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!

     

The LA Rams are 3-7…. We had their second round pick this year

TheBigKat

By TheBigKat,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

hepcat Grand Master

hepcat

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Sean Payton's Vicodin said:

This is only gonna get worse as time goes on. Fitt will sign Burns to a stupid ass deal and cripple the team, and the Rams will suck for years and pick in the top 10.

I dunno, we’re underestimating how cursed the Panthers truly are. If they had made the trade, the Rams would go on to win the next three Super Bowls and Brian Burns would break the sack record every year. The Panthers would draft guys who barely see the field and are out of the league in 2 years. Because they didn’t make the trade, of course it looks like we should have made it.

But at the end of the day this team is garbage and having those picks would have been enticing to a new HC.

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rags Mentor

Rags

Posted
Posted

This place is absolutely insufferable.

Half of the posters who are complaining abt these picks aren't even in the scouting scene, let alone can barely tell you the players coming out THIS year let alone players two fuging drafts from now but will insist that two MYSTERY PLAYERS are better than our edge rusher because they COULD be top 10 picks.

  • Pie 6
  • Poo 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Prowler2k18 Grand Master

Prowler2k18

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Panthercougar68 said:

Double clutch baker wasn’t helping the cause

plus DJ helped baker not have an early INT

Agree the QB situation certainly doesn’t help. This is why IMO you make that trade. GB needs WR help and we could’ve capitalized on that. And I think he could’ve used a change of scenery but it’s all water under the bridge at this point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mrcompletely11 Grand Master

mrcompletely11

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Rags said:

This place is absolutely insufferable.

Half of the posters who are complaining abt these picks aren't even in the scouting scene, let alone can barely tell you the players coming out THIS year let alone players two fuging drafts from now but will insist that two MYSTERY PLAYERS are better than our edge rusher because they COULD be top 10 picks.

Bye Felicia 

  • Pie 2
  • The D 1
  • Poo 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rags Mentor

Rags

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

Google max Crosby

man i though you were gonna at least be interesting and bring up current sack leaders Za'Darius Smith and Matt Judon -- but nah you went with the guy Brian Burns is ahead of in sacks this year and also the ONE guy i said don't mention lol

E: Less sacks AND on a team with a worse record. In fact he's on a team that traded away their premier pass rusher (Mack > Burns and it's not even close) for picks!

Edited by Rags
  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Prowler2k18 Grand Master

Prowler2k18

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Knaakedup said:

If we consider Moore and Burns “cornerstone players” that shows how delusional everyone involved in player personnel decisions are. Until we get that fixed too we will always hover in the .500 range or worse. 

I take issue with designating any player on a losing team as a cornerstone. With the exception of players on rookie contracts and FA e.g. Bozeman that are performing well, everyone else is fair game. We’ve always seemed to be gun shy when it comes to rebuilding.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mrcompletely11 Grand Master

mrcompletely11

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Rags said:

man i though you were gonna at least be interesting and bring up current sack leaders Za'Darius Smith and Matt Judon -- but nah you went with the guy Brian Burns is ahead of in sacks this year and also the ONE guy i said don't mention lol

E: Less sacks AND on a team with a worse record. In fact he's on a team that traded away their premier pass rusher (Mack > Burns and it's not even close) for picks!

Wait there are guys picked in the later rounds with comparable

stats with burns?   

  • The D 1
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

    • Mistuh Jones
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By Mistuh Jones · Posted

      This is gonna be longest six weeks ever 
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...