Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Hurney on WFNZ @ 4:00 today


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
168 replies to this topic

#161 mountainpantherfan

mountainpantherfan

    In Honor of Sam Mills

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,907
  • Reputation: 5
HUDDLER

Posted 26 March 2010 - 03:15 PM

if we gave up a 2nd for Brandon Marshall instead of drafting a questionable WR this year in the draft.. I would not be mad at all. Matter of fact, it seems to make a lot more football and business sense..

However, he also said the Panthers have not spoken at all with the Bronco's about anything.. we can take it for what it's worth or figure it's a smoke screen. In this case, I'd have to think maybe they haven't spoken with the Bronc's at all.. judging by how adamant he was...


I don't doubt him that they haven't contacted the Broncos. It would be stupid on their part if they did already. That's my point. He never said that Marshall could not become an option. If he isn't traded by a week before the draft or even after the draft, then I could see the Panthers exploring a move then.

As for the money part, based on what we have seen the Panthers don't have a problem signing young players, which Marshall is, to larger contracts. It's the older players with big contracts they are staying away from or cutting.

I'm not saying it's going to happen just that Hurney is a GM and when you read between the lines he never really said that Marshall never could become an option.

#162 bleys

bleys

    Simple and Plain

  • Joined: 28-November 08
  • posts: 15,597
  • Reputation: 1,635
SUPPORTER

Posted 26 March 2010 - 03:16 PM

I see what you mean.. we'll see.

#163 OneBadassCat

OneBadassCat

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,082
  • Reputation: 0
HUDDLER

Posted 26 March 2010 - 05:13 PM

We would be unstoppable with Brandon Marshall. But he would need a head adjustment to play for us.

#164 C47

C47

    89...Panther for Life...

  • Joined: 29-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 12,445
  • Reputation: 1,075
HUDDLER

Posted 26 March 2010 - 06:03 PM

If Hurney expected a live show on WFNZ to be a remotely positive thing, I'd say he's totally clueless.

Every year the Panther's have had a losing season (every other year that is), there has been an excuse. Smitty got hurt, Jake had surgery, RBs got hurt....

Last year we ended up at .500 (would have been 7-9 had the Saints not rested their starters on week 17). What was the excuse? There was none.

And when you don't have an excuse, people will find reasons for behavior they don't like on their own.

Arguably it all started in the off-season. Ridiculous contract to Jake and Peppers. ZERO free agency moves worthy of note. Stupid draft day decisions (trading 1st rounds for 2nds).
The when the season got going, we had Lackluster D play, and the softness on Delhomme's breakdown... these are all coaching/front office decisions.... and we can squarely put the outcome of 2009 at Hurney and Fox's feet.

All the while they gave us lip service that "it is what it is".

So if he's getting beat up... good. He needs to hear what people are thinking. Because his and Fox's PR programming isn't working. He needs to learn to be straight up with us.


Wow that is perhaps the most asinine statement I have read on here in awhile. First of all you cant play the what if card. Guess what when anyone looks at the scores for the 2009 season the Panthers will have a W beside their name for week 17, who knows how the game would have turned out. While we are playing the what if game, what if Drew Brees did start that game and Peppers or Brown sacked him and snapped his leg like a twig......ZOMGZ the Saints wouldn't have won the SB then, but guess what they did. As for saying we don't have an excuse are you blind and deaf or were you just living under a rock for the first 12 games of the season. I would say this guy named Delhomme turning the ball over every 17 pass attempts is a pretty big reason why we finished .500.

Edited by C42[)14C C47, 26 March 2010 - 06:12 PM.


#165 blackcatgrowl

blackcatgrowl

    Trolls live here

  • Joined: 06-January 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 6,944
  • Reputation: 3
HUDDLER

Posted 26 March 2010 - 06:25 PM

As for saying we don't have an excuse are you blind and deaf or were you just living under a rock for the first 12 games of the season. I would say this guy named Delhomme turning the ball over every 17 pass attempts is a pretty big reason why we finished .500.


Hey tool... did you read the rest of my post?

The when the season got going, we had Lackluster D play, and the softness on Delhomme's breakdown... these are all coaching/front office decisions....


Game 7. Buffalo Bills. We're 2-3, and really need a win to keep in the mix. Jake coughs up Three Interceptions.

Afterwards we were told "It is what it is". And Foxy says Jake will start "Because I think he gives us the best chance to win".

No... at that point... no... there was no god damn excuse for keeping 17 the starter for FIVE more games.

Jake went on to throw 3TDs and 4 INT and we dropped to 4-7, seriously damaging our play-off contention.

Now... I'm not playing "what ifs" here. Delhomme did NOT give us the best chance to win. He wasn't hurt. He just simply lost his edge. The COACHES and Front office should have pulled him after Buffalo, but they were more concerned about their buddy Jake, than winning.

#166 C47

C47

    89...Panther for Life...

  • Joined: 29-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 12,445
  • Reputation: 1,075
HUDDLER

Posted 26 March 2010 - 07:03 PM

Your words were there was no excuse they could use for being .500. Saying that they went .500 because of the FO decision to keep Jake the starter is just that, an excuse. Once again, most asinine thing I have read on here in awhile.

#167 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • Joined: 04-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,871
  • Reputation: 386
HUDDLER

Posted 27 March 2010 - 01:17 AM

hurney ur a freakin idiot you should have gotten Larry Fitzgerald and all our problems would be solved

YOURE SUCH AN IDIOT HURNEY OMGGGGGGGGgggggggggg

I love how people criticize him when he's arguably one of the best drafters in the league.

The Delhomme deal was dumb, but it was done because Peppers deal tied up the cap space, and we would have been screwed cap-wise had we needed to sign new players(which we definitely ended up doing)


This.... strange how the facts are lost when people are bent on making a point

#168 blackcatgrowl

blackcatgrowl

    Trolls live here

  • Joined: 06-January 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 6,944
  • Reputation: 3
HUDDLER

Posted 28 March 2010 - 10:29 AM

Your words were there was no excuse they could use for being .500. Saying that they went .500 because of the FO decision to keep Jake the starter is just that, an excuse. Once again, most asinine thing I have read on here in awhile.


Good lord...

I was talking about excuses the FO have had in the past to not take the blame for bad seasons.

They have to take the blame now. Re-read my post, seriously...

#169 cookinbrak

cookinbrak

    tastes like chicken...

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,647
  • Reputation: 769
HUDDLER

Posted 28 March 2010 - 10:47 AM

hurney ur a freakin idiot you should have gotten Larry Fitzgerald and all our problems would be solved

YOURE SUCH AN IDIOT HURNEY OMGGGGGGGGgggggggggg

I love how people criticize him when he's arguably one of the best drafters in the league.

The Delhomme deal was dumb, but it was done because Peppers deal tied up the cap space, and we would have been screwed cap-wise had we needed to sign new players(which we definitely ended up doing)


Actually, most of the NFL was wondering how they could blindly give Jake that much money without putting an escape clause in the contract. "Unless compensated by another team" was all that needed to be added.