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!

     

So Delhomme is as good as gone now, right?


AceMan

Recommended Posts

Okay, I know most of us are thrilled with the win against the Vikings and are discussing Matt Moore or whether we should keep Fox or not. But, I think it is very clear that Delhomme WILL be cut no matter what in the offseason.

There is no way we will pay 10 mil to a #3 QB. Here is my prediction...I think JR will have another "talk" with Fox and Hurney. Sadly, I think Matt Moore will save Fox's ass along with some key endorsements from players such as Kalil, Gross, etc even though I personally think Fox needs to go down with Delhomme. Delhomme and Peppers will both be the two scapegoats for the 2009 season. Also, JR will basically force a rookie QB on John Fox.

It doesn't make sense for Delhomme to stay on the roster next year. Our Depth chart will look like this with him on it.

#1 Matt Moore

#2 Rookie/Free Agent QB

#3 Rookie/Delhomme

#4 Delhomme/Rookie

Delhomme is going to be a #3 QB at best next year. In addition, no one will be thrilled with the idea of another year with Delhomme and Fox on the same team. He is as good as gone!

Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont see him on the roster either. I think Moore and MAYBE McCown will stay. So itll be Moore, FA/Draft Pick, McCown with open competition or Moore, FA, Draft Pick with open competition. If Delhomme were to stay, he'd just be taking up roster space and getting in the way as the number one QB gets clearer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I know most of us are thrilled with the win against the Vikings and are discussing Matt Moore or whether we should keep Fox or not. But, I think it is very clear that Delhomme WILL be cut no matter what in the offseason.

There is no way we will pay 10 mil to a #3 QB. Here is my prediction...I think JR will have another "talk" with Fox and Hurney. Sadly, I think Matt Moore will save Fox's ass along with some key endorsements from players such as Kalil, Gross, etc even though I personally think Fox needs to go down with Delhomme. Delhomme and Peppers will both be the two scapegoats for the 2009 season. Also, JR will basically force a rookie QB on John Fox.

It doesn't make sense for Delhomme to stay on the roster next year. Our Depth chart will look like this with him on it.

#1 Matt Moore

#2 Rookie/Free Agent QB

#3 Rookie/Delhomme

#4 Delhomme/Rookie

Delhomme is going to be a #3 QB at best next year. In addition, no one will be thrilled with the idea of another year with Delhomme and Fox on the same team. He is as good as gone!

Thoughts?

I feel what you're saying and I think that this should be Delhomme's last year as a Panther, but he's guaranteed about 13 mill, whether hes stays or not. With that being said, I won't make sense to let him go right now. Especially when we'll still be paying him anyway. I say, Delhomme is still on the roster next year;

Delhomme, Moore and Draft Pick/FA.

I don't like it, but it is what it is!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Fox is back next year, I don't see Delhomme going anywhere. I'd be shocked if he wasn't in contention for and possibly winning the #1 spot in camp, based on previous experience with Fox's "open competition" plan that he manages to win every year regardless of how he actually performs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the fanbase would riot too bad if Delhomme was to arrive back with Fox. Like some has mentioned, one of the reasons I want Fox gone is because I don't trust him with Delhomme as well as other faults. If Delhomme and Fox are BOTH back...then the 2010 season is guaranteed as a loss season. Delhomme is only going to get worse...we all need to face that fact. Also, he has no future with the them...therefore, paying 13 mil for a back-up seems crazy. It will be a tough bullet to swallow, but I think we will do it.

Keeping Delhomme is just limiting what we can do and rewarding a player for a mistake the FO made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a perfect world, we would keep Delhomme as a #3 roster on the depth chart. But the NFL doesn't work that way. You don't suddenly take your franchise quarterback for much of the decade and relegate him to the #3 spot. He either starts or you cut him. If I was Jake Delhomme and they decided to keep me on the roster as a #3 quarterback, I'd tell them to go F themselves and quit the team. This would be like Jerry Richardson telling Fox that he was firing him from Head Coach but that he could stay on as secondary coach if he really wanted to. What do you think Fox would do in that situation? Quit of course.

Jake Delhomme will almost surely be cut this offseason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...