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!

     

Bears spoke to 3 teams at the combine about the first overall pick: know they can get 1sts in 2024 and 2025


Varking
 Share

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, Varking said:

I don’t believe for a moment this coaching staff can’t come to a conclusion about who they like the most. As a franchise we have settled too many times and it never works out. It’s time to be bold and go get our guy. 

I think it all depends on our confidence level in the evaluations and interviews of "our guy." If we're completely confident in his athletic and mental abilities, go get him. But don't be backpedaling if it goes wrong. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Pretty sure that guy's just a fan.

No one else is reporting this so I don't know that I'd take it seriously.

I think from a common sense perspective. After the Carr signing. We're trading up or staying put and crossing our fingers. I don't think we can afford to do the latter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NanuqoftheNorth said:

It is possible that the Panthers don't have clearcut favorite at QB.  Yeah, they'll rank them, but the perceived difference from one to two or two to three may be so slight that the cost of securing the #1 pick simply isn't justifiable.  

I get the feeling that's the case.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, NanuqoftheNorth said:

It is possible that the Panthers don't have clearcut favorite at QB.  Yeah, they'll rank them, but the perceived difference from one to two or two to three may be so slight that the cost of securing the #1 pick simply isn't justifiable.  

If that is the case, just get to 3 and save that 3rd 1st rd pick. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

I knew this was coming.lol

 

If Mr. Scot doesn't post it then it's not true.

I think this one's probably not reliable. At least with the Rodgers tweets it was coming from a reputable NFL Insider. This just looks like a guy with a twitter account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Pretty sure that guy's just a fan.

No one else is reporting this so I don't know that I'd take it seriously.

If you do research, this is coming exactly from Rich Eisen off his show. He posted the video on his twitter account.

  • 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


  • 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...