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!

     

A little more insight on the almost Matt Stafford trade.

Panthercougar68

By Panthercougar68,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

Panthercougar68 Grand Master

Panthercougar68

Posted
Posted (edited)

So I know one of the topics to go poo on the Panthers was “Matt stafford didn’t want to come to this dumpster fire”

but Ian is reporting today that there were a TON of teams on the verge of the trade and Stafford and his family had their heart 100 percent set on LA...IMO it seems more of a “Stafford wanted to go their more than he didn’t want to come here” kind of thing.

Dont let the tweet fool you, the article mentions how aggressive the Colts got after the Panthers dropped out. 
 

also….it’s GAMEDAY 

 

Edited by Panthercougar68
  • Pie 2
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Varking Grand Master

Varking

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, Gipetto said:

I didn’t want Matt Stafford. Dude played 12 years in Detroit and didn’t accomplish one thing.

He’s their version of Cam Newton. He had just 4 winning seasons in 12 years. His talent was wasted. The team around him was never all that great. 

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Castavar Grand Master

Castavar

Posted
Posted (edited)

I didn't want Stafford. I'm not fond of giving away future early round picks for a 33 year old QB, ESPECIALLY since we're not a playoff now ready team anyway.  It always made sense for Stafford to go to a superbowl contending team. He paid his dues in Detroit, he didn't want to potentially go through yet ANOTHER rebuild.

Edited by Castavar
  • Pie 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LinvilleGorge Grand Master

LinvilleGorge

Posted
Posted

Detroit finally got one right after terribly botching the Barry Sanders and Megatron situations. Stafford was a good QB for them who they failed to build a team around. He wanted out and they were willing to sign off on sending him where he wanted to go as long as the trade compensation was in the ballpark of other offers. Good in them. Finally.

  • Pie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
therealmjl Grand Master

therealmjl

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Gipetto said:

I didn’t want Matt Stafford. Dude played 12 years in Detroit and didn’t accomplish one thing.

Yeah. So glad we got Sam Darnold instead.

I’m sure the Rams were locked in to Darnold if the Stafford deal were to have fallen through.

Edited by therealmjl
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
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...