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!

     

Bye bye Baker

TN05

By TN05,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

kungfoodude Grand Master

kungfoodude

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, CRA said:

it wasn't intentional.  Just quick.  Updated

QB A: 56%, 196 yard avg, 4 TDs, 6 INTs, 1 FL, 1 rush TD

QB B: 57%, 167 yard avg, 3 TDs, 5 INTs, 2 FL, 1 rush TD

I said their last 6 starts, so yeah, this skips over the the Cincy game for Baker and the Tampa game for Sam.  Neither started.  Both played.   I went back 6 starts because going back further obviously puts Baker on different team.   And it's a what have you done for me lately league. 

They suck.  You are the one expressing outrage because someone else argued Baker was still better than trash Darnold.  Why would you even care someone said that? 

I remember when I called out trash McAdoo.  The Rhule/McAdoo era is what you are referencing.  I remember Wilks talking about how they were going to change some things and it was evident game 1 of Wilks that a new offensive thumbprint was put down.   So yeah, defenses no longer are keying in on McAdoo's RPO bullshit every snap that went down under Rhule.  Wilks too old school for that.   He just runs the damn ball at people now.  Which is what Rhule should of had McAdoo doing.  Funny how you ignore that.   Rhule is a clown and let McAdoo do clown things.  Now Wilks just runs at people. 

Sam is horrific.  Baker is horrific.  Who cares about either. 

and Matt Rhule would probably be employed today if he started PJ Walker and actually ran and emphasized the run like he talked about (and never actually did).  He couldn't even manage to get McAdoo to do the basics he preached on.   I mean, it's hard to argue that Steve Wilks didn't alter what McAdoo was doing on O. 

The Darnold Defense League is perplexing. I don't understand hitching your wagon to that one. What a small and insignificant hill to die on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
falconlynx Veteran

falconlynx

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, mccjeff said:

I know everyone thinks it was a fake and pointless qb competition because obviously Baker was the starter. But apparently there should have been one and it looks like it should have been Sam that won. Or PJ. Save the heat. It was stupid.

I thought that day I was in Spartanburg that Baker looked like trash and Darnold looked better. I posted comments here that day raising my concerns.

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldhamA Grand Master

OldhamA

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, Toomers said:

Makes you wonder if the Eagles or Cowboys won’t try to keep him away from SF. He’s looked horrible but it wouldn’t be too surprising for Shanahan to breathe life into a struggling QB. 

What team is stepping in to keep Mayfield away from starting for a rival?

He's awful. You'd pay for his Uber if you were the Eagles or the Cowboys. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PNW_PantherMan Grand Master

PNW_PantherMan

Posted
Posted

Baker's deficiencies as a QB were covered up by the Browns offensive scheme and talent.  He's always had problems with his accuracy and decision making leading to awful turnovers.  I tried to point this out in the offseason and nobody wanted to hear it.  But if you watched him play for the Browns, you knew what we were getting was Sam Darnold+ at best.

Nothing against the guy personally.  He's just not very good at QB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Harbingers Grand Master

Harbingers

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, PNW_PantherMan said:

Baker's deficiencies as a QB were covered up by the Browns offensive scheme and talent.  He's always had problems with his accuracy and decision making leading to awful turnovers.  I tried to point this out in the offseason and nobody wanted to hear it.  But if you watched him play for the Browns, you knew what we were getting was Sam Darnold+ at best.

Nothing against the guy personally.  He's just not very good at QB.

You mean actually having an OL? Also we still need to draft a god damn center. It better be our first pick next year. 

Edited by Harbingers
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...