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!

     

Round 1 Game 2 Canes vs Isles 7:30pm


Panthers Fan 69
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, philit99 said:

Remember Fast is out tonight, who takes his place?

 

1 hour ago, MillionDollarCam said:

You’ll see more physicality in this game for sure.

The Pisles were sixth in the regular season in hits and I’m shocked that they weren’t more physical in our opening game.

No matter, as long as the hits are legal I don’t care because being overtly physical can sometimes put a team in a bad spot defensively when they are focused more of making a hit and less on making the right play. We saw this exact situation occur in the Caps/Rags series and it led to a Rags goal.

They are scared to get to physical because we can make them pay with the PP

 

We have Frenchie reffing tonight though so I'm sure we catch 5 penalties...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, PantherChris said:

We have a winning record with all refs this season but undefeated is pretty good lol 

I don’t know about this year but last games refs and these guys were both good to the islanders too last year per STR’s. I’m not sure how to find this year’s record per team on the website the head to head only shows the past 3 seasons. 

  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Harbingers said:

I don’t know about this year but last games refs and these guys were both good to the islanders too last year per STR’s. I’m not sure how to find this year’s record per team on the website the head to head only shows the past 3 seasons. 

I'm not too worried as long as we get a PP or two I definitely remember frenchie has been bad for us in past seasons...

 

I wish they had a bet available for the Isles PP I'd throw 500$ on them not having a PP goal all series their PP is so enimic.

  • The D 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, PantherChris said:

I'm not too worried as long as we get a PP or two I definitely remember frenchie has been bad for us in past seasons...

 

I wish they had a bet available for the Isles PP I'd throw 500$ on them not having a PP goal all series their PP is so enimic.

Careful, beware the CH forum hex when you claim something goods gonna happen lol

Edited by DavidEng
  • Pie 1
  • Flames 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

    • This 1000%.  Hey who wants to sign with the guy that couldn't even get his client the guaranteed contract of a 3rd round pick?  Lmao
    • 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 ?
×
×
  • Create New...