Remmers gone

[Guest]

In what way? That Minnesota wanted him to take a cut or that he believes he can make more elsewhere?

[Guest]

@FSUVike said:
In what way? That Minnesota wanted him to take a cut or that he believes he can make more elsewhere?

That Minnesota wanted him back at all. I wouldn't mind having an experienced guy like Remmers back as depth, but a "restructure," in my mind anyway, sort of implies an opportunity to continue starting, or at least compete for a starting job. Maybe I'm overly hopeful, but I want to move so far beyond guys like Remmers and Compton that they become just painful memories. 

[Guest]

@MaroonBells said:

@FSUVike said:
In what way? That Minnesota wanted him to take a cut or that he believes he can make more elsewhere?

That Minnesota wanted him back at all. I wouldn't mind having an experienced guy like Remmers back as depth, but a "restructure," in my mind anyway, sort of implies an opportunity to continue starting, or at least compete for a starting job. Maybe I'm overly hopeful, but I want to move so far beyond guys like Remmers and Compton that they become just painful memories. 

Fully agree with you.  What is the status of Compton's contract?  Can't we dump him too?  Starting two rookies won't make us any worse off than we already are.

[Guest]

@ArizonaViking said:

@MaroonBells said:

@FSUVike said:
In what way? That Minnesota wanted him to take a cut or that he believes he can make more elsewhere?

That Minnesota wanted him back at all. I wouldn't mind having an experienced guy like Remmers back as depth, but a "restructure," in my mind anyway, sort of implies an opportunity to continue starting, or at least compete for a starting job. Maybe I'm overly hopeful, but I want to move so far beyond guys like Remmers and Compton that they become just painful memories. 

Fully agree with you.  What is the status of Compton's contract?  Can't we dump him too?  Starting two rookies won't make us any worse off than we already are.

he was only on a 1 year deal so he is a FA already.

[Guest]

actually I believe we only have 1 player under contract with game experience at OG and that is Isidora.

[Guest]

@JimmyinSD said:
actually I believe we only have 1 player under contract with game experience at OG and that is Isidora.

Do we still have Jones that we gave up a 7th rounder to the Giants for?

[Guest]

@ArizonaViking said:

@JimmyinSD said:
actually I believe we only have 1 player under contract with game experience at OG and that is Isidora.

Do we still have Jones that we gave up a 7th rounder to the Giants for?

Yeah. It's a mystery why he didn't get more playing time. I'm actually a little more encouraged by Cornelius Edison. 

[Guest]

I can’t imagine there was any real mutual belief that
Remmers would be starting.  It would have
been a deal to be a backup swing tackle, which would have been excellent if he’d
have accepted it.  That said, I think it
makes a lot of sense for him to try and get another RT gig.  He’ll probably get something better than what
Hill got, or at least he should.

[Guest]

@medaille said:
I can’t imagine there was any real mutual belief that
Remmers would be starting.  It would have
been a deal to be a backup swing tackle, which would have been excellent if he’d
have accepted it.  That said, I think it
makes a lot of sense for him to try and get another RT gig.  He’ll probably get something better than what
Hill got, or at least he should.

That's how I read it as well. Can't let EVERYBODY walk until you know for a fact you've got some folks coming in and Remmers would have been a decent depth piece at Swing Tackle like you mentioned.

[Guest]

@ArizonaViking said:

@JimmyinSD said:
actually I believe we only have 1 player under contract with game experience at OG and that is Isidora.

Do we still have Jones that we gave up a 7th rounder to the Giants for?

wasnt it a 5th round pick?  or who did we give up the 5th rounder for?  anyway...nope,  he was a 1 year rental player.