Cincinnati Bengals: Waive WR Armon Binns, Receiver Questions Remain
Jamie Sabau/Getty Images
Cook began the season as a starter before sustaining an ankle injury during the preseason. He was placed on the injured reserve on September 4th and returned to practice with the Bengals last week.
Armon Binns caught 18 balls for 210 yards this season but hasn't seen the field since Week 6 against the Browns. He had been inactive for the three of the last four games for Cincinnati.
Binns held a special place in the heart of Bengals fans because before his career with the Bengals began, he was a standout WR at the University of Cincinnati.
I remember when I first saw Binns play. He was playing at UC and I was playing receiver at Dartmouth. I was friends with one of the Bearcat quarterbacks so, in the off-season, he would invite me to come run routes with them at Nippert Stadium after their workouts.
From the beginning, Binns was the best receiver on the field and Mardy Gilyard and Marcus Barnett had great seasons for the Bearcats those years.
Binns' release eliminates some of the young depth that the Bengals were looking forward to heading into the final stretch of the season. After rookie Mohamed Sanu went out with an injury two weeks ago, the conversation amongst the Who Dey nation has been about who will step up next.
Murmurs of Marvin Jones have been reported. Some say Brandon Tate will discover his role and complement A.J. Green well. Andrew Hawkins just returned from injury. And Ryan Whalen is a guy who has yet to step up, but he showed at Stanford that he has big play ability.
The carousel continues for receivers coach James Urban. The good news is that each time he has needed someone new to step up, someone has stepped up. No one necessarily needs to step up in this case since Binns had not played in six weeks. However, the room for error is less. The cushion has tightened. Can Andy Dalton lead this young receiving corp and handle the pressure?
Only time will tell.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?