End of minicamp roster -- 7 cuts needed to sign all rookies

[supafly]

Re: It Is Time To Cut Some Players

Right, but they can only be on the list if they are, you know, actually in the military.

So you're saying they do not have obligations to the Navy still, and they are indeed eligible to play this year in the NFL?

 

[supafly]

Re: It Is Time To Cut Some Players

Right, but they can only be on the list if they are, you know, actually in the military.

This is what I was going by:

"Obviously, the future of Navy football players in the NFL is clouded at the moment as current policy does not allow any deviation from the five-year post-graduate commitment."

via hometownannapolis.com

I know there was said to be discussions regarding a 2 year active duty then transferred to a 6 year reserve commitment but I don't think they ever happened, nor are they going to happen--specifically in time for the season upcoming. That's why I felt they'd be on military/reserve.

Judging by your sarcastic comment, obviously you know much more than I do on this matter--so I will defer said questions to you.

 

[pats1]

Re: It Is Time To Cut Some Players

So you're saying they do not have obligations to the Navy still, and they are indeed eligible to play this year in the NFL?

No, I'm saying there's not much of a difference between putting a guy on Reserve/Military and cutting him - he's not going to be available in either scenario. Reserve/Military isn't an exemption or like IR when you can still be around the facilities. If you're on Reserve/Military, you're in active duty.

 

[supafly]

Re: It Is Time To Cut Some Players

No, I'm saying there's not much of a difference between putting a guy on Reserve/Military and cutting him - he's not going to be available in either scenario. Reserve/Military isn't an exemption or like IR when you can still be around the facilities. If you're on Reserve/Military, you're in active duty.

Fair enough, that is certainly not what the original comment portrayed, but thanks for the clarification.

I am sure since Belichick was one of only a few coaches interested, and that he actually took 3 players from the team, that he must've had some plan for them somewhere, somehow.

Maybe he felt or hoped the rule would be addressed or changed, maybe he felt they would make decent camp fodder. Maybe he felt if one or more stepped up that it would make more sense to look toward next year. I'm not sure if the team would still have rights, etc, but I couldn't see why not.

Regardless, there must've been a plan in place--and I still think you don't need to worry about these guys counting towards the official number.

 

[Ochmed Jones]

We have 86 including rooks. Tate and McKenzie will go on lists so that they won't count at least for awhile, so we need to cut at least four. We also might be signing some JAG's or UDFA's or even free agents, so we will cut more than four.

DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY OF THESE PLAYERS AS THEIR BINKIES?
I personally see little reason to keep any of them around, although I suspect that one or two might still be here for camp.

KETTANI
NUNN
WHITE
BARNES
ORTIZ
STEVE WILLIAMS
LOVE
PORTER

I do not, but I think BB will have a couple extra cuts in his back pocket. I can't imagine BB not signing a specific needs player or two around the start of TC.

 

[mgteich]

There is room for at least a couple of signings. If 6 of the 8 I list are cut or put on a reserve list, and Tate and McKenzie are also on injury or reserve lists that gives us 86 less 6 less 2 for a total of 78, leaving room for two signings, even without the need for extra cuts (Wendall and Adams were mentioned by another poster).

I do not, but I think BB will have a couple extra cuts in his back pocket. I can't imagine BB not signing a specific needs player or two around the start of TC.

 

[Dragda]

I can't start new threads, but Antonio Appleby has been released (from Reiss on Twitter)

What's Reiss' @ on twitter?