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!

     

Why the Panthers NEED Sean Payton..

micnificent28

By micnificent28,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

rayzor Grand Master

rayzor

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, 4Corners said:

Agree. I think he would prefer Dallas but unless there is just a monumental collapse in D I don’t think they will fire fat Mike. I think he said the Chargers and the Cardinals? Kingsbury is a dead man walking. Sounds like he wants to get out west on some year round nice weather. 

I think it will be the chargers. Easier QB to work with. 

  • Beer 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Car123 Proficient

Car123

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, X-Clown said:

This is actually a really horrible reason to want Peyton. If you want someone to pick a running back too high in the draft, you can call hurney or gettleman and I’m sure they’ll come back.

This was a different time in the NFL. Running backs were very utilized then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
X-Clown Mentor

X-Clown

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Car123 said:

Yes, in hindsight. At the time, he was considered the consensus #1

And? There were so many better options that were available, both at his position and at others. He's a great coach, but call it what it was, overdrafting of a great college player that turned out be a disappointing pro given where he was drafted. 

Edited by X-Clown
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MasterAwesome Veteran

MasterAwesome

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Snake said:

I think you're pretty safe. No way NO let's him in their division. Payton is going to make Herbert a HOF QB though. 

I'm not saying this to you specifically, but I see this argument all the time about teams not wanting to trade within their division and I really don't understand it.  No team makes a trade they think they are losing out on, within the division or otherwise.  Either you think it's fair and balanced or you think you're getting the better end of it.  Trades are simply an exchange of assets and if you think you're getting more valuable assets from your trade partner than what you're giving up, then wouldn't you be more inclined to trade within the division and essentially "screw over" a rival?  If I'm the Saints, I'd love to take two of the Panthers' 1st round picks off their hands unless I actually think Payton is worth more than that.  In which case, I wouldn't trade him to any team for the same reason.

Like what is the unique logic applied to trading within your division that doesn't apply to trading outside of the division?  Is it something to do with said player/coach having inside knowledge?  Cause you could more-or-less get the same thing from signing some Practice Squad guy or some vet FA bum who previously played for that team.  Is it because that player/coach is gonna get some kind of motivational boost to try and stick it to their previous team?

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

    • 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 ?
    • PNW_PantherMan
      TIME TO SPECULATE

      By PNW_PantherMan · Posted

      You're really gonna pass up the opportunity to make a joke about skidmarks in underwear here?  Alright fine.
×
×
  • Create New...