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!

     

  • panthers-redskins-1.jpg

Panthers sign K Zane Gonzalez


Recommended Posts

59 minutes ago, Cdparr7 said:

Wait so Zane can’t kick for us for 3 weeks since he came off Detroit’s PS? And Eberle can’t be elevated for 4 weeks? Did I understand that right?

So whose kicking this week?

Zane has to be in the roster for 3 weeks. Eberle can be elevated 2 weeks before needing to be signed to the active roster and can be protected from poaching for 4 weeks. Either player could be the kicker next week.

Team looks to be taking advantage of those rules to continue the kicking competition throughout the season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

They were trying to win games. It's not a psychology seminar.

The guy can either do it or he can't. In this case, turns out he can't.

Sam Darnold couldn’t do it.  Year after year after year. 

or are you going to tell be how Jets set him up to fail and all he needs is a new coach to work out and fix all the issues the last franchise helped create?   Because the talent is all there. 

and I’m talking about Joey Slye the kicker.   But all you see is someone might be slighting the golden child Matt Rhule in the process of talking about what could of happened with Syle…..

 

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CRA said:

Sam Darnold couldn’t do it.  Year after year after year. 

or are you going to tell be how Jets set him up to fail and all he needs is a new coach to work out and fix all the issues the last franchise helped create?   Because the talent is all there. 

The Jets coaches were bad at their jobs.

That's not the same as setting someone up to fail.

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mr. Scot said:

The Jets coaches were bad at their jobs.

That's not the same as setting someone up to fail.

sure it is.  It’s commonly talked about in football/sports.  Players being set up to fail within an organization.  Which in that context, literal intentional sabatoge of the player is not what is implied. 

and you can find more posts, articles, etc than one would care to read about Sam Darnold being setup to fail in NY.  

  • Pie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Zod said:

We drafted a long snapper that didn't make the roster instead of a kicker.

And everyone commended rhule for finding a starter so late in the draft and just loved the video of him getting picked! Crazy how now people want to wake up and realize any LS drafted is a wasted pick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know sh*t is bad when we are WANTING Slye back.

Like WTF are we doing?! So many options, and you choose a kicker WORSE than Slye and had even more yips than Slye? Imagine the chaos on here when Zane misses a clutch kick (which make no doubt in your mind, he WILL miss). I just don't get this move when Borregales and Verity are out there and have so much more potential than a known choker that has already lost two teams a ton of games. Might as well kept Slye if this is what our backup plan was. Starting to really question this staff.

 

Edited by Castavar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Floppin said:

 

 

Aren't ya'll just the epitome of misogyny. 

I don't give two fugs about Kim personally but I certainly wouldn't attempt to belittle anyone for their sexuality or promiscuity. People like to have sex, women included. Get over it. It's honestly disgusting that you think it's something to shame someone for. Do better. 

I have always appreciated your posts and you as a poster here, Floppin, but it's not that serious, man.  Not to derail this thread, but I just as easily could flip that into a joke about a male, as in, "he's been through more teams than my dad has hookers." (Probably not factual by the way, my dad had to smash at least 10).  Secondly, I agree, everyone enjoys sex, and no, they should not be shamed for the fact that they enjoy it - it's a natural human need and desire.  I'm not shaming her for that, what that "joke" was focusing on was her commodifying her sexuality and promiscuity in order to get fame, fortune, and whatever else she wanted while at the time, not having any discernible talent.  She used her sexuality and promiscuity  to chase a check.

It has nothing to do with misogyny.  I've been happily married for going on 20 some years.  Women are God's most incredible creation and if you have ever witnessed a woman give birth, it is the most awe-inspiring display of strength and beauty that one being can imagine.  There is no feat of strength comparable to it...  women should be held up as the marvel that they are.

That being said, there's a difference between having some class about you and cheapening a natural component of human needs by using men repeatedly as tools to get what you want because of their notoriety and net worth when you are the gatekeeper of said needs.  And again, it doesn't come from a place of misogyny.  I have numerous female family members and friends who feel the same way about her.  There's plenty of men and women celebrities throughout the history of entertainers who were notoriously promiscuous, but they carried themselves with some class.  She's not one of them, and almost all of the men she attached herself to for her own gain were ruined during or after being associated with that family.  And on the flipside, how many people have made jokes about guys like Antonio Cromartie and Shawn Kemp for their promiscuity?  I know I have.

Again, sorry to derail, but I had to clarify. 

Back to sorry ass kickers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

The Jets coaches were bad at their jobs.

That's not the same as setting someone up to fail.

 

46 minutes ago, CRA said:

sure it is.  It’s commonly talked about in football/sports.  Players being set up to fail within an organization.  Which in that context, literal intentional sabatoge of the player is not what is implied. 

and you can find more posts, articles, etc than one would care to read about Sam Darnold being setup to fail in NY.  

I think you're both right.

I think the Jets Coaches were bad at their jobs *AND* they set up Sam to fail. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Proudiddy said:

I have always appreciated your posts and you as a poster here, Floppin, but it's not that serious, man.  Not to derail this thread, but I just as easily could flip that into a joke about a male, as in, "he's been through more teams than my dad has hookers." (Probably not factual by the way, my dad had to smash at least 10).  Secondly, I agree, everyone enjoys sex, and no, they should not be shamed for the fact that they enjoy it - it's a natural human need and desire.  I'm not shaming her for that, what that "joke" was focusing on was her commodifying her sexuality and promiscuity in order to get fame, fortune, and whatever else she wanted while at the time, not having any discernible talent.  She used her sexuality and promiscuity  to chase a check.

It has nothing to do with misogyny.  I've been happily married for going on 20 some years.  Women are God's most incredible creation and if you have ever witnessed a woman give birth, it is the most awe-inspiring display of strength and beauty that one being can imagine.  There is no feat of strength comparable to it...  women should be held up as the marvel that they are.

That being said, there's a difference between having some class about you and cheapening a natural component of human needs by using men repeatedly as tools to get what you want because of their notoriety and new worth when you are the gatekeeper of said needs.  And again, it doesn't come from a place of misogyny, I have numerous female family members and friends who feel the same way about her.  There's plenty of men and women celebrities throughout the history of entertainers who were notoriously promiscuous, but they carried themselves with some class.  She's not one of them, and almost all of the men she attached herself to for her own gain were ruined during or after being associated with that family.  

Again, sorry to derail, but I had to clarify. 

Back to sorry ass kickers.

You, same as everyone else, missed the point entirely but I let it go hours ago. There are plenty of reasons to dislike or bash on any one of the Kardashians. Her sexuality (including using it to "find fame and fortune"), promiscuity or anything similar is not one of them. Regardless of you having an opinion on her "class" the who, how and when she chooses to have sex with someone, so long as it's not adulterous or illegal, is not something deserving of derision or scorn.

I also didn't think it was all that serious and only made an offhand remark about the comment being in bad taste. Then a bunch of neckbeards took offense because I assume they felt called out and well, here we are.

Edited by Floppin
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


×
×
  • Create New...