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!

     

Steve Wilks refutes the media's perception that the Panthers "tried to tank this year"


Saca312
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, poundaway said:

As I said, backpedal....

I don't think it was (Wilks) backpedaling, honestly. He started at the very beginning talking about how there's "Its" you can't control and you just need to go out and execute, do your job, etc

Edited by mav1234
  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the media talking heads were speculating about the Panthers tanking early this season, but it should be obvious that Coach Wilks and the players had different ideas.  If the Panthers wanted to tank there were trades for top picks that were turned down by Carolina.  Also as already mentioned, if the Panthers wanted to tank, the best way to do that would have been to keep Rhule as HC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, poundaway said:

Ok, now I call BS.  He very clearly was NOT refering to outside perceptions.  He listed HC changes, players losses and that the org was trying to tank it.

You should really listen to the full interview, because he opens the presser by talking about everything around the organization that was outside of player's control, what people were saying, etc etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mav1234 said:

You should really listen to the full interview, because he opens the presser by talking about everything around the organization that was outside of player's control, what people were saying, etc etc.

Give me a link.  I'll watch it.  I posted mine, and it is clear he was referring to the org trying to tank it, not that other people thought the org was trying to tank.

 

  • Poo 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, poundaway said:

Give me a link.  I'll watch it.  I posted mine, and it is clear he was referring to the org trying to tank it, not that other people thought the org was trying to tank.

 

I've posted the link above already.  And I linked that tweet you posted a while ago explaining it was missing the context of the earlier questions.

Edited by mav1234
  • Pie 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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Oh good lord Interest doesn't mean interest in making a bad trade to take the player, that's why I had such a long post, to accurately describe why those are two different things, but you don't like to listen to that stuff.  Being interested in a player doesn't live in a vacuum. It's very simple... there isn't a #1 draft pick type of grade on any of these QB's, if there was, we'd just take them.  You can't bluff a pick everyone knows you won't make, and trying to trade the pick is the CLEAR signal that you're not taking the QB. Just because the Raiders would have interest, doesn't mean they're going to bail us out of a situation we don't want to be in, they'd be smart about it and just sit put, let us take a non QB as we'd be telling the world we're not taking one just by trying to trade the pick, and then they'd take him at #2 (either with their own pick or by trading less to get that one). Oh, and your point of "if nobody is willing to make the trade, you obviously just take the best QB" is quite literally the dumbest thing I've ever read on here. If nobody is willing to trade up to take the QB, then it's OBVIOUS that the QB isn't worth taking with that pick, so OBVIOUSLY taking the best QB there is just OBVIOUSLY stupid and a bad pick. The moral of it is if there is a QB worth taking, we're taking them and not making the trade.  If there isn't a QB worth taking there, nobody is trading up to #1 to take one, we just showed the NFL how bad of an idea that is 2 years ago, it's really not hard to see. You keep making up this mythical situation where there is a QB who has shown to be worth trading up to #1 for and we'll be able to leverage that into a trade.  But we're the most QB needy team in the league, if we end up with the #1 pick, either we are taking a QB #1 or no QB is going #1 unless we get VERY lucky and two teams in the Top 5 fall in love with one prospect and we can play them off each other and fleece one of them. But again, I can't see that happening, as if there was a QB worthy of that, we're just taking him ourselves.
    • Sanders is with Tom Brady brand and that's his mentor. The Raiders owner was with Sanders taking pics at a Vegas game together.   It doesn't take much to connect the dots that Vegas will be interested in Sanders as their franchise QB. Oh yeah and guess who hasa small ownership stake in the Raiders Tom Brady.   I guess this is just another made up Madden idea by me huh?
    • Bro I don't mind debating you, but did you really have to write all that to get your point across.   This isn't Madden. If you have the #1 pick you literally control your own destiny. If nobody wants to trade which I have a hard time believing they won't then you obviously take the best QB.   I think we will have suitors. If that's Madden then so be it.
×
×
  • Create New...