Originally Posted by KRS1
Don't think of this as a Pinnock vs. Neal or Neal has lost a step or anything like that. The issue is that Norv Turner's offense doesn't feature a fullback. Lo Neal makes too much money and is still too good of a player to sit on the bench. It benefits both parties if he was on a different team. Expect to see more single back sets any more use of a hybrid h-back type.
I think you're correct, but I don't think its a salary move. The UT reported that Neal asked to be cut after hearing he would have a limited role with the offense evolving. He would have been kept around if he could deal with a very limited amount of PT. I think the offensive change comes down to us just having too many weapons in the passing game and needing to get them onto the field.