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!

     

Deangelo Williams and Gary Barnidge on Cam and yesterday's game

PanthersATL

By PanthersATL,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

Call Me James Veteran

Call Me James

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, ickmule said:

No idea why anyone is mad about anything any media fool has To say at this point.  We really have no idea what we have in Cam. He played an handful of plays and looked good. A handful of plays does not equate to a full game played.  Arizona did not gameplan for any plays with Cam as QB.  Tempering expectations until we’ve seen Cam play several full games is best, otherwise your setting yourself up for disappointment.  

Probably because it was all one big strawman. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AggieLean Grand Master

AggieLean

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, pantherclaw said:

He was wrong that CMC deserved the credit? That PJ played well? 

I wasn't 💯 in agreement, but he was right that nobody is giving credit to those who actually won the game. 

This fan base is 💯 insane with Cam Newton.

This may be the case, but it’s pot meet kettle with you as you were insane against Cam while he was here the first time. 

  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Catsfan69 Grand Master

Catsfan69

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, PanthersATL said:

I'm probably going to get this wrong:

  • some of what they spoke about earlier in the program was about how fandom can act as blinders vs actuality. (they were talking about other sports with this commentary)
  • Generally speaking, 2021 Cam is not the same as 2015 Cam. We shouldn't expect 2015 Cam.
  • Give credit to PJ and CMC. Cam only played for 5 snaps.
  • To me, it didn't sound anti-Cam, but trying to take a step back and be realistic about what the upcoming games and current situation is all about.

Again - I'm probably wrong with these bullets.

Yeah basically what I say here all the time .

According to clown world here being rational and objective is hating Cam.

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...