What I read was the Packers had 4 comp picks, 3rd, 2 5ths and a 6th. That we would improve that 6th to another 5th ending up with 3rd, and 3 5ths
They can cut an injured player without an injury settlement. They would just be on the hook for paying them the remainder of that season salary. The injury settlement is an agreement, so the team releases a player so they have an option to sign on with another team, and in exchange the original team only has to pay an agreed upon part of their salary instead. Win/Win.
Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins
Yes, we were probably getting 4 picks; now its a certainty. And I figured we'd get a 7th for Peppers, maybe a 6th given the was he's playing; so the 6-7 would covert to I calculate a 4th; but yes it couldl be a 5th.
Barny don't act stupid. Even a 5 yr old would understand that you don't cut a guy and THEN reach an injury settlement. Of course the settlement comes first/same time as being released. The point is they DO reach a settlement with players and you said they can't cut a player because he is injured. They in fact do. There are plenty of times a team would be willing to keep a player but reach a settlement because of injury because they don't want to have him on IR all year.
As for your facts being ignored don't be so pompous. Your words aren't so precious. It's not as if what you say is Scripture or something. It's just your opinion. It's not any better than anyone else's.
Originally Posted by: wpr
NO! They are cutting him because BOTH SIDES came to a new agreement. You cant cut a god damn player that is injured [unless the injury wasn't disclosed; unless it was a "non-football" injury; etc] and it is these exceptions that forced 1265 to claim nondisclosure, which was a point in my argument. If the player says this is a 12 week injury and the team says 6 week injury; the player CANT BE CUT until its resolved.
If one disagrees with another they can chose to respond like an angry bitchy little child or a responsible sensible kind adult; or anywhere in between. Some responses violate the TOS; but that's for others to deal with. Your argument that my "fact" was not a fact was not only egregiously incorrect; but your defense of your argument was shown to be unsupportable accompanied by some ad hominem fallacy nonsense. I just responded to what you wrote.
And if my words aren't precious đ then provide argument to support it or better yet attempt to engage in a civil conversation. Your failure to be able to rebut my words is what makes them so precious đ.
Fact should never be ignored period, but your "facts" are not always really facts as you sometimes twist facts until they're no longer correct.... like when you ignored the NFL rule book on Elliot's 4th and 1 ruling.
Somebody better tell Ted Thompson because that's exactly what he did, cutting S Chris Banjo and WR Jared Abbrederis just because they were injured bottom roster guys (that couldn't stay healthy) and the Packers needed some more healthy bodies.
Again, somebody better tell Ted Thompson because that's exactly what he did (which I believe is called being waived/injured), cutting an injured P Jacob Schum, and then went through waivers and after going unclaimed bounce back to the Packers IR.
So your "facts" are sometimes more like opinions, than facts
Originally Posted by: beast
What does Elliot have to do with this and how long ago was that? đ I mean What the fuck! [chuckling]
If facts are being"twisted" then intellect, scholarship and decency provides a path for you to articulate your issue with the twisting problem like an adult.
"Again some body better tell Ted..." Is this how you express yourself to a loved one or to your boss? If you have something to say here, you should express it more directly like an adult. I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
You were unable to understand or respond to my discussion of the rule book on Elliot's replay; so I expect you don't possess the acumen to understand my discussion of injury and the CBA, so I'll refer you to an LA Times article of 9-27-14. "An injured player gets paid for as long as he's unable to play, no matter what his contract says. A team can't release an injured player until he's cleared." The article then discussed ALTERNATE ways in which a player and team can separate, when injury is at issue. Go read, if you have a cogent question or comment we can discuss it like ADULTS.
Let me leave you with a little nugget of wisdom and history. in Galileo's day "Everyone" believed the earth was the center of the universe. I'll bet the Inquisition accused Gallleo of twsiting the facts đ as he tried to explain why "everyone" was wrong. They REFUSED to deal with Galileo with intellect, decency and scholarship and as a result their bias and mob-based confirmations doomed them to remain ignorant. Endeavor not to be the Inquisition.