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!

     

REPORT: Steve Reed reports "the Panthers are still interested in" Jimmy Garoppolo


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, CRA said:

I'd just rather get Matt Corral on the field by midseason.  That seems more fruitful and has more purpose.   I think adding these guys stops that from happening. 

 

Last I heard us fans don't have a vote. If I did I would cast my vote in favor of your suggestion.  But at this point it's all entertainment for me.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, poundaway said:

JimmyG>Teddy

There's just no comparison statistically or otherwise.

Even San Francisco media is tired of Checkdown Jimmy G leading the 49ers (msn.com)

yeah, there is.  They are both checkdown QBs that can't and don't make the throws downfield you need from a QB. 

That comparison has been here since Jimmy's name was very first brought up awhile back. 

* It's why they have almost identical career completion %.  

 

  • Flames 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, CRA said:

If Matt Rhule gets his hands on Jimmy G no one here is seeing Matt Corral.  

New season, same Panthers.  The brand is basically Groundhog Day.  

image.jpeg.5023c98adba60ffcb2dbabb075a8e60e.jpeg

 

Falarich — Jimmy Garoppolold I would love to get my hands on Jimmy's gorgeous body 

Edited by TheSpecialJuan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, KSpan said:

i just threw up in my mouth a little bit GIF by chuber channel

In all seriousness though, if SF is picking up most of the salary and Carolina is giving up like a 5th or later, then I guess whatever.

We already gave up our 2023 3rd round pick to get Corral. Let's not trade away are all draft picks again. 

Jimmy G/Baker might get you 7 to 9 wins. Then you have to decide if you want to sign them to an expensive long term extension, or let them walk for nothing, all without getting a good look at your rookie with game speed reps. 

The better course of action would be to get Corral on the field by Week 8, and see what the rook can do.

Edited by trueblade
  • Pie 4
  • Beer 2
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

    • 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
    • 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 ?
×
×
  • Create New...