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!

     

On second thought...we should have paid Norman


AceBoogie

Recommended Posts

It's not just this draft that makes me realize we should have paid Josh Norman, it's thinking back to last season. How many times during the course of last season did you stand up and say "PAY THAT MAN"

I'm sure you can flip through old game threads, it was said a lot. Norman made game changing plays last year. He was a dynamic playmaker for this team. I'm not saying we should have paid him what Washington did, but I don't think we had to go that high. 

The Seahawks paid Richard Sherman, The cardinals paid Patrick Peterson, you could argue that Revis was the reason the Patriots won the Super Bowl. 

CB was already considered a need coming in, with Josh Norman on the team. I think two reaches by our GM, who typically doesn't reach for need, shows just how bad the situation really is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Norman was very good. but he's no Revis. Cardinals play man, and Peterson gets beat sometimes, but he's on an island. Seahawks play more man than we do. The CB's were rated as second rounders by Gettleman. So, no reaches.

The 14 million not spent on Norman, can be spent on KK, Star, Kelvin, Trai and Norwell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, AceBoogie said:

The Seahawks paid Richard Sherman, The cardinals paid Patrick Peterson

Read the post, decided to blow this up.

The difference between paying Sherman and Peterson is when they're in their 30s/Close to their 30s, theyy're be near the end or at the end of their contracts. Josh will be in the 2nd year of his 5 year deal when he's 30. 

And unless you're Champ Bailey or Charles Woodson, 30s are around the time CBs start dropping off a bit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, AceBoogie said:

It's not just this draft that makes me realize we should have paid Josh Norman, it's thinking back to last season. How many times during the course of last season did you stand up and say "PAY THAT MAN"

I'm sure you can flip through old game threads, it was said a lot. Norman made game changing plays last year. He was a dynamic playmaker for this team. I'm not saying we should have paid him what Washington did, but I don't think we had to go that high. 

The Seahawks paid Richard Sherman, The cardinals paid Patrick Peterson, you could argue that Revis was the reason the Patriots won the Super Bowl. 

CB was already considered a need coming in, with Josh Norman on the team. I think two reaches by our GM, who typically doesn't reach for need, shows just how bad the situation really is. 

I think we should have kept the tag for a year but I get why we pulled it. This isn't static though, because Josh is gone OTHER players, regardless of position, are going to make plays, game changing plays. We have a ton of talent on this team. 

 

You ou can't just look at Josh being gone and say well we're gonna lose 5 game changing plays this upcoming season. It doesn't work that way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, GoobyPls said:

Everyone knows we should of payed Norman at least for this upcoming season.

 

People are just back tracking cause they blindly agree with every DG move.

We WERE going to pay for Norman this season. Blame Norman and his agent for not signing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TheRumGone said:

I think we should have kept the tag for a year but I get why we pulled it. This isn't static though, because Josh is gone OTHER players, regardless of position, are going to make plays, game changing plays. We have a ton of talent on this team. 

 

You ou can't just look at Josh being gone and say well we're gonna lose 5 game changing plays this upcoming season. It doesn't work that way. 

IDK about losses but it  will affect team in a sense that LBs will have to take on more responsiblity and will burden them slightly in doing their own assignments. Specifially the play where  Luke tipped the ball away from WR and started yelling at Finnegan trying to cover up that mistake. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Castavar said:

We WERE going to pay for Norman this season. Blame Norman and his agent for not signing it.

Nope can't blame him when he wanted to resign with the team the second he was cut.

 

Not only that but they had until June to reach a deal, so cutting him just cause you couldn't reach an agreement 2 month before the deadline is asinine.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I don't necessarily think he will be moved, I would currently be leaning against that notion. I think a lot will depend on the coaching situation. Carroll certainly can't be thinking about wanting to go through a serious strip down and overhaul, so the longer he plans to remain, the less likely I think Crosby gets moved.
    • I think everyone says Mike Evans because of size, but really they have different strengths and play styles.  Tmac is better on intermediate routes and not nearly as good at contested catches. 
    • At this point, it is criminal to go into the 2026 training camp/OTA's with XL penciled in as a #2 WR. The team must upgrade, either through free agency or the draft. If he cannot give 100% effort on significantly less snaps as a #4-6 WR(players like Tremayne have done that consistently) then I don't think you have a player worth rostering beyond the trade deadline. Offensively, we eventually have to upgrade to an NFL starting caliber C. It's been almost the length of time from Gross to Ikey since Kalil retired and we have below average to terrible C play. Love Mays as a BC-esque utility backup but he will never be an above average long term starting C.  The TE room is one of the worst in the NFL but it's a low usage position in this offense, so the investments are likely to be small, if any. I would never expect to see an elite TE in a Dave Canales offense. 100% agree on OL depth. We actually aren't bad there but BC will be gone, Mays is a UFA, Corbett is a UFA and Zavala has been both injured and bad. We have to bolster that depth again or resign guys like Mays and Corbett to keep that depth somewhat stable.
×
×
  • Create New...