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!

     

Hurney should stay on with the Panthers...


Doc Holiday

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Doc Holiday said:

................  You can count either 2008 or 2009, but not both. this is getting out of hand. It's simple Math, 1-1 does not = 2. 

This is fun.  I totally see what you're saying.  I want to make that clear.  I see the confusion.  

Did the Panthers spend a 2008 1st round draft pick on Jeff Otah?

Did the Panthers spend a 2009 1st round draft pick on Jeff Otah?

The answer to both of those questions is yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BurnHurnBurn said:

This is fun.  I totally see what you're saying.  I want to make that clear.  I see the confusion.  

Did the Panthers spend a 2008 1st round draft pick on Jeff Otah?

Did the Panthers spend a 2009 1st round draft pick on Jeff Otah?

The answer to both of those questions is yes.

they spent a 2009 first round pick in 2008. 1 pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Doc Holiday said:

ROFL this guy. I fuging spelled it out for you and youre still like "WTF are you talking about"? go see a therapist man you need one.

No you rehashed excuses for why just you saying it is more important to the actual contract. All while not being able to tell me one detail of any of this supposed theory. Which is sad because you can’t answer one simple question about it. Yet I can recite every detail because I hated from day one. Its a simple question. How did he do this? Why? Anything? And please tell me where it states anywhere in your article that mentions a “kill clause” It mentions the option bonus I’ve been discussing. Where is the kill clause in your one shred of proof? 

Here a thread detailing it. I know you’re not big on facts, but you might learn something. 
 

     So what happened? 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Doc Holiday said:

they spent a 2009 first round pick in 2008. 1 pick.

You will never...ever....ever...get me to agree that 2 separate picks from 2 separate drafts are the same pick.

A selection in the 2008 draft is in no way shape or form considered a pick of the 2009 draft or vice versa. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Toomers said:

No you rehashed excuses for why just you saying it is more important to the actual contract. All while not being able to tell me one detail of any of this supposed theory. Which is sad because you can’t answer one simple question about it. Yet I can recite every detail because I hated from day one. Its a simple question. How did he do this? Why? Anything?

Here a thread detailing it. I know you’re not big on facts, but you might learn something. 
 

     So what happened? 
 

You're deflecting instead of answering what I've stated time and again, I give answer, you ask question to deflect or outright ignore my answer. as you did with my Post on the previous page of this thread, you changed what you were saying to fit your argument.  again, done with this man. 

The point of this entire argument, need I remind you again, was that Hurney hamstrung us with our cap when he removed the "Kill Clause" that I described in the previous post, by converting the option bonus to signing bonus. this hasnt changed at all, not in the slightest in the entire argument. you tripping man, see a therapist

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, BurnHurnBurn said:

You will never...ever....ever...get me to agree that 2 separate picks from 2 separate drafts are the same pick.

A selection in the 2008 draft is in no way shape or form considered a pick of the 2009 draft or vice versa. 

and you can never get me to agree that you understand math. so we good fam

@BurnHurnBurn In all seriousness, if you view it that way, thats fine, I just view it differently, arguing over whether 1 first round pick or two was used on Otah all these years later is kinda ridiculous either way. Have a good night man 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Doc Holiday said:

You're deflecting instead of answering what I've stated time and again, I give answer, you ask question to deflect or outright ignore my answer. as you did with my Post on the previous page of this thread, you changed what you were saying to fit your argument.  again, done with this man. 

The point of this entire argument, need I remind you again, was that Hurney hamstrung us when he removed the "Kill Clause" that I described in the previous post, by converting the option bonus to signing bonus. this hasnt changed at all, not in the slightest in the entire argument. you tripping man, see a therapist

That’s because you made the poo up. Where is anything, anywhere that mentions a kill clause? No one.  It was a 10M guaranteed option because the buyout was 10M also. All Hurney did was spread it out over 4 years like any sensible GM would have. That’s it. Nothing more. Like your article said..... No savings, no gains. Because it was always there. Where are the 11M and 17M numbers you made up. 
 

     You haven’t answered a thing. You read the truth in the thread I posted which you just read. I don’t see any talk of a kill clause once people found out what actually happened. The only deflection is you trying to get away from a lie. And you called me out. Take a math class next semester. Football ain’t for you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BurnHurnBurn said:

Now, why'd ya have to go and get personal?  Thats a real shame.  Oh well, may your herpes forever flare and your farts spray foam.    

may not have seen my edit of previous post.  

but here:

In all seriousness, if you view it that way, thats fine, I just view it differently, arguing over whether 1 first round pick or two was used on Otah all these years later is kinda ridiculous either way. Have a good night man 

Apologies, meant no offense, simply being fiesty tonight I guess. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Toomers said:

That’s because you made the poo up. Where is anything, anywhere that mentions a kill clause? No one.  It was a 10M guaranteed option because the buyout was 10M also. All Hurney did was spread it out over 4 years like any sensible GM would have. That’s it. Nothing more. Like your article said..... No savings, no gains. Because it was always there. Where are the 11M and 17M numbers you made up. 
 

     You haven’t answered a thing. You read the truth in the thread I posted which you just read. I don’t see any talk of a kill clause once people found out what actually happened. The only deflection is you trying to get away from a lie. And you called me out. Take a math class next semester. Football ain’t for you. 

What was the $10m option bonus if not a kill clause? I mentioned in my original argument that it wasnt called a kill clause but for all intents and purposes it was. I stated it there black in white in the old thread. as far as where I'm getting my numbers from read your numbers you gave before my post and you will see where the cap savings was, just read your own post, thats all I'm asking you to do now. simple things.

Your argument now as I understand it, was that its not specifically called a kill clause in the contract. In my originally argument I never said it was, even stated that it wasnt called a kill clause. its just easier to say it that way than to explain the option bonus mechanic every time. 

and here we sit, yet another deflection from toomers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Squirrel said:

Otah

Still don't get the bad rap on Otah - the dude was probably one of, if not the, best run blocking tackles in the NFL (until his health went to poo), which was important with how run heavy our scheme was when he was with us. He was a pretty big reason as to why double trouble were as dominant as they were in 2008. The part that was bad about Otah was all that we traded to draft him (which was a recurring theme under Hurney 1.0)

Hurney really has done well with his 1st rounders and I honestly didn't mind either of his drafts the past 2 years outside of the poor 3rd round choices in Gaulden (a really, really bad pick) and Grier. Also didn't like Haynes (which was moreso due to scheme but has been more useful with the 3-4 switch).

Hurney's biggest problem before he came back was stupidly trading away first round picks to draft 2nd round busts that we pretty much knew well in advance would be busts with how no other team would touch them with a 10 foot pole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a case can be made that he should stay for more than just the draft picks. He has made some incredible gets in the off season here. He got some great personnel but he isn't the guy who coaches them up and gets them into a cohesive unit. He also isn't the training table team.

Honestly, Marty 2.0  fixed a lot of the problems we saw with Marty 1.0 and fixed a lot of the bad feelings that had been left in the destructive wake of Gettleman 1.0.

Maybe we should keep him around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Not one single pick that is asking me why we drafted a guy in the first place. It was a guy we needed and/or a guy that had certain traits making them stand out. Best of all, I feel everyone we drafted are capable of stepping onto the field this year and have a meaningful role (even Kuwatch on special teams). Obviously, nothing is guaranteed but I'm not seeing any huge flags on guys because they're risky projects or massive overreaches.
    • Here is how Morgan is strategic-He re-signs Scott because he was not going S in round 1--he had the chance, and he did not.  He saw the top of the draft at T and knew none of them would be ready to start day 1, so he signs a veteran to a one-year deal, giving his tackle selection a chance to learn and prepare for what might be LT or RT.  Those two moves suggested, perhaps ironically because they contradict each other, what he was going to do, based on the talent pool.  He never brought in a Robinson replacement at DE/NT, and then moves up to draft one.   I almost wonder if the intent was to draft DT/DE all along at some point, maybe with a trade back, but then Freeling dropped to them.   Of course, we felt that they were looking WR, and wonder if the plan was to draft a WR in round 2 if you traded back in round 1.  However, when Freeling was there, the trade back fell apart.  Then we traded up for Hunter.  We could stick with XL and hope Metchie steps up, so we sat still in round three and took Brazell II, a 1000 yard speedster and perfect Z WR.  What a break. At that time, CB and Center were our biggest needs, and with several possible centers on the board and a good fit for our defense at CB, we grabbed Will Lee III.  Lee and Thornton have people in front of them, but I think Morgan knew we needed a guy who can play the outside and press--and probably step in as Jackson's replacement in 2027.    After making trades to get back into the fifth round, where we grabbed one of the best centers in the draft.  This is significant because we signed Fortner to a one-year deal; maybe Morgan saw what some of us saw--the center position is strong in this draft--on day 3, and day 3 players need a year, in most cases.  Moments later, a safety they had been talking to whose skill set matched what we are looking for in a FS.  As stated, Scott was signed,  but the fact that the Panthers were talking to Wheatley and not Theiemann means that they might have known they were not going FS early, but would need a developmental FS later--which explains why we signed Scott.  So if you pay attention to the one-year, vet deals, you can tell where we planned to sign later-round, developmental players.  What positions did we draft early that did not have 1-year veterans signed in front of them:  DL (Hunter) and WR (I don't count Metchie because I count starting-level players). I would not be surprised to learn later that the plan was DT and WR in rounds 1 and 2--then Freeling fell.  Notice that Freeling--from Mt Pleasant SC, did not come in for a visit.  Most of the other OT candidates had short arms or were certain to be gone. I don't think Freeling was in their plans.  I think a trade back and Hunter and maybe Boston was the vision.  I am guessing that CB was also high on their list.   So in this draft, we got 
    • This is one area I think that is not getting enough exposure in the midst of all the optimism. I like Chuba a great deal from a personal standpoint but he has largely proven nothing on a consistent basis yet. He's had the one season of production but before that most people pegged us as moving on. And last year injuries or not he just did not have that juice. The rest of the guys are completely unproven. I don't see anyone among the group having a game or a handful of games worth of high level production the way Rico Dowdle did last year. And yeah he dropped off and yeah he got an attitude about our incompetent handling of the touches which was honestly justified on his part and he moved on but he did legitimately save our season. That's what it is going to take to seize control of the NFC South. We all know that we will not be passing all over defenses. It is what it is. So who amongst this RB group is capable of doing that? And if we are struggling to run the ball AND pass are we going to revert to making excuses for our coach and QB again? That is definitely getting old.
×
×
  • Create New...