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!

     

Injury Update


 Share

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Cdparr7 said:

So is there a certain ranking system to these icons? I thought pies were worse than poo. Honestly I thought it was in order from 

1. Beer

2. The D

3. Flames

4. Poo

5. Pie

I'm no expert, but here's my take:

Flames and the D are equally awesome, but the D is reserved, IMO, for our defense and sexual innuendos.

Beer is a solid Well Done.

Pie is I agree

Poo is poo, and that's a bad thing.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, shaqattaq said:

I'm no expert, but here's my take:

Flames and the D are equally awesome, but the D is reserved, IMO, for our defense and sexual innuendos.

Beer is a solid Well Done.

Pie is I agree

Poo is poo, and that's a bad thing.

I thought they factored into your reputation score differently and they are in order when you click the icon so I thought it was from best to worst. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Cdparr7 said:

So is there a certain ranking system to these icons? I thought pies were worse than poo. Honestly I thought it was in order from 

1. Beer

2. The D

3. Flames

4. Poo

5. Pie

I read them as this:

1. Pie - I agree

2. Beer - I really agree and would buy you a beer IRL

3. The D - I agree and find this topic/response sexy too (no, I will not swing your way @TheSpecialJuan!)

4. Poo - This is crap, you're crap, your post is crap, and you should feel like crap for posting it too... crap

5. Flame - Your post should be burning in the lowest pits of hell right next to falcons fans, ambulance chasers, and your eternal soul, you heathen!

 

I'm pretty certain that last one is wrong, but it's how I read it, so I never flame anyone's posts. Not even the guys with 100+ troll alts on here.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Pie- I like your post 

2. Beer- we think alike I would have a beer with you 

3. Flames- you just roasted who ever you are talking about 

4. The D- that was boarder line gay, super gay, alluding to be gay

5 poo- you poo, what you talking about is poo 

IMO

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Panthercougar68 said:

I have not and if that is the case that would be great I just saw from the field that he was holding it like he couldn’t move it because of a broken bone kind of thing but again I’m not a doctor

I was actually thinking collar bone or shoulder separation.

  • 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

    • 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.
    • adamantium? adam? adam thielen super bowl game winning catch ?
×
×
  • Create New...