Brandin Cooks on playing with Josh Allen: "Can't pass up that opportunity"

Receiver Brandin Cooks was willing to give up $2.11 million in current and future guaranteed pay for a shot at free agency. One day after he cleared waivers, Cooks made a beeline for Buffalo and quarterback Josh Allen.

"I mean . . . the opportunity to be able to play with Josh is — I mean, you can’t pass up that opportunity," Cooks told reporters on Wednesday. "He's a special player. All you do is hear about this organization from afar being a special place, and how they treat players. It's all about ball. So I'm thankful to be here, for sure."

Other questions remain unanswered. Mainly because they haven't been asked.

Did Cooks know the Bills would sign him when he gave up $2.11 million from the Saints? Did his agent negotiate directly with the Bills before he was released by the Saints?

And then there's the question that the media generally and the league office specifically won't address. What about the rule that seems to prevent the Saints from releasing you after the Saints changed your contract to deter another team claiming it on waivers?

"The Saints organization, absolutely unbelievable in this process," Cooks said in response to a very general question about the contract revision and re-vision that preceded his release. "You know, looking out for me. Trying to help me be able to make that decision. And so at the end of the day, it's part of it, right? There's rules, and we didn't know."

Yes, there are rules. One rule (the rule not allowing a team to change a contract to deter a waivers claim) was followed, wiping out the first revision that would have increased his 2026 guarantee from $1.69 million to $5.94 million. Another rule (the rule that prohibits the player from being waived after an attempt to deter a waivers claim) was not.

The NFL has not responded to four separate requests for explanation and clarification. Here's why, we believe.

The rules in question aren't part of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. To the extent that any of those rules limit player movement, those rules potentially violate the CBA. If the league had blocked the Saints from waiving Cooks, the NFL may have been inviting another collusion case.

At one level, it makes sense for the league to not give the NFL Players Association a low-hanging collusion claim. At another level, the outcome has prompted multiple teams to ask a very simple question: If we're not going to follow the rules we have, why even have them?