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!

     

Is RB still a draft need?


Panthers Fan 69
 Share

Recommended Posts

RB committee is that way to do it.  I wouldn't give Foreman a new contract unless it's pretty cheap.  We found Mike Davis, and Foreman as cheap FAs and the way our OL is blocking we can put a decent RB back there and he will look good.  I would only draft one if it's a good value, but I don't consider it a huge need at this point.  Even that rookie Blackshear had over 5 yards a carry last night, not to mention Shenault will get some looks from the backfield.  

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At this point in the evolution of the NFL, asking if RB is a high draft priority is akin to asking if kicker is a high draft priority.  Whether your kicker situation is good or bad, it still isn't a draft priority. 

When your team sucks at running the ball, it is more likely about your OL's run blocking, With quality blocking, literally hundreds of guys who played RB in college can get you 4 yards in the NFL. 

  • Pie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Panthers Fan 69 said:

Why?  This fan base is stuck in misery. We get a good player and we want him gone. 

we just got out of a big contract to a RB; why get right under another? Especially when the team just showed it can find one off the scrap heap and get production. 

RB is the most fungible position in the league. It's stupid to commit money to it. 

  • Pie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, electro's horse said:

we just got out of a big contract to a RB; why get right under another? Especially when the team just showed it can find one off the scrap heap and get production. 

RB is the most fungible position in the league. It's stupid to commit money to it. 

He won’t get a cmc contract. But he may get a team friendly deal. In that case you do it. This offense is actually working because our run game.  

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, LinvilleGorge said:

I have no issue with re-signing Foreman. Just don't give RBs big money cap crippling contracts. But if Foreman continues to play well and you can sign him to a 2-3 year deal for say $3-4M per year, why wouldn't you do that?

Exactly. He reminds me of Stephan Davis. Davis came pretty cheap if I remember correctly.  

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...