value player/position. Too late. We're stuck with Tyrod.
Recommended Posts