Ben Obomanu Reportedly Released by Seattle Seahawks
The Seattle Seahawks have reportedly parted ways with wide receiver Ben Obomanu.
According to Aaron Wilson of The Baltimore Sun, the organization decided to cut ties with the 29-year-old on Sunday morning.
Seahawks cut Ben Obomanu— Aaron Wilson (@RavensInsider) March 17, 2013
This wasn’t an unforeseen move, as Obomanu took to his Twitter account on Friday to thank the Seattle fans for the seven years he spent playing for the Seahawks after being taken in the seventh round of the 2006 draft out of Auburn.
During his tenure with the franchise, the veteran appeared in 66 games, catching 87 passes for 1,209 yards and seven touchdowns. His best season arguably came back in 2010, when he caught 30 balls for 494 yards and four touchdowns.
With Obomanu set to earn $2.3 million for the upcoming 2013 campaign, it’s not surprising to see his time in Seattle come to an end. He participated in just eight games last year, recording a measly four catches for 58 yards and was placed on injured reserve due to a wrist injury suffered in late October.
After the Seahawks acquired Percy Harvin last week, Obomanu looked to be behind the former Minnesota Vikings playmaker, Sidney Rice, Golden Tate and Doug Baldwin on the depth chart—leaving him little, if any, chance to actually see the field.
What do you think about this move?
According to Eric Williams of The News Tribune, the franchise will be saving $2.5 million against the cap by making this move, a no-brainer considering the circumstances.
This is the second cut that Harvin’s acquisition has influenced, as return specialist Leon Washington was recently shown the door and signed a new deal with the New England Patriots.
While Obomanu’s absence doesn’t amount to much on paper, he has been a long-term presence in the Seattle locker room and the release could have some impact on team chemistry. It’ll be an interesting situation to monitor as the 2013 NFL season draws nearer.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?