tukafan21

3 hours ago, Tr3ach said:

Me too, position groups can already only pick in certain ranges and people just rolled out 5 numbers that shouldn't be allowed.  It wouldn't take long before there aren't enough numbers.

huh?

They mostly eliminated position groups needing to pick certain numbers a few years ago.

OL and maybe QB's are the only ones who need to have numbers in a certain range now, everyone else can take whatever number they want except I think the 60's and 70's which are only allowed for linemen.

Which then certainly makes it easier for teams to have a handful of numbers retired without causing any issues.

So still to me... 1, 59, and 89 should never be worn again and then I like the idea someone else had in the thread where 58 is now a LB only number and needs TD's approval for them to wear, but I'd like to see it become a Panthers tradition for great LB's to wear 58 and pass it along.

Leaning towards just ordering this tonight, but now I have no idea on size.

Has anyone bought a bunch of jerseys in the last few years and can convey how the Game vs Limited vs Reebok versions all fit?

These are both Mediums... The white one here is a Reebok one from 2010, and was when they had the "+2 length" on the tag and it was the version with the stitched numbers instead of iron on... the blue one is from 2022 and is the F.U.S.E Limited version also with stitched stuff, not the "game jersey" with the ironed on numbers/letters that they have the T-Mac jerseys in.

The old one fits me fine, the blue one was always a tad snug on me, particularly in the shoulders

I'm leaning going with a Large based on the CMC, but for all I know, that is made with a tighter cut due to the higher "limited" level and the "game" ones they have for T-Mac are cut more like a T-Shirt and thus will fit more like the old white one I have here, not sure.

(and yes, I already tried going to a sporting goods store here to hopefully try on a Lions jersey to see, but they don't have any right now)

6 hours ago, blueandblackattack said:

or 90, our other gold jacket legend

I have less of an issue with 90 being used since Peppers left on his own and spent almost half his career playing for other teams.  He "only" had 81 sacks here before he left for Chicago, and yes I know he came back to add 16 more in those final two years, but he's not a HOFer if you remove his Chicago and GB years.

Luke played his entire HOF career here and then retired, Cam and Smitty were cut after long HOF caliber careers here despite neither wanting to leave.

And while I know you can use my same argument against Peppers against Smitty, as he wouldn't eventually end up in the HOF (and he will) without his stats from his Baltimore years, again, we forced him out when he didn't want to leave and his stats in those years were the icing on the HOF cake he baked while in Carolina.

4 hours ago, CanadianCat said:

I mean I think its a bit disingenuous to call basically anyone here a casual fan. I don't think the casual fan creates a profile then logs into it, in the offseason, to comments on mundane offseason topics..

I dont think anyone on here would be considered a casual fan.

That said, I get your point. My POV is from the player. They sign this contract, move their family because of these contracts. When Clowney came him, we basically had a coming home party for him. 

So yeah, I get why we did it and I know that ultimately the owner doesnt 'save' money, but I can feel for the human side of the player, which is why I want them to get all they can while they can. 

These players are making millions upon millions of dollars to play a child's game, more money in a year than most regular joes will see in their lifetime, so I don't feel bad when they get cut because they aren't playing up to the value of their contracts, whether they moved their family or not (and fyi, pretty sure most players don't move their families when they change teams late in their career when they're already bouncing around teams every couple years).

1 hour ago, jfra78 said:

So what does tmac mean in his culture?

T-Mac is a nickname, Tet is a shortening of Tetairoa.

Like you said below... your name is Jonathan, I could see "Jonny" being considered a nickname, but Jon isn't a nickname, it's a shortening of Johnathan, see the difference?

1 hour ago, jfra78 said:

I will also reply to the last part.  My name is actually Jonathan and I go by Jon.  My mother hates it but to me only my mother and wife call me Jonathan and to hear another person call me that is odd. It's just natural to call someone with a long name a shorter version of that name.  Unless tet actually translate to something disrespectful, Then there's no harm in it.  

And if your mom named you Jonathan for it's biblical significance/meaning, because she was very religious, I think it would be different.

T-Mac is Polynesian, so much in their culture has deeper meaning for them, particularly names.  So for his mom to feel this way, I highly doubt it's just because she likes the name Tetairoa and not Tet, it's much more likely than not to be because the name itself has a deeper meaning in their culture.  

Particularly as T-Mac himself has often talked about how much his Polynesian heritage means to himself and his family.

And no, I'm not saying all this because of how much he's my guy, if he was just "normal american" and his name was Jonathan and he didn't like fans calling him Jon, I'd probably just say tough poo.  It's that he's Polynesian and I know things like names have a much deeper meaning in their culture than they do in ours for the most part.

For whatever it's worth, a quick google search.......

1 minute ago, PNW_PantherMan said:

Its basically the same as caring about how they use draft picks.  Its a limited resource that teams have to build the roster.

Yep

It's like when fans complain about needing to pay the rest of a coaches contract when you fire them.

That's one I just don't get, if the owner is willing to do it, then who the F cares, as that is his choice and it doesn't affect the team (as long as it's not an owner who will then be a cheapskate on the next coach to save money, which isn't a problem with Tepper).

But caring about how we use the limited resources because doing one thing affects the rest of the roster you can build, that's just being a sports fan 101 type of stuff.

2 minutes ago, PNW_PantherMan said:

It's not that hard to understand why fans would care about how the team allocates its limited resources to construct the roster.

Yea, caring about the cap is different than caring about the owner's money.

I don't give two shits about Tepper's money and how it's spent.

But I do care about our cap space and how we use it because that is directly what affects the team.

Those are two very different things, it's not hard to understand that.

27 minutes ago, jfra78 said:

I'm just going to call him Tet, it's not disrespectful and it sounds better than tmac. I dont care what he wants to be called, people don't choose their nick names.  I have a cousin we call boo boo, I'm sure he hates it but oh well, that will always be his name.

You don't think it's disrespectful, but you're also not realizing that his name is not just his name, it has a deeper meaning in their culture, so shortening it to something that doesn't have the same meaning, is disrespectful to them.

It's not calling some random white American dude John instead of Jonathan.

The name has a deeper meaning in the Polynesian culture, to where if you shorten it, it no longer means the same thing.  To him and his family, T-Mac or Nalo is a nickname, "Tet" isn't a nickname, it's changing his name that has a deeper meaning to them.

And if that random white dude was named Jonathan for a deeper reason, and him or his family say they feel calling them "John" is disrespectful, then I'd have enough respect of that person to not call them John.

Why is that so hard?  What is wrong with this country that when someone says, "calling me by X name is disrespectful to me and my family" that our response is, "screw them, I'm going to call you what I want to call you"

6 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

Makes sense.  I guess you can replace Walker with a bigger edge like Williams and still the same applies.  I'd put Scourton right there with any of them not named Carter.  

Yea, I think the Walker smoke was more because that was the way the "experts" were expecting us to go, so we leaned into it to help hide our interest in not only T-Mac, but whoever or whatever we actually planned to do at #8, because he just never made sense for the scheme we run and what holes we needed to fill in general, let alone with the 8th pick.

1 minute ago, ForJimmy said:

I just think they thought the drop off from TMac to a round 2 WR was greater than Walker to a round 2 edge like we got in Scourton. Remember teams like LAR and SF were trying to trade up for TMac with a similar thought process. 

That's absolutely true too, but I also don't think they ever truly considered Walker an edge either.

Just look at who we took and compare them to Walker from a size standpoint, they couldn't be any more different.

If T-Mac was taken before we were on the clock, I still don't think we'd have taken Walker in the end anyways, at least not without a trade back first.

24 minutes ago, Stumpy said:

You are wrong, but the taste of boot is preventing you from seeing it.

Please, explain it to me then, because nothing I just said is wrong, if you can't see it, that's a you problem.

This isn't MLB where teams can spend $50 million or $500 million on their roster.  

Not having guaranteed contracts doesn't save owners a single penny, it just changes what players would be getting the money as guaranteed contracts would mean it's being paid to cut players or sub-par bench players instead of new ones, but it's still the same amount of money coming out of the owners pockets.

The fact that any fan thinks cutting a player saves the owner any money is absurd.  

Yes, TECHNICALLY a team could only spend the cap floor every year and save maybe $15-20 million a season, but no team does that in the NFL.  If they aren't spending their cap in a season, they use it in the next season when they get to roll it over, this isn't baseball where you have cheap owners when it comes to assembling the roster itself.

Owners get cheap when it comes to other things, like the coaching or training staff, or amenities provided to the players.  And yes, these things can cause better players to not want to sign with that team.

But in no world does non guaranteed contracts save the owners money, not even in the slightest.  

2 hours ago, Jackie Lee said:

 

To everyone who spent the last 4 months screaming to not take T-Mac because what we really needed was a quick twitch slot WR and not a big outside guy........

Did we end up getting both in this draft?

I kept saying those wanting that quick shifty slot WR weren't wrong, we did need one, but we also needed that true outside #1, and I explicitly kept saying to take T-Mac in the 1st, then use the next few picks on defense while taking that mid-late round pick on the shifty slot WR as they're easier to find there.

T-Mac, XL, Coker, Horn Jr could make for a damn good Top 4 WR room if they pan out, although if they do, we won't be able to keep all 4 of them on a 2nd contract, but those are good problems to have.

I said it a million times leading up to the draft, Walker never made any sense to me.

He's a 4-3 OLB who plays mostly off ball but can be used as a situational pass rusher.

If you're taking an OLB when you run a 3-4, they need to be more of a full time pass rusher who has the ability to set the edge and also play DE when you switch up to a 4-3 alignment.

That's just not Walker, he very well may be a great player in the end, but you don't take a 4-3 OLB at #8 when you run a 3-4, square peg meet round hole.

I think the whole escort thing is a bit out of hand, seems kinda clear to me that it was one of those sugar daddy type of deals that likely just went on for too long and they developed "feelings" for each other and turned it into a weird relationship.  

3 minutes ago, CanadianCat said:

Amazing how the casual fan has gotten sucked into this kind of thinking. 

IMO I have no problem with hold outs or this kind of contracts. 

Look at what the Panthers just did. They just cut Clowney. After THEY gave him a 2 year contract to save money. 

Im not in to billionaires saving money. Im into players making money. 

No, the casual fan gets sucked into THIS^^^ kind of thinking, and it's so woefully incorrect that it's almost sad.

The first is what I've said numerous times, NOTHING about non guaranteed contracts save the billionaire owners a single penny, because they still have to spend their cap floor, and the only reason teams ever don't spend the full limit, is to then roll it over into the next season to be able to spend more that year.

But in the end, owners pay the same amount of money no matter what.

The reverse is also the same, that the players in totality make the same amount of money as well, because in your example of Clowney not getting that money this year, it will go to another player, as the cap needs to be spent.

And you say how we just cut Clowney after we gave him the 2 year contract, but everyone including Clowney's agent and himself, knew when it was signed, that it was more likely to be a 1 year contract than a 2 with how it was structured.  The 2nd year was just to be able to spread out the cap hit and he was always most likely going to end up getting traded or cut.

It's why agents and players don't care about the total money in a contract, it's always and only been about the guaranteed money, as the years and overall value are meaningless, always have been, always will be.

8 hours ago, csx said:

This means little to nothing. That 8 or 900,000 over 4 years isn't changing anything about decisions. Rather irrelevant 

Ladd McConkey was the 34th pick last year. His contract was 92% guaranteed.

Contract Value: $9,995,186 

Fully Guaranteed Money: $9,185,943

Agents will have their 1st round picks hold out until the pay structure of their contract is to their liking, not how much money they'll get or even how much is guaranteed, just the when/how they will get the money over the course of the contract.

If they're willing to recommend those players hold our, do you really think they won't do it for 2nd rounders to guarantee them an extra 10% of their entire rookie contract?

2 hours ago, joeyxfresco said:

1, 59, 89 are more than likely getting retired at some point
 

58 may be a number in the org that ends up being used as a badge of honor for a top LB

I'd always said I didn't want to see 58 worn again, but I'd also never seen this idea brought up before, but now that I have, I freaking love it.

TD is the ultimate representation of Keep Pounding, dude's career should have been over after the knee injuries and then he goes on to become a franchise legend.

Let's make 58 a LB only number that needs TD's approval for who can wear it and turn it into a LB tradition here, would be really cool and in a way more fitting of what TD meant to the franchise than retiring it.

1 hour ago, TD alt said:

This guy will always be the original T-Mac.

But if Tetairoa wants to be the second T-Mac in sports, I guess that will work too. I may just have to get used to Nalo.

The funny thing is I was a HUGE T-Mac fan back in the day, he was my favorite player for a long time.  Have a few pair of his shoes, his jersey, even made a really cool school around him too.

Guess I was just always destined to be a T-Mac fan lol

6 minutes ago, Jon Snow said:

Try to book a private jet just for yourself with shuttle service to and from the airport and during your stay with event tickets. That's round trip.  Then get back to me if it's less than 10k.

Yes, for a single person, but this isn't just selling tickets on the trip they put on, you buy the full trip and pay for however many people you're bringing with you up to 18 (I'm sure there's a minimum for 10-12 people too).  

So even if you get a group of 15 guys together to do it, you could do the trip for less than $150k but without the access to players.

2 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

50% margin is damn good business.

 

Neverending coolers of Natty Ice included! LOL

lol no the other way around

He’s saying if someone were to buy this package, they’re paying half of what it would cost them to do it on their own.

So I’m saying that can’t be the case, as there’s no way the person providing it can make money if it costs them twice the amount to put this on for them, they’re in it to make money, not give a fan experience on the cheap.

This isn’t a huge operation that has major discounts due to bulk private flights and 5 star hotels/restaraunts around the country to where they can do this at a cheaper price than it would cost to do on your own.

You’re paying more for the access to players and not having to work out the logistics on your own, not less, that’s crazy talk.

14 minutes ago, jfra78 said:

I'm not worried about this, just because the Texans did it doesn't mean the whole league will

If the whole league doesn't do it, it creates more of a problem, because there is no way some other's won't follow suit.

Once a handful of teams start to do it, all agents are going to start demanding it and we're going to see more 2nd round holdouts than ever, and they rarely did before this.

12 minutes ago, BEASTfromdaEAST said:

No doubt, but unless you get drafted like top 20 in the league now you really are not making much or at least taking up room on the CAP. 

So again I am a believer ALL NFL contracts should be guaranteed money, so I for one celebrate these guys wanting that and hopefully drive these billionaires to cough up more of their money to literally start spreading the wealth. 

Again, it's not about billionaires coughing up their money, guaranteed contracts wouldn't cots a penny more out of the owners pockets as teams have to spend their cap room every season.  The only times they don't spend it all, it's to roll it over into the next year to spend more than the cap, so they're still spending the same amount of money in the end.

Fully guaranteed contracts for all players wouldn't work in the NFL

Not having them actually works to the benefit of both teams and players, as it's how teams manage the cap and it allows players to get to re-negotiate new guaranteed money faster.

Plus, with how often those role players get churned through because they show flashes but don't pan out, would really limit how much teams would be willing to spend on them and give more than 1 or 2 year contracts.  It would create even more of an unbalanced pay structure to where the stars would make even more of a percentage of the cap than they already do.

1 hour ago, Jon Snow said:

That's actually a great deal if you've got the money to spare.  A private jet is not cheap and with all the other perks you are probably only paying half of what you would have to pay if you set this up yourself.  That's even if you could. 

There's no way you're paying half the cost of doing it on your own, as it wouldn't be a profitable business.

They're not doing this out of the goodness of their heart to give fans a cool thing on the cheap, they're making money on it, so it can't cost more to do on your own outside of getting access to the players.

1 hour ago, BEASTfromdaEAST said:

I'm all for fully guaranteed contracts for NFL players as a whole personally, so i say GO AHEAD YOUNG BULL!

These billionaire owners have been getting away with some BS in the NFL for years when NBA and MLB have found a way to do it. Granted more games, but still NFL\Owners could do it and if that douche Watson can get fully guaranteed than all these guys deserve it. 

Football is violent, aggressive and mostly detrimental to long term health.  Congrats to this young man getting paid!   

Quite been jealous over another mans success, congratulate and move one.

It's not jealousy and I don't care one way or another if players have guaranteed deals or not.

But when one team starts doing something like this, it can mess with the rest of the league for a few years until things settle down, so it can affect us, which I do care about, that's all

1 minute ago, jb2288 said:

Wow I bet the owners are pissed

I think GM's are more upset than owners

Owners spend the same amount of money every year as it's a hard cap with a floor minimum too.  It doesn't really change anything for them (other than possibly make things more difficult on the team in general).

But it's the GM's who need to negotiate these contracts who are really going to be pissed, if you're a skill position player that goes in the 2nd round now, you're going to be asking for this, and the higher you're drafted and/or the more unexpected it was for you to not go in the 1st, the stronger your case will be to insist on it.