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!

     

Anyone else got a bad feeling about this Eagles game?

hepcat

By hepcat,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

glenwo2 Grand Master

glenwo2

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, jayboogieman said:

This is where I'm at. I'll watch and take whatever enjoyment I can from the games, but I have zero expectations going into them.

The only expectations I have is watching Sam's development and continued improvement as an NFL QB. 

And I definitely WILL enjoy watching the Defense absolutely FEAST!  😼

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChibCU Experienced

ChibCU

Posted
Posted

I don't understand the thought that because the offensive line is bad, it means by default the backups are better. Is it possible? Yes, but who knows to what degree even if so. We legit might just have no solid offensive line options. The Norwell type situations aren't all that common, imo.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
iamhubby1 Veteran

iamhubby1

Posted
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, CRA said:

I think they will be able to run on us. 

and I have never forgotten Fletcher Cox almost single handedly beating us after being a last minute activation that was hurt all week. 

I think we win.  I don’t think we will feel great after it.  But that’s also just how football is. 

 

First. If Johnson doesn't play, they will have 1 starter playing. They ain't running on us. Our D is going to feast yet again.

 

They have given up over 80 points the last 2 games. And teams are running all over them. So much so, that the Philly papers are asking if Cox is even playing? He has disappeared.

 

At home. This is a get right game. But that's how it's supposed to be.

 

Edit to add. Cox has had 2 games where he had 0 stats.

Edited by iamhubby1
  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
glenwo2 Grand Master

glenwo2

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, ChibCU said:

I don't understand the thought that because the offensive line is bad, it means by default the backups are better. Is it possible? Yes, but who knows to what degree even if so. We legit might just have no solid offensive line options. The Norwell type situations aren't all that common, imo.

Think of it this way :  This is Brady's chance to basically keep Erving on the sidelines indefinitely if he plays well. 

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
  • Poo 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...