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

2 minutes ago, Verge said:

People should definitely get it out of their minds that CMC wouldn't be potentially involved in the trade for Watson. Everything is on the table right now.

He won't be involved because nobody but Hurney would give CMC a contract like he has.  He's great but that contract makes him virtually untradable to any sane GM.  But stranger things have happened.  We would still be in the hook for the bonus money.  I just don't see any reasonable way you can pull it off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, BigCat#1 said:

I'll take anything over teddy

Which is this forums biggest problem. It’s not about last year or even this coming year, it’s the bigger picture.

Need to draft the next franchise QB and have patience.

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

1 hour ago, joemac said:

Now thats interesting.  I would be totally fine with Stafford and the weapons we have on offense.  He could put up video game numbers in our system.

Would likely be a whole helluva lot cheaper than Watson as wel.

This. I don’t think we need a Watson caliber player to compete for a Lombardi with the weapons we have as long as we protect the QB and don’t become anemic on defense. This move makes a lot of sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, SOJA said:

Here would be my ideal power ranking of the options

1: Teddy, 8th this year, future first, and CMC for Watson 

2: Trade up to 2nd overall with #8, future first, and second this year. Draft Wilson

3: Trade a second rounder for Stafford 

Everyone keeps offering too little.  Jamal Adams went for two 1st, a safety.  Go look at the RG3 trade or the Mack trade.

Watson -  more like three 1st and a good player such as CMC or Burns, maybe a 2nd also or another player

2nd pick - Probably our next three 1st, RG3 was three 1st and and a 2nd.

Stafford - depending on where the team is picking, possible a 1st

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Verge said:

People should definitely get it out of their minds that CMC wouldn't be potentially involved in the trade for Watson. Everything is on the table right now.

And that is dumb as hell, just like when u thought Little should have been a first round pick for the Panthers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, AU-panther said:

Everyone keeps offering too little.  Jamal Adams went for two 1st, a safety.  Go look at the RG3 trade or the Mack trade.

Watson -  more like three 1st and a good player such as CMC or Burns, maybe a 2nd also or another player

2nd pick - Probably our next three 1st, RG3 was three 1st and and a 2nd.

Stafford - depending on where the team is picking, possible a 1st

 

Remember that Watson can tank his trade value with that no trade clause. It isn't a "free market" trade scenario 

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...