Chicago Fanatics Message Board :: View topic - 12/27: Aaron Rodgers should be on the Cleveland Browns

Boilermaker Rick wrote:

FavreFan wrote:

I don't know. I haven't looked into it much since it's obvious Rodgers isn't going anywhere.

It's a huge story if the NFL is giving preferential treatment around a star player that broke a clear rule. I agree they aren't likely to force him to be released but you have to understand why this would be talked about.

The NFL has ruled otherwise in other situations regarding improper transactions.

Unless someone wants to make a convincing case that Rodgers will be playing for the Browns next year, no I do not understand why this would be talked about. Slow news week, I guess.

Frank Coztansa wrote:

Why? Why all of a sudden should the NFL chose what rules to enforce and not enforce?

And I noticed you cherry picked and did not quote this statement;

Frank Coztansa wrote:

The catch rule(s) is/are dumb too, but that doesn't stop the NFL from enforcing them they way they are written in the rule book.

I didn't quote that statement because it was irrelevent to me making fun of you for thinking the NFL grants special favor to the Packers.

Boilermaker Rick wrote:

FavreFan wrote:

I don't know. I haven't looked into it much since it's obvious Rodgers isn't going anywhere.

Unless someone wants to make a convincing case that Rodgers will be playing for the Browns next year, no I do not understand why this would be talked about. Slow news week, I guess.

FavreFan wrote:

Frank Coztansa wrote:

Why? Why all of a sudden should the NFL chose what rules to enforce and not enforce?

And I noticed you cherry picked and did not quote this statement;

Frank Coztansa wrote:

The catch rule(s) is/are dumb too, but that doesn't stop the NFL from enforcing them they way they are written in the rule book.

I didn't quote that statement because it was irrelevent to me making fun of you for thinking the NFL grants special favor to the Packers.

The Packers violated a rule. If they aren't made to release Rodgers, that is the very definition of preferential treatment.

It is a rule, but because its the Packers the NFL will allow them to do whatever they want.

FavreFan wrote:

Boilermaker Rick wrote:

FavreFan wrote:

I don't know. I haven't looked into it much since it's obvious Rodgers isn't going anywhere.

Unless someone wants to make a convincing case that Rodgers will be playing for the Browns next year, no I do not understand why this would be talked about. Slow news week, I guess.

When Green Bay got screwed on that call in Seattle, it was talked about a lot even though there is no chance the league was going to change the outcome of the game. It's the same thing.

Boilermaker Rick wrote:

FavreFan wrote:

Boilermaker Rick wrote:

FavreFan wrote:

I don't know. I haven't looked into it much since it's obvious Rodgers isn't going anywhere.

Unless someone wants to make a convincing case that Rodgers will be playing for the Browns next year, no I do not understand why this would be talked about. Slow news week, I guess.

When Green Bay got screwed on that call in Seattle, it was talked about a lot even though there is no chance the league was going to change the outcome of the game. It's the same thing.

It's not the same thing. In that analogy, Seattle wouldn't be forced to hand over Russell Wilson to the worst team in the league.

Anyway, this doesn't seem like a big story. Can't even find it on ESPN's NFL page.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/

It is the same thing when the Bears lost a player because Jerry Angelo didn't check a box.

Favrefan doesn't want to address that.

Boilermaker Rick wrote:

FavreFan wrote:

Boilermaker Rick wrote:

FavreFan wrote:

I don't know. I haven't looked into it much since it's obvious Rodgers isn't going anywhere.

Unless someone wants to make a convincing case that Rodgers will be playing for the Browns next year, no I do not understand why this would be talked about. Slow news week, I guess.

When Green Bay got screwed on that call in Seattle, it was talked about a lot even though there is no chance the league was going to change the outcome of the game. It's the same thing.

Boilermaker Rick wrote:

FavreFan wrote:

Boilermaker Rick wrote:

FavreFan wrote:

I don't know. I haven't looked into it much since it's obvious Rodgers isn't going anywhere.

Unless someone wants to make a convincing case that Rodgers will be playing for the Browns next year, no I do not understand why this would be talked about. Slow news week, I guess.

When Green Bay got screwed on that call in Seattle, it was talked about a lot even though there is no chance the league was going to change the outcome of the game. It's the same thing.

Beardown wrote:

It is the same thing when the Bears lost a player because Jerry Angelo didn't check a box.

Favrefan doesn't want to address that.

Let me be clear here. I think any star player on any team would get the "preferential treatment" of not being forced to be released. If it's just a guy nobody gives a shit about then I'm sure the rule would be upheld.

FavreFan wrote:

Beardown wrote:

It is the same thing when the Bears lost a player because Jerry Angelo didn't check a box.

Favrefan doesn't want to address that.

I agree. Let me be clear. I think the Browns should go to court to force the issue. A judge would rule in their favor.

ESPN posted the story three days ago so I'm not sure what you mean.

Frank Coztansa wrote:

FavreFan wrote:

Frank Coztansa wrote:

Why? Why all of a sudden should the NFL chose what rules to enforce and not enforce?

And I noticed you cherry picked and did not quote this statement;

Frank Coztansa wrote:

The catch rule(s) is/are dumb too, but that doesn't stop the NFL from enforcing them they way they are written in the rule book.

I didn't quote that statement because it was irrelevent to me making fun of you for thinking the NFL grants special favor to the Packers.

The Packers violated a rule. If they aren't made to release Rodgers, that is the very definition of preferential treatment.

FOCUS here, Frank.

This is the post I made fun of you for:

Frank Coztansa wrote:

It is a rule, but because its the Packers the NFL will allow them to do whatever they want.

In that post, you are implying that BECAUSE its the Packers and NO ONE ELSE, Rodgers is gonna stay on the team.

Do you honestly think the NFL would force teams like the Rams, Patriots, Steelers, or Falcons to release guys like Gurley, Brady, Brown, and Jones if the situation occurred there? The answer is of course not.

Unless someone wants to make a convincing case that Rodgers will be playing for the Browns next year, no I do not understand why this would be talked about. Slow news week, I guess.

Also given Goodell's history with Tom Brady, I am not sure he would let them get off with nothing.

The Bears once lost a free agent because Jerry Angelo didn't check a box when they sent it into the league.

Beardown wrote:

FavreFan wrote:

Beardown wrote:

It is the same thing when the Bears lost a player because Jerry Angelo didn't check a box.

Favrefan doesn't want to address that.

I agree. Let me be clear. I think the Browns should go to court to force the issue. A judge would rule in their favor.

I disagree that a judge would rule in their favor. I agree they would be dumb not to pursue this aggressively though. Worth a shot.

Frank Coztansa wrote:

Also given Goodell's history with Tom Brady, I am not sure he would let them get off with nothing.

And I am sure that he would not force the Patriots to release Brady :lol:

FavreFan wrote:

Beardown wrote:

FavreFan wrote:

Beardown wrote:

It is the same thing when the Bears lost a player because Jerry Angelo didn't check a box.

Favrefan doesn't want to address that.

I agree. Let me be clear. I think the Browns should go to court to force the issue. A judge would rule in their favor.

I disagree that a judge would rule in their favor. I agree they would be dumb not to pursue this aggressively though. Worth a shot.

Why do you not think a judge would rule in their favor? It's not even a complicated case. It's a rule in the NFL. Judge sees that, gives the judgement to the Browns and goes to lunch.

FavreFan wrote:

Frank Coztansa wrote:

Also given Goodell's history with Tom Brady, I am not sure he would let them get off with nothing.

And I am sure that he would not force the Patriots to release Brady :lol:

He might force them release Brady. I don't know for sure.

I'm sorry your team broke a rule and you can't seem to grasp that concept.

It should matter. And it does matter. If the NFL ignores this, then why don't they ignore other rules?

It is a non-story for you because its the Packers. This isn't 'Nam, there are rules here.

Does the rule actually state that players are not allowed to re-injure the same body part?

Frank Coztansa wrote:

It is a non-story for you because its the Packers. This isn't 'Nam, there are rules here.

As I said, it's a non-story because it involves one of the best and most marketable stars in the league. This would be a non-story if it was Todd Gurley too.

Author:	Beardown [ Wed Dec 27, 2017 3:44 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 12/27: Aaron Rodgers should be on the Cleveland Browns
FavreFan wrote: Boilermaker Rick wrote: FavreFan wrote: I don't know. I haven't looked into it much since it's obvious Rodgers isn't going anywhere. It's a huge story if the NFL is giving preferential treatment around a star player that broke a clear rule. I agree they aren't likely to force him to be released but you have to understand why this would be talked about. The NFL has ruled otherwise in other situations regarding improper transactions. Unless someone wants to make a convincing case that Rodgers will be playing for the Browns next year, no I do not understand why this would be talked about. Slow news week, I guess. The NFL won't make them release Rodgers. I'm simply saying if the Browns decided to sue, the judge would rule in their favor, forcing the NFL to make the Packers release him, and he would be on the Browns. Once again, if I'm the fucking Cleveland Browns, I'm gonna go ahead sue. Hell, the owner of the Browns would make tens of millions by this move. He could double his ticket prices with Aaron Rodgers.

Author:	Frank Coztansa [ Wed Dec 27, 2017 3:45 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 12/27: Aaron Rodgers should be on the Cleveland Browns
FavreFan wrote: Frank Coztansa wrote: Why? Why all of a sudden should the NFL chose what rules to enforce and not enforce? And I noticed you cherry picked and did not quote this statement; Frank Coztansa wrote: The catch rule(s) is/are dumb too, but that doesn't stop the NFL from enforcing them they way they are written in the rule book. I didn't quote that statement because it was irrelevent to me making fun of you for thinking the NFL grants special favor to the Packers. The Packers violated a rule. If they aren't made to release Rodgers, that is the very definition of preferential treatment.

Author:	Brick [ Wed Dec 27, 2017 3:48 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 12/27: Aaron Rodgers should be on the Cleveland Browns
FavreFan wrote: Boilermaker Rick wrote: FavreFan wrote: I don't know. I haven't looked into it much since it's obvious Rodgers isn't going anywhere. It's a huge story if the NFL is giving preferential treatment around a star player that broke a clear rule. I agree they aren't likely to force him to be released but you have to understand why this would be talked about. The NFL has ruled otherwise in other situations regarding improper transactions. Unless someone wants to make a convincing case that Rodgers will be playing for the Browns next year, no I do not understand why this would be talked about. Slow news week, I guess. When Green Bay got screwed on that call in Seattle, it was talked about a lot even though there is no chance the league was going to change the outcome of the game. It's the same thing.

Author:	FavreFan [ Wed Dec 27, 2017 3:49 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 12/27: Aaron Rodgers should be on the Cleveland Browns
Frank Coztansa wrote: FavreFan wrote: Frank Coztansa wrote: Why? Why all of a sudden should the NFL chose what rules to enforce and not enforce? And I noticed you cherry picked and did not quote this statement; Frank Coztansa wrote: The catch rule(s) is/are dumb too, but that doesn't stop the NFL from enforcing them they way they are written in the rule book. I didn't quote that statement because it was irrelevent to me making fun of you for thinking the NFL grants special favor to the Packers. The Packers violated a rule. If they aren't made to release Rodgers, that is the very definition of preferential treatment. FOCUS here, Frank. This is the post I made fun of you for: Frank Coztansa wrote: It is a rule, but because its the Packers the NFL will allow them to do whatever they want. In that post, you are implying that BECAUSE its the Packers and NO ONE ELSE, Rodgers is gonna stay on the team. Do you honestly think the NFL would force teams like the Rams, Patriots, Steelers, or Falcons to release guys like Gurley, Brady, Brown, and Jones if the situation occurred there? The answer is of course not.

Author:	FavreFan [ Wed Dec 27, 2017 3:51 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 12/27: Aaron Rodgers should be on the Cleveland Browns
Boilermaker Rick wrote: FavreFan wrote: Boilermaker Rick wrote: FavreFan wrote: I don't know. I haven't looked into it much since it's obvious Rodgers isn't going anywhere. It's a huge story if the NFL is giving preferential treatment around a star player that broke a clear rule. I agree they aren't likely to force him to be released but you have to understand why this would be talked about. The NFL has ruled otherwise in other situations regarding improper transactions. Unless someone wants to make a convincing case that Rodgers will be playing for the Browns next year, no I do not understand why this would be talked about. Slow news week, I guess. When Green Bay got screwed on that call in Seattle, it was talked about a lot even though there is no chance the league was going to change the outcome of the game. It's the same thing. It's not the same thing. In that analogy, Seattle wouldn't be forced to hand over Russell Wilson to the worst team in the league. Anyway, this doesn't seem like a big story. Can't even find it on ESPN's NFL page. http://www.espn.com/nfl/

Chicago Fanatics Message Board http://chicagofanatics.com/

12/27: Aaron Rodgers should be on the Cleveland Browns http://chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=110096	Page 2 of 5

Author:	Beardown [ Wed Dec 27, 2017 3:52 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 12/27: Aaron Rodgers should be on the Cleveland Browns
It is the same thing when the Bears lost a player because Jerry Angelo didn't check a box. Favrefan doesn't want to address that.

Author:	Tall Midget [ Wed Dec 27, 2017 3:54 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 12/27: Aaron Rodgers should be on the Cleveland Browns
FavreFan wrote: Boilermaker Rick wrote: FavreFan wrote: Boilermaker Rick wrote: FavreFan wrote: I don't know. I haven't looked into it much since it's obvious Rodgers isn't going anywhere. It's a huge story if the NFL is giving preferential treatment around a star player that broke a clear rule. I agree they aren't likely to force him to be released but you have to understand why this would be talked about. The NFL has ruled otherwise in other situations regarding improper transactions. Unless someone wants to make a convincing case that Rodgers will be playing for the Browns next year, no I do not understand why this would be talked about. Slow news week, I guess. When Green Bay got screwed on that call in Seattle, it was talked about a lot even though there is no chance the league was going to change the outcome of the game. It's the same thing. It's not the same thing. In that analogy, Seattle wouldn't be forced to hand over Russell Wilson to the worst team in the league. Anyway, this doesn't seem like a big story. Can't even find it on ESPN's NFL page. http://www.espn.com/nfl/ COVER UP!

Author:	FavreFan [ Wed Dec 27, 2017 3:54 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 12/27: Aaron Rodgers should be on the Cleveland Browns
Beardown wrote: It is the same thing when the Bears lost a player because Jerry Angelo didn't check a box. Favrefan doesn't want to address that. Let me be clear here. I think any star player on any team would get the "preferential treatment" of not being forced to be released. If it's just a guy nobody gives a shit about then I'm sure the rule would be upheld.

Author:	KDdidit [ Wed Dec 27, 2017 3:55 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 12/27: Aaron Rodgers should be on the Cleveland Browns
FavreFan wrote: Boilermaker Rick wrote: FavreFan wrote: Boilermaker Rick wrote: FavreFan wrote: I don't know. I haven't looked into it much since it's obvious Rodgers isn't going anywhere. It's a huge story if the NFL is giving preferential treatment around a star player that broke a clear rule. I agree they aren't likely to force him to be released but you have to understand why this would be talked about. The NFL has ruled otherwise in other situations regarding improper transactions. Unless someone wants to make a convincing case that Rodgers will be playing for the Browns next year, no I do not understand why this would be talked about. Slow news week, I guess. When Green Bay got screwed on that call in Seattle, it was talked about a lot even though there is no chance the league was going to change the outcome of the game. It's the same thing. It's not the same thing. In that analogy, Seattle wouldn't be forced to hand over Russell Wilson to the worst team in the league. Anyway, this doesn't seem like a big story. Can't even find it on ESPN's NFL page. http://www.espn.com/nfl/ It was on the Packers page a few days ago http://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/post ... fl-scandal

Author:	Brick [ Wed Dec 27, 2017 3:55 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 12/27: Aaron Rodgers should be on the Cleveland Browns
FavreFan wrote: Boilermaker Rick wrote: FavreFan wrote: Boilermaker Rick wrote: FavreFan wrote: I don't know. I haven't looked into it much since it's obvious Rodgers isn't going anywhere. It's a huge story if the NFL is giving preferential treatment around a star player that broke a clear rule. I agree they aren't likely to force him to be released but you have to understand why this would be talked about. The NFL has ruled otherwise in other situations regarding improper transactions. Unless someone wants to make a convincing case that Rodgers will be playing for the Browns next year, no I do not understand why this would be talked about. Slow news week, I guess. When Green Bay got screwed on that call in Seattle, it was talked about a lot even though there is no chance the league was going to change the outcome of the game. It's the same thing. It's not the same thing. In that analogy, Seattle wouldn't be forced to hand over Russell Wilson to the worst team in the league. Anyway, this doesn't seem like a big story. Can't even find it on ESPN's NFL page. http://www.espn.com/nfl/ For a guy who has complained previously about me being too literal, you certainly take the same liberties when discussing analogies. We all understand that the NFL is highly unlikely to follow through on this, and we understood the NFL is highly unlikely to ever change a game based on a rule violation in the game, but that doesn't mean it can't be talked about. ESPN posted the story three days ago so I'm not sure what you mean.

Author:	Beardown [ Wed Dec 27, 2017 3:56 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 12/27: Aaron Rodgers should be on the Cleveland Browns
FavreFan wrote: Beardown wrote: It is the same thing when the Bears lost a player because Jerry Angelo didn't check a box. Favrefan doesn't want to address that. Let me be clear here. I think any star player on any team would get the "preferential treatment" of not being forced to be released. If it's just a guy nobody gives a shit about then I'm sure the rule would be upheld. I agree. Let me be clear. I think the Browns should go to court to force the issue. A judge would rule in their favor.

Author:	FavreFan [ Wed Dec 27, 2017 3:56 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 12/27: Aaron Rodgers should be on the Cleveland Browns
Beardown wrote: FavreFan wrote: Beardown wrote: It is the same thing when the Bears lost a player because Jerry Angelo didn't check a box. Favrefan doesn't want to address that. Let me be clear here. I think any star player on any team would get the "preferential treatment" of not being forced to be released. If it's just a guy nobody gives a shit about then I'm sure the rule would be upheld. I agree. Let me be clear. I think the Browns should go to court to force the issue. A judge would rule in their favor. I disagree that a judge would rule in their favor. I agree they would be dumb not to pursue this aggressively though. Worth a shot.

Author:	FavreFan [ Wed Dec 27, 2017 3:57 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 12/27: Aaron Rodgers should be on the Cleveland Browns
Boilermaker Rick wrote: ESPN posted the story three days ago so I'm not sure what you mean. Click on the link. Hold Ctl + F. Type in Rodgers. Let me know the results.

Author:	Curious Hair [ Wed Dec 27, 2017 3:58 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 12/27: Aaron Rodgers should be on the Cleveland Browns
FavreFan wrote: Unless someone wants to make a convincing case that Rodgers will be playing for the Browns next year, no I do not understand why this would be talked about. Slow news week, I guess. Think. About. Lawyers.

Page 2 of 5	All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	FavreFan [ Wed Dec 27, 2017 3:59 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 12/27: Aaron Rodgers should be on the Cleveland Browns
Frank Coztansa wrote: Also given Goodell's history with Tom Brady, I am not sure he would let them get off with nothing. And I am sure that he would not force the Patriots to release Brady

Author:	Curious Hair [ Wed Dec 27, 2017 4:00 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 12/27: Aaron Rodgers should be on the Cleveland Browns
Beardown wrote: The Bears once lost a free agent because Jerry Angelo didn't check a box when they sent it into the league. In the area under "do not write under this space," he wrote, "okay."

Author:	Beardown [ Wed Dec 27, 2017 4:01 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 12/27: Aaron Rodgers should be on the Cleveland Browns
FavreFan wrote: Beardown wrote: FavreFan wrote: Beardown wrote: It is the same thing when the Bears lost a player because Jerry Angelo didn't check a box. Favrefan doesn't want to address that. Let me be clear here. I think any star player on any team would get the "preferential treatment" of not being forced to be released. If it's just a guy nobody gives a shit about then I'm sure the rule would be upheld. I agree. Let me be clear. I think the Browns should go to court to force the issue. A judge would rule in their favor. I disagree that a judge would rule in their favor. I agree they would be dumb not to pursue this aggressively though. Worth a shot. Why do you not think a judge would rule in their favor? It's not even a complicated case. It's a rule in the NFL. Judge sees that, gives the judgement to the Browns and goes to lunch.

Author:	Frank Coztansa [ Wed Dec 27, 2017 4:01 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 12/27: Aaron Rodgers should be on the Cleveland Browns
FavreFan wrote: Frank Coztansa wrote: Also given Goodell's history with Tom Brady, I am not sure he would let them get off with nothing. And I am sure that he would not force the Patriots to release Brady He might force them release Brady. I don't know for sure. But I think that is a moot point because I am sure that Belichick would not be dumb enough to have this even be a story.

Author:	FavreFan [ Wed Dec 27, 2017 4:03 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 12/27: Aaron Rodgers should be on the Cleveland Browns
Beardown wrote: FavreFan wrote: Beardown wrote: FavreFan wrote: Beardown wrote: It is the same thing when the Bears lost a player because Jerry Angelo didn't check a box. Favrefan doesn't want to address that. Let me be clear here. I think any star player on any team would get the "preferential treatment" of not being forced to be released. If it's just a guy nobody gives a shit about then I'm sure the rule would be upheld. I agree. Let me be clear. I think the Browns should go to court to force the issue. A judge would rule in their favor. I disagree that a judge would rule in their favor. I agree they would be dumb not to pursue this aggressively though. Worth a shot. Why do you not think a judge would rule in their favor? It's not even a complicated case. It's a rule in the NFL. Judge sees that, gives the judgement to the Browns and goes to lunch. Packers lawyers would argue they simply fucked up which injury it was, and that it was a hamstring or some shit all along. Or something else. I'm not a lawyer, and either are you, so we don't really have the slightest idea how it would actually play out. I just don't see any scenario in which Rodgers plays for the Browns next year. Cuz I have common sense.

Author:	FavreFan [ Wed Dec 27, 2017 4:05 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 12/27: Aaron Rodgers should be on the Cleveland Browns
Frank Coztansa wrote: I'm sorry your team broke a rule and you can't seem to grasp that concept. Grasp? You're struggling with comprehension in this thread. I never denied they broke a rule. I'm saying I don't give a shit because it doesn't matter.

Author:	FavreFan [ Wed Dec 27, 2017 4:10 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 12/27: Aaron Rodgers should be on the Cleveland Browns
Frank Coztansa wrote: It should matter. And it does matter. If the NFL ignores this, then why don't they ignore other rules? I don't know. I'll let you cry about that stuff. It was clear to most of us this was a non-story when it came out a few days ago.

Author:	FavreFan [ Wed Dec 27, 2017 4:12 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 12/27: Aaron Rodgers should be on the Cleveland Browns
Frank Coztansa wrote: It is a non-story for you because its the Packers. This isn't 'Nam, there are rules here. As I said, it's a non-story because it involves one of the best and most marketable stars in the league. This would be a non-story if it was Todd Gurley too.

Author:	Jaw Breaker [ Wed Dec 27, 2017 4:15 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 12/27: Aaron Rodgers should be on the Cleveland Browns
Why the hell would they have to make up a "new" injury to a different body part? Isn't it obvious that he could have re-injured the same thing that put him on IR the first time? Why is that so hard to understand? Does the rule actually state that players are not allowed to re-injure the same body part?

Author:	FavreFan [ Wed Dec 27, 2017 4:16 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 12/27: Aaron Rodgers should be on the Cleveland Browns
Jaw Breaker wrote: Does the rule actually state that players are not allowed to re-injure the same body part?

Author:	Seacrest [ Wed Dec 27, 2017 4:17 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 12/27: Aaron Rodgers should be on the Cleveland Browns
FavreFan wrote: Frank Coztansa wrote: It is a non-story for you because its the Packers. This isn't 'Nam, there are rules here. As I said, it's a non-story because it involves one of the best and most marketable stars in the league. This would be a non-story if it was Todd Gurley too. So, if they had to release him, couldn't they just re-sign right away?