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!

     

Teddy- Should He Stay or Go?


Michael G
 Share

Recommended Posts

What is the best course of action to take regarding Teddy? 

(1) Trade him for very little before the season and eat a large portion of his contract (Avoid distractions- Free up a little Cap Space- choose a back up that is all-in).

(2) Keep him to back-up Sam and pay him all of his huge contract for sitting (maybe trade him later for something, have him available if something happens to Sam)

(3) Cut him (free him to find his own way- Free up a little Cap Space, but eat a lot of dead money)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you can’t find a trade partner(HIGHLY unlikely IMO) then I think they should simply cut bait at this point. 
 

I don’t doubt teddys professionalism and ability to coexist but bottom line is what do the Panthers gain from keeping him? If Sam goes down I would much rather see what we have in Grier if anything. 
 

They know and we know what teddy is and is not. Eat the dead money and move on. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ultimately I think a deal is struck post draft, but I think our only real partner for a trade would be DEN. 

NE - Has Cam, so why would you trade for TB

WAS - Signed Fitz for 10M

-------------------------------------------------------

Outside of a surprise bidder those are the three QB needy teams, reports are that DEN is NOT interested in a trade up, due to the cost to get to #4 (Swapping 1sts, likely 22' & 23' 1sts, and a day 3 pick in one of those years or this one). Drew Lock still has about as much potential as most here want to give Darnold, they could stand pat and take BPA, and trade for TB to improve their QB depth. They have a defensive minded HC in FanGio so this might be a fit for that offense.  

Since TB is likely to leave us on the hook for his salary even in a trade, I can't see us getting more than a 4th and maybe a conditional late round 6 or 7. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem, of course, is money.

To cut Bridgewater outright doesn’t make financial sense for the Panthers because he would cost them as much as $20 million in dead money. To keep him doesn’t make sense, either. He’s a $23 million salary-cap hit if he’s on the roster unless he takes a pay cut, and he would probably be a backup unless Darnold gets hurt.

Far more palatable would be Bridgewater’s agents negotiating with another team, doing something creative with Bridgewater’s current contract and then telling the Panthers what they’ve found. That, in effect, is exactly what is going on right now.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has all basically been said, but he needs to be traded from both the business and personal perspective.  His professional relationship is already damaged by the comments we know about (internally who knows how much more has been discussed).  Even if he stays there is slim to no chance he has the drive to overcome and beat out Darnold.  He needs another change where he can move on.

From a business side we HAVE to trade him - and likely still eat a large chunk of salary.  Any viable picks, players we get in return and money less than 20-mil is a win over cutting.   But I agree it is likely after the draft - at this point waiting a few weeks hurts no one and the draft could dramatically change a team's perspective or value of Teddy.  

  • Pie 1
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

    • Here is how Morgan is strategic-He re-signs Scott because he was not going S in round 1--he had the chance, and he did not.  He saw the top of the draft at T and knew none of them would be ready to start day 1, so he signs a veteran to a one-year deal, giving his tackle selection a chance to learn and prepare for what might be LT or RT.  Those two moves suggested, perhaps ironically because they contradict each other, what he was going to do, based on the talent pool.  He never brought in a Robinson replacement at DE/NT, and then moves up to draft one.   I almost wonder if the intent was to draft DT/DE all along at some point, maybe with a trade back, but then Freeling dropped to them.   Of course, we felt that they were looking WR, and wonder if the plan was to draft a WR in round 2 if you traded back in round 1.  However, when Freeling was there, the trade back fell apart.  Then we traded up for Hunter.  We could stick with XL and hope Metchie steps up, so we sat still in round three and took Brazell II, a 1000 yard speedster and perfect Z WR.  What a break. At that time, CB and Center were our biggest needs, and with several possible centers on the board and a good fit for our defense at CB, we grabbed Will Lee III.  Lee and Thornton have people in front of them, but I think Morgan knew we needed a guy who can play the outside and press--and probably step in as Jackson's replacement in 2027.    After making trades to get back into the fifth round, where we grabbed one of the best centers in the draft.  This is significant because we signed Fortner to a one-year deal; maybe Morgan saw what some of us saw--the center position is strong in this draft--on day 3, and day 3 players need a year, in most cases.  Moments later, a safety they had been talking to whose skill set matched what we are looking for in a FS.  As stated, Scott was signed,  but the fact that the Panthers were talking to Wheatley and not Theiemann means that they might have known they were not going FS early, but would need a developmental FS later--which explains why we signed Scott.  So if you pay attention to the one-year, vet deals, you can tell where we planned to sign later-round, developmental players.  What positions did we draft early that did not have 1-year veterans signed in front of them:  DL (Hunter) and WR (I don't count Metchie because I count starting-level players). I would not be surprised to learn later that the plan was DT and WR in rounds 1 and 2--then Freeling fell.  Notice that Freeling--from Mt Pleasant SC, did not come in for a visit.  Most of the other OT candidates had short arms or were certain to be gone. I don't think Freeling was in their plans.  I think a trade back and Hunter and maybe Boston was the vision.  I am guessing that CB was also high on their list.   So in this draft, we got 
    • This is one area I think that is not getting enough exposure in the midst of all the optimism. I like Chuba a great deal from a personal standpoint but he has largely proven nothing on a consistent basis yet. He's had the one season of production but before that most people pegged us as moving on. And last year injuries or not he just did not have that juice. The rest of the guys are completely unproven. I don't see anyone among the group having a game or a handful of games worth of high level production the way Rico Dowdle did last year. And yeah he dropped off and yeah he got an attitude about our incompetent handling of the touches which was honestly justified on his part and he moved on but he did legitimately save our season. That's what it is going to take to seize control of the NFC South. We all know that we will not be passing all over defenses. It is what it is. So who amongst this RB group is capable of doing that? And if we are struggling to run the ball AND pass are we going to revert to making excuses for our coach and QB again? That is definitely getting old.
×
×
  • Create New...