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!

     

Undo 1 Rhule Decision

CanadianCat

By CanadianCat,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

CanadianCat Veteran

CanadianCat

Posted
Posted

Lets play a game like the title says.. undo 1 decision that Rhule made in his tenure.. 

Mine would be releasing Teddy Bridgewater after year one.

IMO they had the right plan when they brought him into be a bridge QB. That signing made sense for that reason. 3 year contract sets up perfectly to draft and develop after you bring in more pieces to build a stronger team around the rookie.

But either Rhule got impatient or he was pressured by Tepper, the decision to cut him set off a snowball effect of traded draft picks for bad QB play. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PNW_PantherMan Grand Master

PNW_PantherMan

Posted
Posted (edited)

There is not one decision you can reverse that would change anything (besides not being hired).  Every mistake Rhule made was compounded by future mistakes.  He was destined to fail.

 

Edit: I would add that the idea of a bridge QB is stupid and makes no sense.  Especially not for 60 million dollars.  It was a massive overpay of an NFL backup, simple as.

Edited by PNW_PantherMan
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Catsfan69 Grand Master

Catsfan69

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, JawnyBlaze said:

I’m going to be completely original and say interviewing for the job. Aside from that, cutting Cam. Could have saved money, fan goodwill, and developed a guy behind him for a couple years without wasting all those draft picks and money on Bridgewater, Darnold and Baker. 

Should have cut Cam and never signed Teddy.

 

  • Poo 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Day1PanthersFan Veteran

Day1PanthersFan

Posted
Posted

I think not keeping Cam untill we had another stable QB on the roster, or a rookie that cam could mentor 

Started a cycle of reject QBs that sunk us into oblivion , when Cam did come back Rhule still favored Darnold so it was basically a lost cause , especially not putting a C on him and giving him the team back, he was more or less a highly paid mascot 

I am 100% sure if Rhule was still here, we would be talking to the Jets about Wilson this off-season 

  • Pie 2
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

    • 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.
    • Dave Gettleman's Shorts
      TIME TO SPECULATE

      By Dave Gettleman's Shorts · Posted

      adamantium? adam? adam thielen super bowl game winning catch ?
×
×
  • Create New...