Charles Romes Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 Ross Tucker opined this morning on NFL radio that the Rhodes is still part of the Bills' plans for weeks 1-3 but that was cut in view of a league rule which forces teams to pay veterans for a full year if they are on the original 53 man roster. He believes the Bills calculated that Rhodes will clear waivers and speculated that the Bills will re-sign him over the next few days. By cutting and re-signing Rhodes, rather than having him as part of the original 53 man team, the Bills will be obligated to pay Rhodes for only the weeks he is on the team rather than the full year.
ThereIsNoDog Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 I thought that only applies if he's signed after the first game? Because players on the opening day rosters are guaranteed their year's salary.
Sisyphean Bills Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 Sounds like a good career move from Rhodes vantage.
lets_go_bills Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 Ross Tucker opined this morning on NFL radio that the Rhodes is still part of the Bills' plans for weeks 1-3 but that was cut in view of a league rule which forces teams to pay veterans for a full year if they are on the original 53 man roster. He believes the Bills calculated that Rhodes will clear waivers and speculated that the Bills will re-sign him over the next few days. By cutting and re-signing Rhodes, rather than having him as part of the original 53 man team, the Bills will be obligated to pay Rhodes for only the weeks he is on the team rather than the full year. If that's true then it's a good move.
Beerball Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 I thought that only applies if he's signed after the first game? Because players on the opening day rosters are guaranteed their year's salary. Thought so too. Maybe they are willing to roll the dice on the first game. They do save $150,000 roster bonus plus being able to take him on a per game basis.
Charles Romes Posted September 6, 2009 Author Posted September 6, 2009 I thought that only applies if he's signed after the first game? Because players on the opening day rosters are guaranteed their year's salary. This might be the case. Tucker talked about the Bills renting Rhodes for two weeks. Originally I thought Tucker's reference to two weeks was just because Tucker made a mistake about the time of Lynch's suspension. He may have been suggesting the Bills will re-sign Rhodes AFTER week 1.
ThereIsNoDog Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 Thought so too. Maybe they are willing to roll the dice on the first game. They do save $150,000 roster bonus plus being able to take him on a per game basis. I can understand it if it's for after game 1. The Patriots do this all the time.
Delete This Account Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 I can understand it if it's for after game 1. The Patriots do this all the time. was just on with Ross, and he shared his opinion with me. it's possible, heck, anything's possible. my one thought though is whether Rhodes is willing to re-sign with a team that just cut him. jw
Sisyphean Bills Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 was just on with Ross, and he shared his opinion with me. it's possible, heck, anything's possible.my one thought though is whether Rhodes is willing to re-sign with a team that just cut him. Well, the Bills do have that front-runner for the Super Bowl status to offer.
Maddog69 Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 was just on with Ross, and he shared his opinion with me. it's possible, heck, anything's possible.my one thought though is whether Rhodes is willing to re-sign with a team that just cut him. jw didn't he return to Indy after being cut ?
Dan Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 was just on with Ross, and he shared his opinion with me. it's possible, heck, anything's possible.my one thought though is whether Rhodes is willing to re-sign with a team that just cut him. jw 2 game checks (assuming he would be cut after week 3) or 0 game checks? hmmm... decisions, decisions.
Not the real Gale Gilbert Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 It would be a good move for the Bills if they rented Rhodes, but why wouldn't Rhodes try and sign with another team for the full season first?
Sisyphean Bills Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 Thinking positively, if Rhodes gets an offer to play for a team with an offense, it won't be impossible to find another average Joe pedestrian RB off the street for the Bills.
Delete This Account Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 didn't he return to Indy after being cut ? he did, but that was after a a tough season in Oakland. players, in my experience, don't take kindly to being cut by a team one day and then having the team want them back the next, and for less money. ... now, i'm not saying it's not possible, but Rhodes might want certain assurances going forward ... and i wouldn't be sure the Bills -- having cut him already -- would be willing to commit. jw
Beerball Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 Did the Bills do this a couple years ago with a veteran DB? Vincent maybe?
Albany,n.y. Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 It would be a good move for the Bills if they rented Rhodes, but why wouldn't Rhodes try and sign with another team for the full season first? Because nobody wants him for opening day.
ThereIsNoDog Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 was just on with Ross, and he shared his opinion with me. it's possible, heck, anything's possible.my one thought though is whether Rhodes is willing to re-sign with a team that just cut him. Compared to not working and thus getting paid, I think he'd do it. But again, the question I have is whether they can do this and have him available for the first game, or if they have to wait until after the first game?
Tcali Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 Ross Tucker opined this morning on NFL radio that the Rhodes is still part of the Bills' plans for weeks 1-3 but that was cut in view of a league rule which forces teams to pay veterans for a full year if they are on the original 53 man roster. He believes the Bills calculated that Rhodes will clear waivers and speculated that the Bills will re-sign him over the next few days. By cutting and re-signing Rhodes, rather than having him as part of the original 53 man team, the Bills will be obligated to pay Rhodes for only the weeks he is on the team rather than the full year. well--the Bills sure are smart with money..we made sure he didnt get that 150k.-and at the same time we are paying uhmmm... uhhh.. oh thats right 17 million this yr(correct me if Im low) for major contributors Kelsay Schobel and Walker
Alaska Darin Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 I certainly hope that's the case because I'd much rather see him whiff on blocks for only a couple of games than an entire season. I love the fact that some people are actually hoping we bring back this guy considering that to do so not ONE other NFL team would have to want him.
ThereIsNoDog Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 I certainly hope that's the case because I'd much rather see him whiff on blocks for only a couple of games than an entire season. I love the fact that some people are actually hoping we bring back this guy considering that to do so not ONE other NFL team would have to want him. At this point, he'd be useless for any other team, having missed all of their off-season, training camp, and pre-season.
Recommended Posts