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!

     

Would it be stupid to offer a draft pick (mid round) for an established solid kicker?

YourLastThought

By YourLastThought,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

YourLastThought Mentor

YourLastThought

Posted
Posted

I'm just curious on thoughts but would it be a dimwit move to offer a mid round draft pick to a team for a good established kicker? Would a team even consider this? I guess it would then put that team into kicker jeopardy as we are and that would be a dumb move on their behalf but it would net that team a decent defat pick like say a 4th rounder? Just curious on thoughts because as I see it we will be consistently leaving points off the board with the types of kickers we are bringing in. As much as I couldn't stand Gano I'm now eating crow saying I wish he was back. Good kickers are apparently very hard to find. I wonder what the 80's Bears Kevin Butler is doing these days?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
YourLastThought Mentor

YourLastThought

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 minutes ago, Dunn said:

I'd think to have a position that could potentially locked up for 10-15 years of consistent football would be worth a 3rd or 4th round pick.  Think of how many points that position produces every year.

I agree. Kickers are picked on so much but damn those guys are absolutely vital and decide so many things when the score is close

Link to comment
Share on other sites
YourLastThought Mentor

YourLastThought

Posted
  • Author
Posted
6 minutes ago, Snake said:

Who would trade their starting kicker right now? Much less for a 4th. We screwd the pooch with Gano and Butker. Its one of the reasons why Hurney isn't here. Nothing we can do about it till next off season.🤷‍♂️

Very true, I guess it was just wishful thinking on my part. And yep Gano or Butker sure do look like nice options these days don't they! I admit I was on the Gano hate train and am now eating my words.

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...