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!

     

Today's Games


Catsfan69
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just now, Panthercougar68 said:

I really think this the most plausible. Makes up for the Brady courting fiasco.

Even after they spent so much for Lance? That's a curious situation, not that he can't be good, but maybe they're more comfortable with a vet since the rest of the team is pretty legit for a couple playoff runs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jackie Lee said:

Even after they spent so much for Lance? That's a curious situation, not that he can't be good, but maybe they're more comfortable with a vet since the rest of the team is pretty legit for a couple playoff runs

I know its weird but a Twitter account I follow who is a browns fan/works for ESPN has been pretty accurate with everything and he says Trey is a year away from being a year  away if that tells you anything.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Captroop said:

For all the talk about, "you can't win in this league without a franchise QB," today proved that a QB will get you to the playoffs, but a defense gets you a championship. Looking at Kyler's implosion last week, and today all QBs accounted 1 Passing Touchdown, 5 Interceptions, and 19 sacks. 

The defenses dictated the outcomes of the games today. 

It’s about being a complete team. The packers lost the game on special teams. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Panthercougar68 said:

I agree in principle but what is taking up most of the GB space…not a lot of blue chip players and QB is one of this position that is taking space.

Don't care to look, but the RB's are cheap and Rasul is like vet min basically. Take out Rodgers and they're like a 5-7 win team maybe? Maybe bad investments in the lines or something/backloaded deals that didn't pan out

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jackie Lee said:

Don't care to look, but the RB's are cheap and Rasul is like vet min basically. Take out Rodgers and they're like a 5-7 win team maybe? Maybe bad investments in the lines or something/backloaded deals that didn't pan out

Douglas is gone because they can’t afford him much like the Panthers. It’s just a weird distribution. They basically threw the eggs into the AR bandwagon.

Aaron Jones costs some money too….so the RB isn’t cheap so I see a restructure or cut.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Panthercougar68 said:

Douglas is gone because they can’t afford him much like the Panthers. It’s just a weird distribution. They basically threw the eggs into the AR bandwagon.

Aaron Jones costs some money too….so the RB isn’t cheap so I see a restructure or cut.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah Dillon could take that workload easy, same as the CMC deal not working out. Eli Mitchell did some work today as a 6th round pick, Herbert was good in Chicago as well. Just draft and pay your linemen and luck out on your skill guys

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • lol, that second part is quite literally one of the dumbest things ever. Having or not having guaranteed contracts has absolutely nothing to do with how much these billionaires have to pay.  Because there is a hard cap and a minimum cap spend requirement, and teams either use their cap or roll it over to use it all the next year, so the owners have to pay the same amount of money in the end no matter what. Having fully guaranteed contracts in the NFL would only hurt salary cap management, and thus would end up screwing over the team and its fan base when teams kiss on signings as they take up cap room that is needed to improve the roster. Look at the Browns with Watson, they gave him the fully guaranteed deal and all it’s doing is sucking up massive cap space now.  If they hadn’t done that, the owner would still be paying the same amount of money each year as that cap space would still be used elsewhere. If you want to argue for fully guaranteed contracts because the players deserve it, that’s an entirely different argument and a fair one to discuss.  But anyone against fully guaranteed deals isn’t doing it to argue for the billionaire owners.
    • Start posting in threads in the other forums instead of just creating threads. No one comes over here so you aren't starting conversations.  Get your ass up to 100 posts. It's not that hard. Don't create 100 posts. Contribute to conversations. 
    • Ryabkin could be the steal of the draft, he was a Top 10 pick heading into last season and had a rough year.  Lots of GMs passed on him because of that and his workouts. Pick has really high upside and Svech should be able to translate Rod tearing his arse a new one for making dumb plays since Svech has had several years of it.  🤣😂
×
×
  • Create New...