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!

     

Article on why we should cut Darnold….am I wrong for being against this??


WarPanthers89
 Share

Recommended Posts

...I don't want to see Darnhold in a Panther Uni ever again...If Im the billionaire his azz would be gone... If our season is going so damn bad that we have to install him at QB...hell... just put Corral in at QB... he holds no value whatsoever...cut him.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Shocker said:

I really don’t like the way Darnold is treated but he has to go earn it.  Cutting him is stupid

How he's treated? We picked up the fifth year option on the worst starting QB in the league after inexplicably trading for him. He's going to make $18M to hold a clipboard.

Sign me up for some of that treatment! 

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

1 hour ago, WarPanthers89 said:

I don’t care how much they compete in practice, no way I’d take Sam starting over Baker no matter how they look in camp. Darnold has always been a strong practice guy….well maybe strong is the wrong word. The article questions Corrals development if he’s not number 2 compared to Sam being our primary backup. I would like for Corral to have a true redshirt year where he does not see the field at all and really gets time to grasp the NFL so that he has the best shot at long term success. If Matt was the primary backup and Baker goes down he could be thrown to the wolves and pick up some bad habits. Being that we picked him him in the third round there should be no pressure for him to perform immediately. 

This is my problem with ppl..

This needs to be said so ppl can stop living in fantasy world..

Matt Corral is a 3rd rd QB project.  Every QB in the 2022 draft (after Pickett) was seen as a project who needed to sit a year or 2.. The NFL has spoken and that's why these kids were drafted in the 3rd and not the 1st so there wasn't any pressure to throw these kids in the fire before they were ready..  Him sitting getting 3rd QB reps isn't a bad thing or is it hurting his development... Corral at this point is having problems getting snaps under Center and knowing the plays because he played in a Mickey mouse system in college... He has elite skill sets but him getting the mental game and developing his frail body to take NFL punishment is more important then him getting 2nd team reps his rookie year. Unless he proves he's Russell Wilson and that miracle happens for us.. The plan has always been to sit him Atleast a year..

Making Baker or Sam work for the job isn't a bad thing.. Some ppl here call it a farce competition.. Whatever...... 1 QB is making way more and they spent assets to get him..At the same time they've made it clear all offseason they were looking  for a upgrade...The better QB is only here for a bag of chips and he still had to take a contract hit. The New OC isn't a fan of either player. .. This is as fair competition as I've seen.. There is no attachment to either guy.. IMO this is the only time where it truly feels like "who ever give them the best chance to win will play" is a true statement that will be followed..

Edited by WOW!!
  • Pie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Pimpdaddy said:

...Ummm comon .... Sam sucks...quit trying to make anything about him legitimate .... He has no value. none. 

Stfu and use reading comprehension or just reading in general..

At what point did I say either were "good" QBs??.. Don't worry I'll wait. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, top dawg said:

I'm not against competition, and actually prefer it.

What I'm against is a farce of a competition. If that's even remotely on the radar, they can dump Darnold.

Darnold will look decent until he sees a real defense. It’s pointless to have a TC competition with him when the entire NFL knows he struggles in real game decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, top dawg said:

I'm not against competition, and actually prefer it.

What I'm against is a farce of a competition. If that's even remotely on the radar, they can dump Darnold.

Just a question.. What makes this a farce competition?? 

They literally have no attachment to either player...

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...