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!

     

What would you have done?

Ricky Spanish

By Ricky Spanish,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

Ricky Spanish Grand Master

Ricky Spanish

Posted
Posted

Please, be honest and don't be condescending in your responses.

 

What would you have done this past offseason to prevent this from happening? What would you have done differently than what Gettleman did with the knowledge we had at the time. Who would you have signed, who would you have drafted, and what personnel moves would you have done that would make this team better than it is now?

 

I see everyone clamoring for Gettleman's head on a platter right now, but no one is providing any counter arguments to what he should have done differently. I'm seeing "he should have addressed the line" but when I ask with who, no one provides me with an answer. I'm not being condescending or patronizing, I honestly want to know what our other options were. Please be specific.

 

Go back to right after we franchised Hardy: Not knowing what we know now, what do you do with the Cap situation we are in? Who do we sign, who do we let go? How do we prevent this from happening? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CRA Grand Master

CRA

Posted
Posted

Wouldn't of tagged Hardy. Luxury since we were cap challenged.

that means we could of kept some key roleplayers. I would have made sure Bell and Chandlers were backups even if it meant losing some future draft picks. Wouldn't need Pro Bowlers but some young talent added

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ricky Spanish Grand Master

Ricky Spanish

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Wouldn't of tagged Hardy. Luxury since we were cap challenged.

that means we could of kept some key roleplayers. I would have made sure Bell and Chandlers were backups even if it meant losing some future draft picks. Wouldn't need Pro Bowlers but some young talent added

 

90% of the fanbase was thrilled with the tag at the time. That's a hindsight call, that's why I said AFTER Hardy was tagged. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rayzor Grand Master

rayzor

Posted
Posted

not franchising hardy then being forced to pass up on legit talent at OT, WR via FA or trade.

and i wouldn't have picked old guys in the secondary who were bad enough that they got cut from really bad defenses in our division.

and i wouldn't have given rivera an extension until after he pulled off two winning seasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KARASMATIC444 Newbie

KARASMATIC444

Posted
Posted

I agree hindsight is always 20/20. just like all these guys that say we should have gone for it on 4th down and assume it could never fail. well there is your proof. The FO built a team they believed in. I was concerned about the OL i wish they had atleast tried to bring in some garbage level lineman to see if they were better then ours. Im not sure who, so i cant give you that. It has more to do with us not being a dominant D we all expected the D to be strong and the o to only need limited points to win. once we lost the ability to get off the field it all imploded. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ThPantherFan Grand Master

ThPantherFan

Posted
Posted

Wouldn't of tagged Hardy. Luxury since we were cap challenged.

that means we could of kept some key roleplayers. I would have made sure Bell and Chandlers were backups even if it meant losing some future draft picks. Wouldn't need Pro Bowlers but some young talent added

 

I would have let steve go, but would have replaced him with better WR's than what we did.  I definetely wouldn't have tagged Hardy.  Also I agree Bell and Chandler are very good backups.  That is our glaring problem.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rayzor Grand Master

rayzor

Posted
Posted

90% of the fanbase was thrilled with the tag at the time. That's a hindsight call, that's why I said AFTER Hardy was tagged.

i was in the 10% that wasn't thrilled. i questioned it all along. far too much money invested in two players from the same position.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cbully Contributor

cbully

Posted
Posted

funny thing is Hardy says he wants to play and feels bad seeing us lose... that money was thrown away and now he's somewhat guilty. If we were going to commit to him we should have signed a realistic long term deal. if they give him a monster contract next year it really proved DG is rdicilous!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AceBoogie Veteran

AceBoogie

Posted
Posted

you missed were he said you already tagged hardy, so now answer again

Don't make us try to compensate for Dave's dumbass move. Hardy was never going to be here next year, it wasn't going to happen. So you spent 13 million on a 1 year rental. Any other job in America that's enough to get you fired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • TD alt
      Scourton isn't signed (& apparently it's a thing)

      By TD alt · Posted

      Yep, like I said, I don't mind guaranteeing them money, but make the contracts smaller amounts in order to minimize cap implications. I don't know about "half," the actual amounts, whether more or less than half, would have to be determined by the NFL and NFLPA (which will probably be highly contentious, if not "impossible").  I'm just for whatever leads to the best product on the field while also unaffecting my wallet. As an aside, the NFL owners are greedy bastards in my estimation. They're trying to keep a larger portion of the pie, but players' agents are greedy as well, and they've sewn seeds of greed among the players. It's not all their fault; we all know what our society has evolved into, but the NFL wants a bigger piece of our smaller pocketbooks and refuses to "negotiate" with us (that's why we don't have cheaper and more reasonable à la carte options to view games that they're gradually trying to migrate to paid TV), so fu<k 'em. And then on top of that we have guys trying to water down the product even more by feeding greed. Change the way things are done so that we can at least see players prove themselves on the field without throwing wrenches into the engine that pays guys that have proven they can play on a pro level.
    • PNW_PantherMan
      Teddy Checkdown in trouble

      By PNW_PantherMan · Posted

      So if one of the parents wants to buy the theatre group or the band lunch they should get banned?
    • TD alt
      Teddy Checkdown in trouble

      By TD alt · Posted

      OK, I didn't realize this was about high school, but...if I'm spending my personal money trying to help some kids out, then no one is going to tell me how to spend my money. I get enough of the government spending my money--allocating my tax dollars--to children who don't really need anything, and now they're trying to tell me how to spend my personal money? Sure, there are many other issues to consider and rabbit holes that we could go down due to ethical concerns because it concerns kids, and the need for transparency is extremely important, but maybe as opposed to trying to stop kids from benefitting in darkness, we need to open up the blinds (and blinders) a little bit so that they can benefit in the light. I get where you're coming from, but this is a loaded and layered issue, and I'm just trying to give you some food for thought. 
×
×
  • Create New...