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!

     

Pay Samuel at Halftime


Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, onmyown said:

Fact is another team will pay him more. Would rather see if there is trade value than pay. We have much bigger holes. The draft is chalk full of WR talent all over the place.

Can't trade him now. And I don't see any other teams offering a lot. What has he shown that screams "big deal in FA?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, t96 said:

Can't trade him now. And I don't see any other teams offering a lot. What has he shown that screams "big deal in FA?"

Didn’t say anyone would offer a lot. And I didn’t say anything about a big deal. All I said was another team would pay him more. 1. Because there are plenty of teams more desperate than the Panthers at WR and 2. The panthers have offensive weapons that already have what Samuel does, he is a commodity on this team. That is, granted, in if they plan to keep what they have if Moore/CMC/Anderson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, onmyown said:

Didn’t say anyone would offer a lot. And I didn’t say anything about a big deal. All I said was another team would pay him more. 1. Because there are plenty of teams more desperate than the Panthers at WR and 2. The panthers have offensive weapons that already have what Samuel does, he is a commodity on this team. That is, granted, in if they plan to keep what they have.

If no team offers a lot, we'll just keep him. We have the cap space and clearly see his value in this offense. No other player on the team right now can fill in Samuel's role. Sure, DJ or McC have similar abilities, but we're not going to use superstar players in a swiss army knife role. They are WR1 and RB1. Nobody else on the roster could do what Samuel does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, t96 said:

If no team offers a lot, we'll just keep him. We have the cap space and clearly see his value in this offense. No other player on the team right now can fill in Samuel's role. Sure, DJ or McC have similar abilities, but we're not going to use superstar players in a swiss army knife role. They are WR1 and RB1. Nobody else on the roster could do what Samuel does.

Regardless of what we think he’d have to be ok with a 3rd string wr salary, and see that no other team offers him more than that. Both in playing time and salary. But I believe a team will offer him more than that.

I would be all about resigning him but as I said I would not be about outbidding another team for him given our current holes and needs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, t96 said:

If no team offers a lot, we'll just keep him. We have the cap space and clearly see his value in this offense. No other player on the team right now can fill in Samuel's role. Sure, DJ or McC have similar abilities, but we're not going to use superstar players in a swiss army knife role. They are WR1 and RB1. Nobody else on the roster could do what Samuel does.

WR1? Ahem!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here the thing. I have always believed samuel is a lot better than what we have him reduced to. A lot of people have him limited to a number 3.. but I think its possible he's better than Moore. He gets open more consistently and has been under utilized by bad coaching(Shula and ron) and limited offensive creativity. Not to mention qb play that hasn't been able to hit him in stride at what he does best. The deep ball.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • lol, that second part is quite literally one of the dumbest things ever. Having or not having guaranteed contracts has absolutely nothing to do with how much these billionaires have to pay.  Because there is a hard cap and a minimum cap spend requirement, and teams either use their cap or roll it over to use it all the next year, so the owners have to pay the same amount of money in the end no matter what. Having fully guaranteed contracts in the NFL would only hurt salary cap management, and thus would end up screwing over the team and its fan base when teams kiss on signings as they take up cap room that is needed to improve the roster. Look at the Browns with Watson, they gave him the fully guaranteed deal and all it’s doing is sucking up massive cap space now.  If they hadn’t done that, the owner would still be paying the same amount of money each year as that cap space would still be used elsewhere. If you want to argue for fully guaranteed contracts because the players deserve it, that’s an entirely different argument and a fair one to discuss.  But anyone against fully guaranteed deals isn’t doing it to argue for the billionaire owners.
    • Start posting in threads in the other forums instead of just creating threads. No one comes over here so you aren't starting conversations.  Get your ass up to 100 posts. It's not that hard. Don't create 100 posts. Contribute to conversations. 
    • Ryabkin could be the steal of the draft, he was a Top 10 pick heading into last season and had a rough year.  Lots of GMs passed on him because of that and his workouts. Pick has really high upside and Svech should be able to translate Rod tearing his arse a new one for making dumb plays since Svech has had several years of it.  🤣😂
×
×
  • Create New...