Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

No long-term offer yet for Matt Moore


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#31 Frash Brastard

Frash Brastard

    The Frashmaker

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,041 posts

Posted 22 February 2010 - 11:20 PM

I would be stunned if anyone in the NFL would give a 2nd round pick for Matt Moore.


Cleveland
Jacksonville
Oakland
Washington
The Entire NFC West

those are at least 8 teams that could be in the market for a QB, and a number of them are probably desperate at finding a competent QB to be their ticket to contendership.

Lets compare the prospect of Matt Moore to another team to any first round college prospect. Okay, if the panthers put the first round tender on him, than the cost of acquiring him will only be equal to what you'd have to give up for a rookie that has proven nothing at the pro level, and as far as age is concerned, he'll only have just turned 26 by the time the season starts. Moore never played terrible in a game this last season, and that's with a very weak passing offense. Who did he have that was really a threat besides Smith? A geriatric 2nd option, not one established receiving TE, and Dwayne Jarrett, who only put out a decent effort in the last game of the entire season after Smith broke his arm.

Moore is more of an asset than anybody realizes. If the Panthers FO lets someone else steal him right out of their hands, they deserve all the lack of success that is waiting for them in 2010, and meanwhile, all the loyal fans will have to suffer for yet another failed seasonal campaign where Hunter Cantwell starts week 5 and completes 20% of his passes after Jake Delhomme throws 12 interceptions by the time a defensive end breathes on him and ruptures his trachea, ending his season, and then we'll have the same stupid people on here rationalizing our FO's neglect by bringing up all the good moves they made from 8 years ago that haven't been relevant for a long time.

please, FO, lets not fug up the one good opportunity we've been given at having good QB play for years to come

Edited by Raging Bull, 22 February 2010 - 11:22 PM.


#32 Udogg

Udogg

    Cardiac Victim since 95

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,077 posts

Posted 23 February 2010 - 12:36 AM

Those are all teams with fairly high draft picks. Most people are going to place their hopes on unproven college QB. If Moore performs this year especially early, their will be a deal in place before the season is up. Sort of like Dallas and Romo. If he stinks then we don't lose a ton of money on "another" QB. Put a first round tender on him to be safe and to give him the warm fuzzy going into the season, let him know if he performs at high level, then contract awaits. That's the smart thing to do.

#33 Frash Brastard

Frash Brastard

    The Frashmaker

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,041 posts

Posted 23 February 2010 - 12:49 AM

Those are all teams with fairly high draft picks. Most people are going to place their hopes on unproven college QB. If Moore performs this year especially early, their will be a deal in place before the season is up. Sort of like Dallas and Romo. If he stinks then we don't lose a ton of money on "another" QB. Put a first round tender on him to be safe and to give him the warm fuzzy going into the season, let him know if he performs at high level, then contract awaits. That's the smart thing to do.


well the problem there would be that he'd require a heftier salary.

Not to mention at least half those teams have been burned placing their hopes on an unproven college QB recently. The fact that they found no success in that risk suggests they might be a bit more conservative in the future.

#34 DaveThePanther2008

DaveThePanther2008

    Superior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,808 posts
  • LocationMelfa

Posted 23 February 2010 - 01:11 AM

There is good and evil in putting a tender on him.

The good is we will be able to match what another team offers him. There by not spending more than we have to keep him.

However, the bad could be some team puts a poison pill into their offer. Kind of like Minnesota did when they too the Offensive linemen from Seattle a couple of years ago. (I cannot recall the linemen name right off hand) Something like he has to be the highest paid QB on the roster which would have course force our hand with Jake.

I do think it is a mistake not to tie him up before the Free Agency starts. I would be aweful if Washington steals him and gives us their #4 pick in the draft and we take Bradford or Clausen and that choice becomes a dud. I think this team can thrive with Matt Moore. If we take Clausen or Bradford we may lose our window to win the Super Bowl. I personally believe we are right at the doorstep with the right QB. I don't think a Rookie will lead us to the promiseland.

Go Panthers

#35 Udogg

Udogg

    Cardiac Victim since 95

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,077 posts

Posted 23 February 2010 - 01:27 AM

With JP off the books. Don't know how much more of a poison pill you can put in the contract :)

#36 CanadianCat

CanadianCat

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 707 posts

Posted 23 February 2010 - 09:36 AM

I would be stunned if anyone in the NFL would give a 2nd round pick for Matt Moore.


agreed. If teams really valued QBs with NFL experience over rookies, then Cambell would be getting all the attention. That is not happeneing. Player movement is pretty rare anyway in the NFL most team would rather draft players they scouted then hope that a guy that had A FEW GOOD GAMES can fit their system.

I love Moore but guys seriously settle down, IMO he is still unproven. You need at least a season to know exactly what you have.

#37 Cyclonus

Cyclonus

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,765 posts

Posted 23 February 2010 - 09:47 AM

There is good and evil in putting a tender on him.

The good is we will be able to match what another team offers him. There by not spending more than we have to keep him.

However, the bad could be some team puts a poison pill into their offer. Kind of like Minnesota did when they too the Offensive linemen from Seattle a couple of years ago. (I cannot recall the linemen name right off hand) Something like he has to be the highest paid QB on the roster which would have course force our hand with Jake.

I do think it is a mistake not to tie him up before the Free Agency starts. I would be aweful if Washington steals him and gives us their #4 pick in the draft and we take Bradford or Clausen and that choice becomes a dud. I think this team can thrive with Matt Moore. If we take Clausen or Bradford we may lose our window to win the Super Bowl. I personally believe we are right at the doorstep with the right QB. I don't think a Rookie will lead us to the promiseland.

Go Panthers


That was Steve Hutchinson. He was a RFA in Seattle. Minnesota signed him to an offer sheet and added a clause that stated if he played two or three games in the state of Washington he would get millions in bonus money. It was too much for Seattle to swallow so he ended up in Minnesota.

#38 Cyclonus

Cyclonus

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,765 posts

Posted 23 February 2010 - 09:49 AM

agreed. If teams really valued QBs with NFL experience over rookies, then Cambell would be getting all the attention. That is not happeneing. Player movement is pretty rare anyway in the NFL most team would rather draft players they scouted then hope that a guy that had A FEW GOOD GAMES can fit their system.

I love Moore but guys seriously settle down, IMO he is still unproven. You need at least a season to know exactly what you have.


Not at the QB position. First round QBs get tens of millions in guaranteed money. At the very least we know Moore can play in the NFL. The Panthers would be idiotic to let him get away.

#39 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,072 posts
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon

Posted 23 February 2010 - 09:49 AM

Locking Moore up to a big dollar contract after only a handful of games is a VERY risky move.

The Browns did exactly this with Anderson....and have regretted it ever since.

Give him the 1st round tender and evaluate him during next season. If he produces, then lock him in.

#40 Sultan33g

Sultan33g

    I have a boner.

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,586 posts

Posted 23 February 2010 - 09:50 AM

keep him as a rfa. tender him the highest offer. then when he proves his worth we can resign him. shiit if someone gave us a 1st round pick for him id take it.

#41 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,072 posts
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon

Posted 23 February 2010 - 09:55 AM

That was Steve Hutchinson. He was a RFA in Seattle. Minnesota signed him to an offer sheet and added a clause that stated if he played two or three games in the state of Washington he would get millions in bonus money. It was too much for Seattle to swallow so he ended up in Minnesota.


Where in the world did you get your info on the poison pill?

There were two poison pills in Hutchinson's contract...but neither had anything do do with the number of games played in the state of Washington.

The poison pills were:

1. He was to be paid $13 million the first year

2. He had to be the highest paid lineman on the team. Which was impossible because Walter Jones was already making more money than the Vikings offered Hutchinson.

#42 Cyclonus

Cyclonus

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,765 posts

Posted 23 February 2010 - 10:03 AM

Where in the world did you get your info on the poison pill?

There were two poison pills in Hutchinson's contract...but neither had anything do do with the number of games played in the state of Washington.

The poison pills were:

1. He was to be paid $13 million the first year

2. He had to be the highest paid lineman on the team. Which was impossible because Walter Jones was already making more money than the Vikings offered Hutchinson.


You're right. I got it backwards. I was thinking of Nate Burlesons deal. The Seahawks signed Burleson from Minnesota and put a poison pill in his contract as retaliation.

"The contract given to Burleson had two vengeful poison pill clauses in response to the contract offered to Hutchinson. Firstly, it stipulated that if Burleson were to play five or more games in the state of Minnesota during any single season over the life of the contract, the entire $49 million would become guaranteed"

#43 CanadianCat

CanadianCat

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 707 posts

Posted 23 February 2010 - 10:56 AM

Not at the QB position. First round QBs get tens of millions in guaranteed money. At the very least we know Moore can play in the NFL. The Panthers would be idiotic to let him get away.


no i agree - we cannot let him walk but we cannot give him a big or long term deal

#44 Sloth

Sloth

    idk

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,559 posts

Posted 23 February 2010 - 11:21 AM

1. If Moore had started the season in place of Picks Magee we'd have made the playoffs.

2. "Wait till teams have film on him" hasn't flown since his second start this season.

3. A team has a young QB who has won consistently against teams fighting for a playoff spot/higher seed and has never flat out lost a game on his own at this point. He has also racked up some pretty eye-popping stats during his limited chances. We NEED a QB. How many trade threads pop up on the huddle? (Hint: search for Kolb, Kevin)

4. We need to poo or get off the pot in regards to the QB position. Moore either is or isn't the answer. I think Fiz said it first, but we need to either move forward with Moore or get rid of him and upgrade. No reason to draft someone to groom and sit him behind a 25 year old promising QB who has limited opportunities at this point.

5. The longer we wait to offer a contract, the more he's going to cost us.

6. Delhomme is done. Get over it.

#45 CanadianCat

CanadianCat

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 707 posts

Posted 23 February 2010 - 11:56 AM

A couple of things

1 - thats speculation
4 - agreed, we should not draft a QB with our #2
5 - yes it will cost us know but i would rather pay more for a sure thing then slightly less to a guy with very few games played
6 - yes its time to move on from delhomme, but he will still be here next year

1. If Moore had started the season in place of Picks Magee we'd have made the playoffs.

4. We need to poo or get off the pot in regards to the QB position. Moore either is or isn't the answer. I think Fiz said it first, but we need to either move forward with Moore or get rid of him and upgrade. No reason to draft someone to groom and sit him behind a 25 year old promising QB who has limited opportunities at this point.

5. The longer we wait to offer a contract, the more he's going to cost us.

6. Delhomme is done. Get over it.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.