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!

     

Deshaun maybe to the PANTHERS?!?! What?!!

Vader704

By Vader704,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

kungfoodude Grand Master

kungfoodude

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, top dawg said:

Yeah, man. Scot seemed to relish telling me how we weren't really interested in Fields, per reports, but I told him that just because we weren't interested doesn't mean that Rhule and company didn't fug up. Of course it's preseason, but everything I've heard says he's been nothing but the real deal. 

We won't know if we fuged up for a few years, most likely. If the Bears are smart, they will let Fields ride the pine and let Dalton take all the shots while Nagy rides him into unemployment.

Scott is just doing the "pretending to not have an opinion but clearly having an opinion" thing. It's fine. He's been staunchly anti-Watson after the allegations started to come to light. I get it.

 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
top dawg Grand Master

top dawg

Posted
Posted
Just now, Mr. Scot said:

I'm not sure the door was ever really open.

All we've ever seen were rumors based on the idea that Tepper "would pay any price" and such, which was pretty clearly bullsh-t since Tepper doesn't interfere in personnel decisions.

The one story we've seen that actually addressed anything substantial came from Albert Breer. When he was talking about what led to the Darnold trade, he mentioned the team looked into Watson but since the Texans weren't even answering calls at that point, they decided to look elsewhere.

That's pretty much it.

There were more reports than that. Come on, Scot! Don't get selective with your reports. Like I told Kungfoo, you were all too happy to believe the reports about Fields...

If there was as little interest as you're intimating, then Jones and Person wouldn't have used the language that they did in their tweets. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
top dawg Grand Master

top dawg

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

We won't know if we fuged up for a few years, most likely. If the Bears are smart, they will let Fields ride the pine and let Dalton take all the shots while Nagy rides him into unemployment.

Scott is just doing the "pretending to not have an opinion but clearly having an opinion" thing. It's fine. He's been staunchly anti-Watson after the allegations started to come to light. I get it.

 

I get it too. LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites
onmyown Grand Master

onmyown

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, joemac said:

How can anybody poo on Sams play last night? From what I’ve seen he looked fantastic. 16/21 2 TDs, no turnovers in a half of work? What’s not to like? That being said I’d definitely still be looking to get Watson as he’s a dramatic upgrade from Sam all things considered. Watsons never had a supporting cast or OC like he would have here. He could win the MVP if he’s actually on the field. That’s where I’m at. 

He played second/third stringers…is not to like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Coheed Proficient

Coheed

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Ace420 said:

Prove he assaulted women. You do know that women lie, especially when there is millions of dollars involved right?

There’d be some merit to that if it wasn’t over 20 accusations. That’s a pattern and it’s a problem. If we ever trade for him I’d have to reevaluate my support of team, and I would be far from the only one. Keep him the fug away 

  • Beer 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
top dawg Grand Master

top dawg

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, joemac said:

How can anybody poo on Sams play last night? From what I’ve seen he looked fantastic. 16/21 2 TDs, no turnovers in a half of work? What’s not to like? That being said I’d definitely still be looking to get Watson as he’s a dramatic upgrade from Sam all things considered. Watsons never had a supporting cast or OC like he would have here. He could win the MVP if he’s actually on the field. That’s where I’m at. 

I don't think anyone is shitting on Darnold as much as they're keeping his performance in perspective. There were some good moments, but there were some sketchy ones as well...against the twos. I think for many people, we didn't really learn a damn thing about Darnold last night; we're still waiting for the season.

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, top dawg said:

There were more reports than that. Come on, Scot! Don't get selective with your reports. Like I told Kungfoo, you were all too happy to believe the reports about Fields...

If there was as little interest as you're intimating, then Jones and Person wouldn't have used the language that they did in their tweets. 

There was never more than rumor, and pretty much all those turned out to be bullsh-t.

I get that you wanted it to be true, but it's just never looked that way.

Edited by Mr. Scot
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Mistuh Jones
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By Mistuh Jones · Posted

      This is gonna be longest six weeks ever 
    • PNW_PantherMan
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By PNW_PantherMan · Posted

      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
    • tukafan21
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By tukafan21 · Posted

      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...