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 is this team cursed?


hepcat
 Share

Recommended Posts

I know it’s premature and the Panthers might find some way to beat Seattle but I think all veteran fans know this is just the kind of game Panthers are going to find a way to lose in the most unimaginably excruciating heart wrenching way possible. 

But regardless of the outcome of this game, Why is this team cursed? Yes the play poorly sometimes, but they play well enough to win a lot of games. And they find ways to lose all the ones that matter. Is it the black cat for a mascot? Is it an helmet not pointing in the correct direction on someone’s work desk? What is it?

  • Poo 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, hepcat said:

I know it’s premature and the Panthers might find some way to beat Seattle but I think all veteran fans know this is just the kind of game Panthers are going to find a way to lose in the most unimaginably excruciating heart wrenching way possible. 

But regardless of the outcome of this game, Why is this team cursed? Yes the play poorly sometimes, but they play well enough to win a lot of games. And they find ways to lose all the ones that matter. Is it the black cat for a mascot? Is it an helmet not pointing in the correct direction on someone’s work desk? What is it?


They’re not playing with as much intensity as Seattle. They’re soft.

  • Poo 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, *FreeFua* said:

You’re really asking why a team led by Ben McAdoo and Sam Darnold is “cursed”?

The fact we’re sitting here with McAdoo and Darnold is a curse in and of itself. Why is this team so miserable? Even when they show a glimmer of hope they fall apart and reveal the curse as always 

  • Pie 1
  • Poo 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SmokinwithWilly said:

We're not cursed. This is what happens when you constantly get defensive coaches who don't realize the NFL now caters to high powered offenses. It is hard to hold teams to 17 anymore with all the rule changes favoring offense. We aren't playing 80s football anymore. 

For a team to be as old as we are and never have back to back winning seasons… there is some kind of curse here. 

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

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