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!

     

Let's go! Official Bears at Panthers Predictions thread


Jeremy Igo

Recommended Posts

Even with our injuries, we win this game in a close one. Matt Rhule schemes around the guys we're missing and we don't miss a beat. Lowest scoring game of the year for us, no turnovers by either team.

 

20-16 Panthers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bull123 said:

No burns, YGM, or KK...our DL is decimated...and we all know our LB can’t tackle

bears run it all day, eat up clock, keep Teddy & co off the field

and bears defense is no joke

hate it, but 21-17 bad guys...hope I’m wrong

Even against our below average run D, they are not going to do this. Their rushing attack is atrocious and it won't keep up with our offense if they attempt that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we got a 3 game win streak.  I think we can beat the Bears.  But I think the law of averages between comparable teams is going to come into play w/ our DL taking so many hits of late.

They should have good success running the football against us IMO.  They have healthy WRs.   They also post a top defense.   Close game.   Bears win by 3. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • This 1000%.  Hey who wants to sign with the guy that couldn't even get his client the guaranteed contract of a 3rd round pick?  Lmao
    • I don't think it's any weird or unique clause, it's the offset language, same thing so many contract disputes are over. It just means that including it, if a player is cut and then signed by another team, the original team would be able to subtract how much they're getting paid by the new team from what they still owe him on their guaranteed money. For example, it's why Russell Wilson signed for the minimum last year with the Steelers as that was included in his Denver contract.  So if he signed with the Steelers for $1 million, he'd get $1 million less from the Broncos, if it was $2 million, he'd get $2 million less, basically he couldn't make any more money than he was already going to make, so you sign for the minimum to not take unnecessary cap room from your new team while giving extra cap room to your old one. The problem with trying to include it in rookie deals is that a team trying to include it, it says they think they don't really believe the player will make it 4 years with the team before they cut them.  And this usually comes up with one or two rookies in most seasons, the difference is it's usually handled much more quietly and not as public and ugly as this one. The other difference is that it's happening with the Bengals, which I believe I saw are one of the few (or only?) team that doesn't have protections for rookies in rookie and mini camps to be able to participate even if they haven't signed their contract yet.  The other teams have injury protections that allow them to still play, but the Bengals do not, which is also why this one is so public and ugly, as most the time this happens, the rookie is still participating in the rookie and subsequent mini camps, giving them more time to get the contract done before training camp when they'd then hold out.
    • adamantium? adam? adam thielen super bowl game winning catch ?
×
×
  • Create New...