Panthers talk to Greg Jennings

[WUnderhill]

Interesting how everyone's ripping on Greg for having an "ego" or being "self-centered" when what he's doing isn't all that different from what Cam does and everyone says "oh he's just having fun and playing around." Greg did a silly april fools joke that involved his kids, no harm there. Posted about "good charlotte" and "miami something." So what? No different than Cam doing his first down signal all the time--just having their fun. I'm sure you'd all think it was hilarious if he or someone else did this with the Aints or Falcons and then signed elsewhere. 

 

Even Stretch Armstrong would call that a stretch.

[Mother Grabber]

contrary to poopular opinion on here, signing Jennings, or not, will have no affect on which, if any, WR(s) we draft. Jennings being on the roster does not 'allow' us to draft a WR in the 3-4 round, nor does it restrict us from drafting one in the 1st or 2nd. We will draft who we draft based on their value as a football player, and not based on our current roster.

Jennings is likely a 1-2 year player at best. changing our draft based on a player with such a short life on the team is extremely short sighted.

[mbarbour21]

contrary to poopular opinion on here, signing Jennings, or not, will have no affect on which, if any, WR(s) we draft. Jennings being on the roster does not 'allow' us to draft a WR in the 3-4 round, nor does it restrict us from drafting one in the 1st or 2nd. We will draft who we draft based on their value as a football player, and not based on our current roster.

Jennings is likely a 1-2 year player at best. changing our draft based on a player with such a short life on the team is extremely short sighted.

This is true to an extent. IMO. I don't think it will be a "say all" addition, but I do think it COULD influence a pick. Let's say you have a CB and a WR that have equal value. (Or at least very similar) If you added Jennings, you may be content with picking CB instead of receiver.

Although, I don't think it would be a DONE DEAL, like some are suggesting on here. Depends on who falls and all that. Value over need seems to be Getts philosophy anyway.

[uncfan888]

We still talking about this?

[jasonluckydog]

Well then

[t96]

My guess is teams want him to prove that he's still the Packer version of himself, not the Viking version.

May or may not be fair, but I think that's the mindset.

 

He was the same player in Minnesota as he was in Green Bay. Teams know that.

[Mr. Scot]

He was the same player in Minnesota as he was in Green Bay. Teams know that.

He didn't get the same results.

And fair or not, teams will look at that.

[pantherclaw]

My guess at this point is that, wherever he signs, it'll be a one year deal where they'll ask him to prove he's worth something longer.

or a low yearly salary combined with a yearly roster bonus.

[Cam's New Arm]

Eh

[Panthro]

[t96]

He didn't get the same results.

And fair or not, teams will look at that.

Teams don't look at stats to determine whether they sign a player. So no, teams will not look at that. They will look at the tape. QB play factors into how "good" a WR looks and their stats, and going from Favre/Rodgers to Ponder/Cassell/Bridgewater is quite a big difference. Jennings was never some high-end #1 like he seemed to be (to fans) with the Packers, and like he was paid by the Vikings. But he is a solid #2 or low-end #1, and that held true with both the Packers and Vikings.

[Mr. Scot]

Teams don't look at stats to determine whether they sign a player. So no, teams will not look at that. They will look at the tape. QB play factors into how "good" a WR looks and their stats, and going from Favre/Rodgers to Ponder/Cassell/Bridgewater is quite a big difference. Jennings was never some high-end #1 like he seemed to be (to fans) with the Packers, and like he was paid by the Vikings. But he is a solid #2 or low-end #1, and that held true with both the Packers and Vikings.

I'm not talking about stats. I'm talking about how much of a threat he was.

I agree it isn't necessarily fair to him.

[t96]

I'm not talking about stats. I'm talking about how much of a threat he was.

I agree it isn't necessarily fair to him.

 

And I'm saying he wasn't any more of a threat in Green Bay than he was in Minnesota. Stats are what make it seem like he was worse in Minnesota, but he wasn't. Teams that watch film will be able to realize that. He's aging and has lost speed, so that factors in to a degree, but he was never a burner. 

[rico6]

No news