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!

     

Path to $30m+ Cap Space in 2023

UNCrules2187

By UNCrules2187,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

Carl Spackler Grand Master

Carl Spackler

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Doc Holiday said:

I’m sorry am I missing something? Shaq hasn’t been playing badly, he’s actually been pretty solid. So why is everyone wanting us to move on?

Shaq is easily the 4th or at worst 5th best player this season on Defense, has been consistent top 3-4 defensive player the last 3 seasons.

people need to take a chill pill.

You don't understand. Super Bowl winners are created by getting rid of all your good players. The key is to get rid of all your good players, then ???, then Super Bowl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
UNCrules2187 Mentor

UNCrules2187

Posted
  • Author
Posted

There's nothing inherently wrong with Shaq - I just don't think he's a difference maker in the mold of Kuechly or Thomas Davis. I think he's a fine off ball LB that can flash occasional greatness, but I think his best years are behind him. My gut says if he's not willing to take a pay cut, I wouldn't be surprised given the cap issues for 2023 if the FO decides to move on and replace him with a draft pick or an average FA LB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
frankw Grand Master

frankw

Posted
Posted

The Shaq Thompson situation is somewhat manageable but whatever is going on with Brian Burns is another matter altogether after the Ram social media stunt. Maybe he's just trying to send the Panthers a message but it doesn't inspire any confidence in how things might go if we were to ink him to a huge contract extension.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Basbear Grand Master

Basbear

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, UNCrules2187 said:

Shaq's got a year left on his deal and will be 30 years old next year. I don't think he's in the team's long-term plans honestly. I think the bigger mistake would be adding years to that deal and pushing more of his money down the line for an aging LB at this point.

Look Ive always been in Shaqs corner, even during his first 5 when 90% of the huddle hated him. He needs to have a sit down heart2heart with tepper&scot&new HC. He may want to stay and willing to take a cut.....casuse if not wellllll cut is a good option.

 

He looks bloated this year and like he lost a step.....this is coming form a real fan...

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

    • 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.
    • Dave Gettleman's Shorts
      TIME TO SPECULATE

      By Dave Gettleman's Shorts · Posted

      adamantium? adam? adam thielen super bowl game winning catch ?
×
×
  • Create New...