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!

     

NBC's Peter King wont be suprised if Mac Jones goes ahead of Lance


ncfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

https://www.nbcsports.com/edge/football/nfl/player-news/headlines/9986211?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

"King cited a source from a QB-needy NFL team who said Lance's lack of recent play -- he's played one game in the past 414 days -- makes him an iffy selection as a top-10 pick."

 

I swear, if we take Mac Jones in the top 10.  Ill be done with Tepper, Rhule, and Fitterer.

Edited by ncfan
  • Pie 3
  • Beer 1
  • Flames 1
  • Poo 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, ncfan said:

https://www.nbcsports.com/edge/football/nfl/player-news/headlines/9986211?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

"King cited a source from a QB-needy NFL team who said Lance's lack of recent play -- he's played one game in the past 414 days -- makes him an iffy selection as a top-10 pick."

 

I swear, if we take Mac Jones in the top 10.  Ill be done with Tepper, Rhule, and Fitterer.

Like I have said since day 1.  Lance will be there at 8 the question is will the panther still be there.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, CRA said:

This is great pending we aren’t the team he is referencing 

I do think Mac Jones could see the field and be ready for legit NFL reps before Lance is ready 

I think Jones is the safer pick in that respect.  His ceiling is lower, his floor may be higher, and his timeline to be ready to go in the NFL is probably shorter.  That is not to say he is the right pick, but safer for somebody looking to go that route. 

I've heard his name mentioned with New England a lot.  That might surprise Peter King unless the Pats trade up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, shaqattaq said:

Jones in ATL makes perfect sense. They even look alike.

image.jpeg.025540a50923d7ae16a2251074b47495.jpeg  image.jpeg.b65a371a22d69967983d4bdfc63e047c.jpeg

Right?!

Not to mention their recent trend of picking unexpected players in R1 in recent years. 

My only concern is Arthur Smith actually knows what he's doing so we can hope!

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

    • This is gonna be longest six weeks ever 
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...