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

4 minutes ago, mav1234 said:

We won't. He very clearly said afterwards he meant things around the team, not from inside.

There's no way you can look at this team and think it's tanking. What decisions were made to do so?  Trading away our best offensive player? Ok, but he may have lowkey requested a trade (esp given where he ended up), and we had good backs behind him.  Refusing the Burns trade is 100% strong evidence we weren't trying to tank, as was firing Rhule.

How is HC and player changes outside the team?

Listen to the context.  The list is: coaching changes, player changes...our our organization trying to tank it.

Whatever.  He said it.  You are going to hear what you want.

He did backpedal, excuse me, clarify it 5-6 questions later on follow up. 

 

  • Poo 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, poundaway said:

There's no "the" there.

I could give you "Are our organization trying to tank it?"

But to me it sounds like "Our..our organization trying to tank it."

Either way he wasn't asked about tanking.  He listed HC and player changes and then talked about tanking.  He did backpedal 5-6 questions later.

He clearly says the and even if he didn’t, his tone clearly phrases the sentence as a question. Make of it as you will, it’s non-story.

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

Just now, poundaway said:

There's no "the" there.

I could give you "Are our organization trying to tank it?"

But to me it sounds like "Our..our organization trying to tank it."

Either way he wasn't asked about tanking.  He listed HC and player changes and then talked about tanking.  He did backpedal 5-6 questions later.

Lol there is definitely a "the organization" in there. Its either "our the organization" or "are the organization" 

The entire first set of questions was about how the team overcame what was swirling around the team outside the players on the roster and overcame it. He's talking about the "its" being out there all the time to distract them.

And he later clarified what he meant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, poundaway said:

How is HC and player changes outside the team?

Listen to the context.  The list is: coaching changes, player changes...our our organization trying to tank it.

Whatever.  He said it.  You are going to hear what you want.

He did backpedal, excuse me, clarify it 5-6 questions later on follow up. 

 

The players have no control over the HC changes. That is what he means by an "it".  Did you actually listen to the interview, or just the sound bite?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MillionDollarCam said:

By the time this is over, some of you will have written a novel on how Steve Wilks murdered Sir Purr. People are making poo up just for the fun of it I guess.

we're now arguing how many are/ours and the's are in a press conference of a coach that just won a game, lol. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can definitely see why Kunkel interpreted it the way he did. I’m glad Wilks clarified later.
 

Still don’t see why it would be a big deal anyway. “Tanking it” could just be the organization choosing to rebuild and reconstruct the staff and path they were on. Not actively trying to lose football games which is what would get us in hot water. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched the presser and heard him say it. It definitely caught my attention but also think he just worded incorrectly in his explanation of things the players had going on. Joe Person of all people asked him a follow up question later about the comment where he clarified

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 feel like this trade just lives rent free in people's heads and keeps morphing into different things. First thing is that the rumored trade was for future firsts. They wouldn't have any extra picks in 2023; the firsts would have been for 2024 and 2025. With very few exceptions, NFL GMs don't value picks that far away. You have to have a lot of job security to pull that off. Like Chiefs, Eagles, Rams kinda stability. That's obviously not the case with David Tepper, especially since he'd just fired his head coach. No GM except for like Howie Roseman is going to trade an asset you have now for a future asset you probably get to use.  Second, at the time you'd have to assume these are first rounders late in the first round. Obviously currency is currency and the panthers need young players, but these weren't slam dunk top ten picks. At the end of the day there's one pick that separates a first and second round pick.  Lastly, the only place that ever reported this trade was the Rams. All the reporters just repeated what McVay said and it became gospel. We have no idea how serious the negotiations were, if they ever really happened, if the offer was real, etc. And I personally believe McVay and Sneed are the kind of guys who would make up rumors like that to fug up other teams, mostly because I assume if I've thought of it someone smarter than me has.  I don't know how you'd call it the greatest draft haul of all time. Firsts quickly lose their value the farther out they are and Burns had 16.5 sacks last season. And anyway those picks would probably just been tossed into the burning inferno of the Bryce trade up so it's a moot point anyway. 
×
×
  • Create New...