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!

     

Watson not the only big name vet at QB that we're looking at?


ncfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, MHS831 said:

If you cannot attack points with facts, do not attack the poster.  If you think any misfire on any pick is a reason to denounce all of their points after that, then you think all GMs are "dumb as hell."  Yet you offer no insights of your own-

Don’t come at me dude when u have no idea what we were talking about, you wasn’t commenting then so don’t comment now. He knows I don’t have to prove myself to anyone on here. Attack me again and I will be reporting u.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, kungfoodude said:

That depends on the resources spent. Stafford's money owed is extremely cheap for a player of his caliber. So if you could get him for a 3rd round pick(just throwing out an example), I'd make that trade in a heartbeat. 

And Stafford's playing style could mean 5 more years--he could go to age 38 or even longer if protected. 

Cam had about 6 good years, to put that in perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BurnNChinn said:

Don’t come at me dude when u have no idea what we were talking about, you wasn’t commenting then so don’t comment now. He knows I don’t have to prove myself to anyone on here. Attack me again and I will be reporting u.

So you are now making the rules of engagement?  Report me--I am actually being nice right now.  If you want this to be between you and the poster, then get off a public discussion board. 

Dude.

 

Edited by MHS831
  • Pie 1
  • Poo 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

So you are now making the rules of engagement?  Report me--I am actually being nice right now.  If you want this to be between you and the poster, then get off a public discussion board. 

Dude.

 

This is a discussion board. Then u bring something up that was said over 20 hrs ago great job sir

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BurnNChinn said:

Don’t come at me dude when u have no idea what we were talking about, you wasn’t commenting then so don’t comment now. He knows I don’t have to prove myself to anyone on here. Attack me again and I will be reporting u.

LMFAO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/20/2021 at 3:37 PM, TSLA said:

Pederson was fired because he threw away the last game of the season. Do you even pay attention to football? Quit making things up.

Hey there you football savant!  I wanted to make you aware of Philly's coaching hire and what was stated about the hire in the ESPN article:  "The Eagles coaching search was done with the quarterback situation -- Carson Wentz, in particular -- in mind. After firing Doug Pederson, whose relationship with Wentz had soured, Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie said: "It behooves us as a team with a new coach, a new coaching staff, to be able to really get [Wentz] back to that elite progression."

Never question if I pay attention to football...maybe take a look in the mirror.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, kungfoodude said:

Yeah, I think Stafford has a lot of shelf life left if he decides to have a long career. 

I think the requirement now is that if you want Stafford, you have to beat Dan Campbell in a cage match.

No disrespect, but I'm not so sure Rhule can take him.

  • Flames 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • 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 ?
    • You're really gonna pass up the opportunity to make a joke about skidmarks in underwear here?  Alright fine.
×
×
  • Create New...