Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I think this is right to the extent it's not just about Saunders. They can get a NT off the street to be bottom rung backup NT for a few games. They are spending some draft capital for obvious reason that they think he could be developed into something. Our DT rotation including very old Cameron Jordan, who-knows Peyton Turner, and unproven Boyd makes it a sneaky place to develop a guy.I don't get this. It's easy to say "Khalen Saunders injury replacement" but that's a lazy analysis to me. Saunders has a short term injury and we typically play only three defensive tackles a game anyway because people like Jordan can kick inside situationally. Maybe they don't think Boyd is ready to play. Maybe they're just loading up because they absolutely love him and he doesn't cost much. Who knows?
We will cut Vickers, and possibly Saunders. I heard he got pushed down the dpth chart, and isn't happyI don't get this. It's easy to say "Khalen Saunders injury replacement" but that's a lazy analysis to me. Saunders has a short term injury and we typically play only three defensive tackles a game anyway because people like Jordan can kick inside situationally. Maybe they don't think Boyd is ready to play. Maybe they're just loading up because they absolutely love him and he doesn't cost much. Who knows?
I've heard that too and that's the only other way this move could make sense. I don't understand though why we wouldn't just IR him since we can't cut an injured vet outright. Perhaps that's coming.We will cut Vickers, and possibly Saunders. I heard he got pushed down the dpth chart, and isn't happy
Saunders isn’t getting cut lolWe will cut Vickers, and possibly Saunders. I heard he got pushed down the dpth chart, and isn't happy
So we are going to carry three nose tackles, when we usually only even dress one for games?Saunders isn’t getting cut lol
I've heard that too and that's the only other way this move could make sense. I don't understand though why we wouldn't just IR him since we can't cut an injured vet outright. Perhaps that's coming.
But even when we have carried a second nose on the 53, which isn't all the time, we typically make that guy a healthy scratch anyway. So why trade for one?