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!

     

Why Winning Now Will Cost Us About 15 Years


SaltnPepper

Recommended Posts

For those of you thinking winning now is the right thing to do let me show you why you are wrong.

First my version of tanking would have been to not sign Davis, Teddy or traded for that OT.

I would have run with what we could keep from last years team and treated the entire season as a roster evaluation thus ensuring the first pick.

So we would coach hard and play hard and probably just come up short in games.

Now I've seen the stupid stink of losing argument on here. Jimmy Johnson took over a 3-13 team. Took Aikman. Went 1-15 in his first season got another number 1 and the rest is history.

Let's look at the Cowboys. They were dominant with Rodger. Dropped off with Danny. Weren't dominant again until they got Troy and since Troy retired they have been bad to ok. The key? Bad owner and no QB. (Romo was not a stud)

Dolphins

Great with Bobby G then after they lost him sucked until Marino and have been irrelevant since he retired. That's long down periods.

Steelers
Dominant with number one overall Terry B. Then they were off the Earth until Cower got there. But horse teeth and Kordell couldn't get it done ( both these guys are Teddy Bridgewater) then they got Ben and were winning championships again.

Packers

Dominant with Bart then drop off the planet until Farve. How long was that? Then they lucked into Rodgers.

Chargers

They had Fouts and were good
Then nothing until Rivers

Giants

Nothing after the 60s until they got Simms
Did ok but dropped with Hostettler
Became obscure until Eli

Bill's

Nothing till Kelly
Nothing since until Allen

I could go on and on with probably every team in the league.

QBs don't grow on trees and y'alls problem is that the Panthers have been rather fortunate in the QB department and success department.


You guys constantly say win now and get a QB later? So when is that going to happen?
10 years from now? 20? 30?

The fact is we had a chance to control our own destiny and do something few teams have ever done move from one great QB to another without years of average in between.

Trevor would have been our chance to build a multiyear dominance now.

You guys constantly throw out Rodgers and others taken outside the top 5. Well that depends on the other teams missing them.

I love Thomas Davis but we should have taken Rodgers. I love CMC but we should have taken Mahomes. We made mistakes both those years. Are you willing to hope other teams are stupid during our search for a QB?

If we start consistently making the playoffs with Teddy but never getting to the NFC championship where is our savior going to come from?

How long will we have to wait?

Winning now if we don't get at least Lance has probably cost at least 15 years of no ring.


Show me why I'm wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SaltnPepper said:

For those of you thinking winning now is the right thing to do let me show you why you are wrong.

First my version of tanking would have been to not sign Davis, Teddy or traded for that OT.

I would have run with what we could keep from last years team and treated the entire season as a roster evaluation thus ensuring the first pick.

So we would coach hard and play hard and probably just come up short in games.

Now I've seen the stupid stink of losing argument on here. Jimmy Johnson took over a 3-13 team. Took Aikman. Went 1-15 in his first season got another number 1 and the rest is history.

Let's look at the Cowboys. They were dominant with Rodger. Dropped off with Danny. Weren't dominant again until they got Troy and since Troy retired they have been bad to ok. The key? Bad owner and no QB. (Romo was not a stud)

Dolphins

Great with Bobby G then after they lost him sucked until Marino and have been irrelevant since he retired. That's long down periods.

Steelers
Dominant with number one overall Terry B. Then they were off the Earth until Cower got there. But horse teeth and Kordell couldn't get it done ( both these guys are Teddy Bridgewater) then they got Ben and were winning championships again.

Packers

Dominant with Bart then drop off the planet until Farve. How long was that? Then they lucked into Rodgers.

Chargers

They had Fouts and were good
Then nothing until Rivers

Giants

Nothing after the 60s until they got Simms
Did ok but dropped with Hostettler
Became obscure until Eli

Bill's

Nothing till Kelly
Nothing since until Allen

I could go on and on with probably every team in the league.

QBs don't grow on trees and y'alls problem is that the Panthers have been rather fortunate in the QB department and success department.


You guys constantly say win now and get a QB later? So when is that going to happen?
10 years from now? 20? 30?

The fact is we had a chance to control our own destiny and do something few teams have ever done move from one great QB to another without years of average in between.

Trevor would have been our chance to build a multiyear dominance now.

You guys constantly throw out Rodgers and others taken outside the top 5. Well that depends on the other teams missing them.

I love Thomas Davis but we should have taken Rodgers. I love CMC but we should have taken Mahomes. We made mistakes both those years. Are you willing to hope other teams are stupid during our search for a QB?

If we start consistently making the playoffs with Teddy but never getting to the NFC championship where is our savior going to come from?

How long will we have to wait?

Winning now if we don't get at least Lance has probably cost at least 15 years of no ring.


Show me why I'm wrong.

Yet another nonsense thread.

:eyeroll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, motocross_cat said:

Dude.  All the misery in the world and you cannot be happy about your football team winning.

I'll plug you in with the right guys to get you some medication to turn that frown upside down.

I'm not a fan to just win games.

I want championships. 

You'll never see me criticize the Carolina Hurricanes. You know why? They have a cup!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trevor Lawrence is not a guaranteed Dynasty. It takes a lot more than just that. One of the reasons BB has been so successful in NE is culture. Granted he had TB but even with Matt Kassell, that was an 11-5 team that may have made a deep run but didnt get a WC. 

I want the Panthers to win, but having a generational talent with a bad coach wont get you there either. Let Rhule build the culture. Watch FAs come here because they want a shot at a ring. It takes more than just a QB to win the Lombardi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, PantherOnTheProwl1523 said:

Not one thing you said was remotely factual but all ridiculous nonsense with no basis with facts whatsoever.

Really. Where was I wrong?

I'll wait?

Redskins? Jurgensen then nothing till Theismann and Williams and nothing since.

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...