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!

     

Jeremy Fowler: Panthers have done their due diligence on QB Jimmy Garoppolo


TheSpecialJuan
 Share

Recommended Posts

No harm, no foul...so far. No pending deal. If there's a deal, the Devil is always I the details. 

I just don't see anything happening on any front, save for a journeyman, without Darnold being shipped to the other party as a result, and what self-respecting GM wants to do that? 

But, if we can jettison Darnold and halfway fix the compounded path of destruction of the wake of that trade and mitigate future damage, I'd be OK with it. No more dilly-dallying with day 1 and day 2 draft picks, please?!

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, top dawg said:

No harm, no foul...so far. No pending deal. If there's a deal, the Devil is always I the details. 

I just don't see anything happening on any front, save for a journeyman, without Darnold being shipped to the other party as a result, and what self-respecting GM wants to do that? 

But, if we can jettison Darnold and halfway fix the compounded path of destruction of the wake of that trade and mitigate future damage, I'd be OK with it. No more dilly-dallying with day 1 and day 2 draft picks, please?!

That (Jettisoning Darnold) would be the only way I would do something like this, with the possible exception on Minshew on the cheap.  Even then, it would be only because we have zero QBs on the roster who are under contract after this season, and thankfully so.  Filling the entire QB depth chart at once is a tall order, which may be Rhule's replacement's first major lift.

But, barring a bargain-basement deal for somebody, let's stop throwing good money after bad.  While our QB room is not at all expensive by NFL standards this year, the return on that investment is extremely poor.  It will probably be negative, unless Darnold harnesses his inner Marino. 

Right now, his only inner Marino is Luigi, not Dan. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, CarolinaNCSU said:

I wish we would just go ahead and get whatever bad QB the staff has convinced themselves on. I'm ready to move into the bargaining stage where I convince myself they'll be okay for a couple of weeks, before then repeating the cycle and hating everything again. 

 

Yeah, this feels inevitable. Let's just get whatever bad trade for Baker or Jimmy G done and start the process of getting rid of Rhule.

  • Pie 3
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

    • 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.
    • adamantium? adam? adam thielen super bowl game winning catch ?
    • You're really gonna pass up the opportunity to make a joke about skidmarks in underwear here?  Alright fine.
×
×
  • Create New...