Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Jamie Dukes gets it


ThinkAboutIt

Recommended Posts

Yes, Jamie Dukes is a moron, but morons are sometimes right. He blasted Dave Gettleman on WFNZ this morning and I agreed with 99% of it (Disagreed about whether they should've tried to keep Hardy).

 

Scroll down for the interview: http://charlotte.cbslocal.com/2014/10/28/jamie-dukes-panthers-struggles-due-to-gm-malpractice/

 

I've criticized Gettleman all offseason for ignoring the Offensive line, and accused him of setting Cam up to fail or get injured so he won't have to worry about paying a guy he doesn't actually consider to be a franchise QB to begin with. If he had Peyton Manning or Andrew Luck, he would've addressed the line.

 

Cam Newton, not so much. Now why is that?

 

Dukes didn't go that far with his rant, but you can read between the lines. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anybody with ANY sense saw this coming from a mile away.

 

The only way this year was going to be any kind of success was if the defense literally shut out opposing teams because this offense---which was below average last year---was getting worse overall.

 

Only in the Huddle, is it not understood that you cannot dump all your eggs into the defense basket and then rely on the offense to win games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anybody with ANY sense saw this coming from a mile away.

The only way this year was going to be any kind of success was if the defense literally shut out opposing teams because this offense---which was below average last year---was getting worse overall.

Only in the Huddle, is it not understood that you cannot dump all your eggs into the defense basket and then rely on the offense to win games.

Anybody with any sense knows that the notion of an NFL GM deliberately sabotaging his own quarterback is too goofy for words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dukes has a lot in common with the fans on the Huddle. He looks at the roster, looks at the results, and start saying poo that may be true but ignores circumstances. Like our O-Line having 1 drafted guy, ignoring the injured drafted guys on our bench. Also ignoring the cap situation and the long term goals of the franchise. 

 

And how could Dave Gettleman have possibly known Greg Hardy was going to mess up on a 1 year deal.

 

Our offense has actually looked better overall this season, but defense and game management decisions are costing us at times. The team is a mess but personnel is only one slice of the pie. We have guys on IR and the exempt list that could have affected results. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anybody with any sense knows that the notion of an NFL GM deliberately sabotaging his own quarterback is too goofy for words.

 

Jamie Dukes didn't say that, I did, because the evidence supports it. 

 

You knew Gross retired before the draft, yet you took Kony Ealy in the 2nd Rd. Fug you, Dave. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dukes has a lot in common with the fans on the Huddle. He looks at the roster, looks at the results, and start saying poo that may be true but ignores circumstances. Like our O-Line having 1 drafted guy, ignoring the injured drafted guys on our bench. Also ignoring the cap situation and the long term goals of the franchise.

And how could Dave Gettleman have possibly known Greg Hardy was going to mess up on a 1 year deal.

Our offense has actually looked better overall this season, but defense and game management decisions are costing us at times. The team is a mess but personnel is only one slice of the pie. We have guys on IR and the exempt list that could have affected results.

Gantt knew all along franchise tagging Hardy was a horrible decision. The signs were there, he was late to numerous meetings last season, the fact he seems a little off in the head, and taking a pic of his speedometer going dangerously fast and uploading it to instagram.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dukes has a lot in common with the fans on the Huddle. He looks at the roster, looks at the results, and start saying poo that may be true but ignores circumstances. Like our O-Line having 1 drafted guy, ignoring the injured drafted guys on our bench. Also ignoring the cap situation and the long term goals of the franchise. 

 

And how could Dave Gettleman have possibly known Greg Hardy was going to mess up on a 1 year deal.

 

Our offense has actually looked better overall this season, but defense and game management decisions are costing us at times. The team is a mess but personnel is only one slice of the pie. We have guys on IR and the exempt list that could have affected results. 

 

Apparently you haven't listened to the interview, so why are you talking about what you think he said?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...