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!

     

UPDATED: Jaycee Horn Diagnosed with Broken Foot

Proudiddy

By Proudiddy,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

t96 Grand Master

t96

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Paa Langfart said:

Broken foot can be bad news.  Lets hope it isnt a Jones fracture or what Cam wound up with -  a Lisfranc which would be worst case scenario.  

Obviously a broken foot is bad news. But even a Liz Frank or Jones is better than an Achilles injury, which is what was feared initially. Achilles injuries may be the most devastating for NFL players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheMostInterestingMan Mentor

TheMostInterestingMan

Posted
Posted

As someone who has an unhealthy man crush for JC Horn, a broken foot fugging sucks but let me bring in some positive healthy objectivity.

 

This is WAY better than a torn Achilles. He will most likely be back this season for one thing, but even beyond that, can probably maintain his explosiveness. An Achilles would have been a season ended and may have taken some of his explosiveness away forever. 
 

This fugging sucks, but considering the non-contact, carted off the field injury, this is basically best case scenario. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RJK Grand Master

RJK

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, countryboi said:

As someone that has broken their foot twice. At the very least that’s a 4-6 week injury depending on where he broke it it could be 6-8 weeks. That’s 6-8 weeks of no running no conditioning it’s trash 

with a high rate of reinjury. a football player with brittle feet is similar to a boxer with brittle hands. It can and has derailed careers 

  • Pie 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
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...