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!

     

We pretty much have to take a RB on day 2 in the draft, right?

t96

By t96,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

scratched Proficient

scratched

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Catsfan69 said:

All of them are light years below Cmac.

 

You dump a star you have to replace him with a star or you go backwards 

CMC has 3 to 4 years left. It will take us 2 to 3 to get to a playoff caliber team. No need in paying him and him helping us for 1 year. The only people who don't like the trade are on this message board. 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
stan786 Mentor

stan786

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, JawnyBlaze said:

Yea I agree. But the Giants, Cowboys and Chiefs are all winning right now with first round RBs. No single position is REQUIRED to win except QB, but the more weapons you give your QB the better he’ll look. 

Id agree though I think the chiefs are doing it in spite of their RB.  Giants are 100% overachieving thanks to Barkley and some really good coaching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mrcompletely11 Grand Master

mrcompletely11

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, JawnyBlaze said:

Yea I agree. But the Giants, Cowboys and Chiefs are all winning right now with first round RBs. No single position is REQUIRED to win except QB, but the more weapons you give your QB the better he’ll look. 

Another stupid take:

The bills, jets, ravens, bengals, ravens, Colts, chargers, niners and falcons to name a few are all winning without first round rbs

 

Also the giants and cowboys are about to part ways with their first round running backs

Edited by mrcompletely11
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheRumGone Grand Master

TheRumGone

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Catsfan69 said:

Anyone that thinks he's easily replaced is insane. 

The point is we don’t have to. We’re about to get a very talented qb that we need to build around. Don’t take a rb until 4th round or later. Take positions of better value in the second or third rounds like te, lineman or wr. Build this team the correct way. 
 

it is so weird reading some of these posts. It’s like some people don’t  watch how other successful teams are built.

  • Pie 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jmac Grand Master

Jmac

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, lightsout said:

I think Foreman could legitimately hold down the position for another year if need be, provided he protects the ball. He's a 4 ypc back I think, will never be a guy teams fear but he will do what we need him to do, which is be steady. No need to reach for a RB unless there's a can't-miss guy there.

If he can replace Henry when he was hurt, why not productive here?

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JawnyBlaze Grand Master

JawnyBlaze

Posted
Posted
Just now, mrcompletely11 said:

Another stupid take:

The bills, jets, ravens, bengals, ravens, Colts, chargers, niners and falcons to name a few are all winning without first round rbs

Colts, ravens, niners and falcons are winning? And I never said you need one to win, I was arguing against the idea that teams that win don’t have first round RBs.  I showed that there are teams that are indeed winning with first round RBs.  Of course you can win without one, there’s plenty of teams winning by your definition without a first round QB, doesn’t mean it isn’t better to have one. Talk about a stupid take. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mrcompletely11 Grand Master

mrcompletely11

Posted
Posted
Just now, JawnyBlaze said:

Colts, ravens, niners and falcons are winning? And I never said you need one to win, I was arguing against the idea that teams that win don’t have first round RBs.  I showed that there are teams that are indeed winning with first round RBs.  Of course you can win without one, there’s plenty of teams winning by your definition without a first round QB, doesn’t mean it isn’t better to have one. Talk about a stupid take. 

2nd in their division just like the giants and Cowboys (3rd).  So according to you winning

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...