- Joined
- Jan 22, 2005
- Messages
- 31,028
- Reaction score
- 15,588
I've been thinking about it a bit the past few days.
My problem with it is that it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense: why would you guarantee $100K+ (since you have to keep him on the 53 for three weeks) for a player who (A) won't see the field, and (B) probably won't make the roster next fall anyways?
Any Garoppolo-related problems seem put to rest given his playing on Sunday, so I can't really see that as the reason. And it certainly doesn't seem like BB et al. have any problems with Garoppolo.
The only thing that makes sense to me trying to explain this is that the Patriots are getting offers for Garoppolo that are at least good enough for them to consider. Does that seem like I'm leaping way too far, or does this at least seem plausible?
My problem with it is that it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense: why would you guarantee $100K+ (since you have to keep him on the 53 for three weeks) for a player who (A) won't see the field, and (B) probably won't make the roster next fall anyways?
Any Garoppolo-related problems seem put to rest given his playing on Sunday, so I can't really see that as the reason. And it certainly doesn't seem like BB et al. have any problems with Garoppolo.
The only thing that makes sense to me trying to explain this is that the Patriots are getting offers for Garoppolo that are at least good enough for them to consider. Does that seem like I'm leaping way too far, or does this at least seem plausible?