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!

     

Scott Fitterer


Panthering
 Share

Recommended Posts

I knew Darnold was a dud from the beginning. His jersey number is 14. When has a QB wearing 14 ever been great? I'm only partially kidding 😅  I still didn't see Sam as a Dan Fouts but thought Brad Johnson was at least a stretch (Armstrong) target.

 

Seriously though, it would be interesting to see a statistical connection between jersey numbers and success--if there is one (probably not). I guess interesting enough for the Indy Star to do a story on it: https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/nfl/colts/2021/02/23/nfl-best-quarterback-numbers-in-history/4555068001/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, firefox1234 said:

The moment we picked up his option it stopped being good value. 

We as a team had to pick up the 5th yr. With no 5th year, if he had played good … then a new contract would have cost a lot of money. With the 5th yr, if he had played good …. We would have saved on the cap.

so basically we were in a bad place, and had to play the cap game

but with hindsight, we see that he was terrible. So I don’t put that on Fitter

Edited by Panther53521
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Panther53521 said:

We as a team had to pick up the 5th yr. With no 5th year, if he had played good … then a new contract would have cost a lot of money. With the 5th yr, if he had played good …. We would have saved on the cap.

so basically we were in a bad place, and had to play the cap game

but with hindsight, we see that he was terrible. So I don’t put that on Fitter

We had several years of tape of Darnold at the Jets that showed what we know now. There was no way that picking up his 5th year option was the right gamble. We should have put the ball in Darnold’s court and forced him to show us these three years of terrible tape was not him. Unsurprisingly he did not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So *If Fitterrer sticks around, it sounds like he's still on the drop a young QB behind this rebuilt O-line and pretty good defense, and you're on your way to trending up. I wish we could get more clarity on who made the Darnold/Baker/Corral decisions but it feels like Rhule was forcing a bunch of random win now moves to try and cover up his lack of coaching skills

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...