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!

     

No starters will play Sunday vs the Colts


Zod
 Share

Recommended Posts

In prior seasons we would se the starters in first preseason game for what 1 series? We lose a preseason game and he wants to see the bottom of the roster in real time game situations. This really makes a lot of sense with losing a preseason game.  We're talking about 1 series here, why all the drama

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, CRA said:

Seems if you wanted to give guys a game off it would be game 3.   That why you aren’t banged up going into week 1.  And as of right now it is the only one Rhule will say for certain he will play Darnold and company. 

They will get game 3 off too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, CRA said:

Seems if you wanted to give guys a game off it would be game 3.   That why you aren’t banged up going into week 1.  And as of right now it is the only one Rhule will say for certain he will play Darnold and company. 

There's already a week off between preseason and regular seaaon.

He didn't say it was to give them a game off. He said it was to look at the non starters because they have cuts on Tuesday. 

Does anybody listen to interviews or read the articles?

 

Edited by Moo Daeng
  • Beer 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Moo Daeng said:

There's already a week off between preseason and regular seaaon.

He didn't say it was to give them a game off. He said it was to look at the non starters because they have cuts on Tuesday. 

Does anybody listen to interviews or read the articles?

 

per Rhule he was going play starters preseason game 1 as late as Wed.  Two days later it is doubtful they see any action the next two. 

that doesn’t sound like a masterplan and big picture vision of how he intended to handle the preseason this year.    Sounds like a last minute change that people are declaring is a masterplan just because everything has to be spun that way 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm very much on board with the ones not playing tomorrow.

The OL has been in constant flux it sounds and putting Sam behind whatever patchwork unit they march out there is not a recipe for success. Plus, depth is a real concern with a roster going through the type of churn that the Panthers' has. Injuries will happen, so there has to be quality depth in case somebody goes down. Look at how the offense suffered when CMC went down and how much the deep passing attempts tapered off after Teddy's knee injury. Combine that with lackluster OL play and well... there's three reasons right there why they weren't winning any shootouts.

I'm especially excited to check out the competition at WR, DB, and the DL.

Plus, this means we should see Tommy Tremble 👀

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 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

    • 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...