Seems counter productive to do so.  As an example I don't think we are simply going to release Billings because he opted out. Now if Billings spent the last year heading down to the local Waffle House every morning to scarf down a couple of waffles with extra maple syrup to start his day and he now weighs 370 lbs, sure, we will probably cut him.

@barry said:

Sounds to me that a media guy is trying to work an angle to get himself noticed.

Detective Columbo doesn't like coincidences.  Those three, and only those three, and all three at the same time.  Columbo would say that a message is being sent to Raider players and potential future Raider players.

@the-gipper said:

The article seems to imply that it was no coincidence.  Though maybe it could vary from team to team.    I just wonder if, when a team has to decide to make cap cuts, how do they decide?  If they have to cut maybe 3 guys, and they have  6 candidates of seemingly equal value,  maybe the opt out thing is what tipped the scale. 

Did you see these guys' bio in the article? 

One was a 5th round pick in 2017, never spent more than one season with a team, and the Raiders were his 4th team in 3 years. Another was undrafted in 2017 and was on the Lions, Dolphins and 49ers before the Raiders. He has played 13 games in his career. And the 3rd never appeared in an NFL game. He had spent time with the Colts and Packers before signing with the Raiders.

Not your gold standard players. Hell, not even a copper standard. Sounds to me that a media guy is trying to work an angle to get himself noticed.

...I'm sure that as the season wore on the vast majority of them wished they hadn't.  The NFL did a remarkably good job with COVID.  Even though they made us lose to the Jets.

They DO seem like bottom of the roster type guys.  Some guys in their situation took the opt out just to get some money for the season.  They might have gotten cut and got nothing more.

I thought, however, that there was a stipulation that opt outs had to be invited back to camp the following year.  Did anyone else understand it that way?

@unsympathetic said:

They're backups who were going to be cap casualties anyway.. Raiders have negative space at present.  But it does make for headline-clicking fun!

The trend is "Many vets both starters and backups alike who weren't expecting to get cut are going to be as the reality of the cap drop hits"

My cup of coffee [Because that's more than $.02!] says that the opt-out status plays no role... For example Billings will start for us next season at DI.

The article seems to imply that it was no coincidence.  Though maybe it could vary from team to team.    I just wonder if, when a team has to decide to make cap cuts, how do they decide?  If they have to cut maybe 3 guys, and they have  6 candidates of seemingly equal value,  maybe the opt out thing is what tipped the scale. 

The trend is "Many vets both starters and backups alike who weren't expecting to get cut are going to be as the reality of the cap drop hits"

My cup of coffee [Because that's more than $.02!] says that the opt-out status plays no role... For example Billings will start for us next season at DI.