Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Cut Hackett


This topic has been archived.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

#16 pantherj

pantherj

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,899 posts

Posted 05 February 2009 - 01:50 PM

After the way Jake played against Arizona, I'm not looking to bring in more WRs. If anything, improve our defense and find a way to pay less for any WR not named Steve Smith.

#17 PowerlessDan

PowerlessDan

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 863 posts

Posted 05 February 2009 - 02:01 PM

The Panthers will not cut Hackett. The reasons are obvious. First, he's cheap. Zero reason to cut him, specially considering he is a good receiver.

Not saying the Panthers won't bring in more competition, but they won't cut Hackett just to bring in someone else.


I could see them promoting Jarrett and cutting Hackett though. If nothing else to free up a roster spot.

#18 top dawg

top dawg

    The Creative Cat

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,575 posts

Posted 05 February 2009 - 02:21 PM

I hear what some of you are saying, but there is a belief among some that the receivers that we brought in to take the pressure away from Smitty have not worked out(no disrespect to Moose).
Personally, I don't know whether to blame it on the receivers, respect for their actual and/or perceived skills by the opposition, Jake's seeming reluctance to throw to anybody but Smitty and Moose, or uninspired and ineefective playcalling. Could be all of the above. Anyway, Hackett is a good receiver at times, but his production is inconsistent for whatever reasons (including injury).
Washington's stats are more consistent, and he appears to be more of threat to take it to the house.

The issue of consistency, alone, may warrant the we give him more than just a casual look. Moreover, he may just be a more legitimate threat in reality and in the eyes of the opposition, than Hackett will ever be. Notwithstanding needs on the defense, we could probably fit Washington in the budget if we get a real opportunity to sign him. An upgrade at WR that does not cost much, and that could yield marked improvements, is never a bad thing. Hackett would just have to go.

#19 CharlotteBeer.com

CharlotteBeer.com

    Resident Beer Nerd

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,700 posts

Posted 05 February 2009 - 02:52 PM

How do you know that? Has he ever been healthy?


He’s been healthy in the six games he’s played for Carolina. In those six games, he caught just about everything thrown his way. The same is true of Jarrett.

Their unsubstantial numbers last season are a result of how they are used in the offense, not their inability to catch the ball. How many times can you recall Colbert or Carter dropping a well thrown ball? It happened all the time.

Jarrett and Hackett are both better receivers than the two C’s. They just figured less prominently in our offense last year because we had one of the league’s best running games.

I understand why you would be leery to keep Hackett on given his past injuries with the Seahawks and with us. But ask yourself how often we really targeted or went to our third receiver—whether it be Jarrett or Hackett—and then ask yourself if we failed to use our third receiver based on talent.

We have talented wide receivers. As I said, both Jarrett and Hackett caught almost everything thrown their way this year. There is no need to bring in any receiver, whether it be through the draft or free agency.

I echo the other posters when I say that we need to spend on defense, and for the most part defense alone.

#20 CharlotteBeer.com

CharlotteBeer.com

    Resident Beer Nerd

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,700 posts

Posted 05 February 2009 - 02:58 PM

I hear what some of you are saying, but there is a belief among some that the receivers that we brought in to take the pressure away from Smitty have not worked out(no disrespect to Moose).


I don’t see how you could think that, seeing as how Moose had almost a 1,000-yard season. While it’s true that no other than Smith and Muhammad put up substantial numbers, that is because we did not target the other receivers. It’s important to spread the ball around and I hope we can improve on that as well, but you don’t need to as much with the running game we have.

#21 rippadonn

rippadonn

    Since 2006

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,917 posts

Posted 05 February 2009 - 04:17 PM

With his potential for injury Hackett will only be a third receiver. I too had high hopes but they were dashed away with the different injuries he's had since being a Panther for one year. He's good when he's on the field.

#22 Mjsilfies

Mjsilfies

    Junior Member

  • NEWB
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts

Posted 06 February 2009 - 12:18 AM

http://www.walterfoo...gents2009WR.php

he is number 4 on the list.

#23 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,963 posts

Posted 06 February 2009 - 09:57 AM

Do me a favor. Before anyone says things like cut Hackett and get such and such, do your homework. Put down some numbers to show how much we would save in salary or lose in dead cap space if we cut Hackett for example. And if we sign such and such, what are they currently making or what would it cost for them if we picked them up in free agency.

Otherwise it is like Madden. Unrealistic suggestions without consideration of the facts, cap, salary requirements, etc. In other words, a waste of space.

#24 Zaximus

Zaximus

    I'm Brett Jensen

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,056 posts

Posted 06 February 2009 - 10:43 AM

I think he's pretty cheap. We didn't pay much knowing his problems, but thought he was worth the gamble.

#25 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,963 posts

Posted 06 February 2009 - 11:14 AM

For example he was signed for 3.5 million for 2 years. I couldn't find terms so I am going off what I rememebr which could be wrong. But if his signing bonus was 1.5 and his salary was 1 million each year, if we cut him now we would save the 1 million dollar salary and be on the hook for half the 1.5 bonuis or 750,000 so our net savings would be 250,000. If his bonus was 1 million though and his salary was 500,000 in 2008 and 2 million in 2009, then if we cut him we might only be on the hook for 500,000 and would save 2 million by cutting him netting a savings of 1.5 million. In either case the savings won't be that drastic but might be necessary.

Edited by panthers55, 06 February 2009 - 11:49 AM.


#26 pantherclaw

pantherclaw

    Wise Ass

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,761 posts

Posted 06 February 2009 - 11:29 AM

Doesn't say his signing bonus, but you were right on the 3.5 million for 2 years.
http://sports.espn.g...tory?id=3298035

#27 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,963 posts

Posted 06 February 2009 - 11:51 AM

Doesn't say his signing bonus, but you were right on the 3.5 million for 2 years.
http://sports.espn.g...tory?id=3298035


Yeah I couldn't find the terms. I was looking for his signing bonus and his base salary in 2009 which would give us a good understanding of the terms since it is only a 2 year deal. Should be available somewhere.

#28 holycrikey

holycrikey

    panthArs!!!

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 421 posts

Posted 06 February 2009 - 12:47 PM

I wouldn't mind seeing Hackett go. Why take another risk with another year?

Instead, we should force Jarrett into as many plays as possible as WR #3 and hope that he FINALLY develops to the guy we all expected.

#29 CharlotteBeer.com

CharlotteBeer.com

    Resident Beer Nerd

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,700 posts

Posted 06 February 2009 - 12:57 PM

I wouldn't mind seeing Hackett go. Why take another risk with another year?

Instead, we should force Jarrett into as many plays as possible as WR #3 and hope that he FINALLY develops to the guy we all expected.


I've already answered that.

Because he's dirt cheap and is about all you can ask for in a fourth receiver who is rarely targeted in this offense in the first place.

#30 zebrainz

zebrainz

    Puddytats

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 403 posts

Posted 06 February 2009 - 01:03 PM

rotoworld has it

3/17/2008: Signed a two-year, $3.5 million contract. The deal included a $750,000 signing bonus. 2009: $1.045 million, 2010: Free Agent

http://www.rotoworld...ort=NFL&id=2642
by my reckoning 1/2 the signing bonus + 2009 salary = about 1.4 mil


Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com