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!

     

Tanking the season

Mr. Scot

By Mr. Scot,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
Posted

So here we have folks, buoyed on by national writers who probably couldn't name ten players on the Panthers roster if they were asked, suggesting that the Panthers are tanking this season so that they can start over next year.

The idea is ludicrous.

As has been mentioned, John Fox needs to win this season to save his job (or get a different one). Some suggest it's over his head, but nowhere has he given the slightest indication that he isn't on board with the current plan. And really, do you honestly think Jerry Richardson would throw a whole season down the toilet just to get rid of a coach he could just fire if he so desired? :nonod:

But set that aside for now. Let's look at the decisions that have been made individually.

Not franchising Julius Peppers: Done so as not to tie up a boatload of money inone player who didn't want to be here anyway

Releasing Jake Delhomme: Does anyone really want to argue this decision had no merit? Delhomme was in obvious decline, had a high salary and could have been the center of locker room contention (on his behalf).

Releasing Ma'ake Kemoeatu: There was speculation from loads of people that this would happen due to age/salary/injury. Should come as a surprise to no one.

Releasing Na'il Diggs: The team had younger, cheaper options in Dan Connor and James Anderson step up in the late season, so again it made sense.

Releasing Damione Lewis: This is one I somewhat disagreed with, but given that he was a rotational player in a starter's role and making starter's money, it can be justified.

Releasing Landon Johnson: Come on :rolleyes:

Releasing Brad Hoover: Did it hurt to see Hoover go? Sure, but he's been in decline for a while now. Back problems can do a lot of players in and can be especially tough for a fullback. Yes, we'll miss him, but as much as I hate to say it, the move made sense if you look at it from a business standpoint.

So looking at each one, all the decisions made this offseason can be justified from a football/business standpoint. Each of them would have just made just as much sense any other year, given the same set of circumstances in each individual situation. Throw in that some of them probably would have already been made in prior years had not cap constraints prevented it.

And seriously, looking at this list, outside of perhaps Peppers, is there really anybody on here that you can look at in their current condition and say with any credibility "boy it sure will be a lot tougher to win without them"?

Please :nonod:

If we're just tanking and don't care about winning, why are guys like Steve Smith and Chris Harris still here? they're older,and they each have some trade value. If you're just rebuilding, why not toss them too? Or for that matter, why re-sign a guy like Tyler Brayton? And why did you bother picking up good special teamers (I mean, outside of the fact that the team needed players like that, because after all we're not interested in winning).

"What about the lack of free agent activity?" you ask. To which I ask, "Have you ever watched a Panthers offseason before?" If you think this is unusual, you've probably not been paying attention.

But if you still want to buy into this line of thinking, go ahead.

While you're at it, commiserate with the Eagle fans, because apparently their owner has decided to tank the season too :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CRA Grand Master

CRA

Posted
Posted

So here we have folks, buoyed on by national writers who probably couldn't name ten players on the Panthers roster if they were asked, suggesting that the Panthers are tanking this season.

The idea is ludicrous.

As has been mentioned, John Fox needs to win this season to save his job (or get a different one). Some suggest it's over his head, but nowhere has he given the slightest indication that he isn't on board with the current plan. And really, do you honestly think Jerry Richardson would throw a whole season down the toilet just to get rid of a coach he could just fire if he so desired? :nonod:

But set that aside for now. Let's look at the decisions that have been made individually.

Not franchising Julius Peppers: Done so as not to tie up a boatload of money inone player who didn't want to be here anyway

Releasing Jake Delhomme: Does anyone really want to argue this decision had no merit? Delhomme was in obvious decline, had a high salary and could have been the center of locker room contention (on his behalf).

Releasing Ma'ake Kemoeatu: There was speculation from loads of people that this would happen due to age/salary/injury. Should come as a surprise to no one.

Releasing Na'il Diggs: The team had younger, cheaper options in Dan Connor and James Anderson step up in the late season, so again it made sense.

Releasing Damione Lewis: This is one I somewhat disagreed with, but given that he was a rotational player in a starter's role and making starter's money, it can be justified.

Releasing Landon Johnson: Come on :rolleyes:

Releasing Brad Hoover: Did it hurt to see Hoover go? Sure, but he's been in decline for a while now. Back problems can do a lot of players in and can be especially tough for a fullback. Yes, we'll miss him, but as much as I hate to say it, the move made sense if you look at it from a business standpoint.

So looking at each one, all the decisions made this offseason can be justified from a football/business standpoint. Each of them would have just made just as much sense any other year, given the same set of circumstances in each individual situation. Throw in that some of them probably would have already been made in prior years had not cap constraints prevented it.

And seriously, looking at this list, outside of perhaps Peppers, is there really anybody on here that you can look at in their current condition and say "boy it sure will be tough to win without them"?

Please :nonod:

"What about the lack of free agent activity?" you ask. To which I ask, "Have you ever watched a Panthers offseason before?" If you think this is unusual, you've probably not been paying attention.

But if you still want to buy into this line of thinking, go ahead.

While you're at it, commiserate with the Eagle fans, because apparently their owner has decided to tank the season too :rolleyes:

Call it whatever you want.....winning in 2010 is not the #1 goal for Carolina and is not what the moves this offseason will be about. Winning in 2009 was the main goal prior to that season. Spin or use whatever words you want....but that is pretty much a fact.

Yeah, the Panthers normally aren't very active....that is b/c they normally don't send there entire DL packing....and are just left looking for one or two fillers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
scpanther22 Experienced

scpanther22

Posted
Posted

like I said I dont think we are "tanking" this season. I think we are focused on 2011 more than 2010 right now.. these moves are coming from the top

We have young players that could be great or they could be bust.We will find out this year.but with all this youth I think it puts a limit on how much success we can have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fiz Newbie

Fiz

Posted
Posted

Call it whatever you want.....winning in 2010 is not the #1 goal for Carolina and is not what the moves this offseason will be about. Winning in 2009 was the main goal prior to that season. Spin or use whatever words you want....but that is pretty much a fact.

wow kids let's break down CRA's elite argument here

1. disregard all the evidence presented (call it whatever you want)

2. state your opinion without any evidence or support

3. declare your opinion a fact

4. wait for white noise poo posters to drown out anyone who would disagree with you

5. drink deeply from a 40 oz can of Ballz and stroke your neck beard

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Call it whatever you want.....winning in 2010 is not the #1 goal for Carolina and is not what the moves this offseason will be about. Winning in 2009 was the main goal prior to that season. Spin or use whatever words you want....but that is pretty much a fact.

Yep. Obviously, they released Jake Delhomme because they aren't interested in winning :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
panther4life Community Regular

panther4life

Posted
Posted

Call it whatever you want.....winning in 2010 is not the #1 goal for Carolina and is not what the moves this offseason will be about. Winning in 2009 was the main goal prior to that season. Spin or use whatever words you want....but that is pretty much a fact.

Those moves made were not only about winning this year but for years to come.If we wanted to win right away and not care about the future i'm sure we could have made a play for mcnabb and others but thats not the plan. Its hard to gauge whether 100% of the moves were correct moves, but none of them are blatantly wrong. I like what the team has done overall so far and I look foward to what I actually consider an exciting draft, because were only a couple pieces away from being a playoff team on paper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CRA Grand Master

CRA

Posted
Posted

Yep. Obviously, they released Jake Delhomme because they aren't interested in winning :rolleyes:

lol, that is exactly the kind of spin I was referring to...... they released Jake b/c he cost them a season and is done.

They are rebuidling.....even the players acknowledge that. Therefore, the whole arguement about winning is the #1 goal like in past Fox seasons is absurd.

You list why we got rid of guys like Kemo, Lewis, Pep, etc. But when you just insert backups and scrubs signed the year prior....that isn't making the team better in 2010. That certainly isn't a DL John Fox can play w/.

Carolina is looking past 2010 and that is the right thing to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SOJA Veteran

SOJA

Posted
Posted

wow kids let's break down CRA's elite argument here

1. disregard all the evidence presented (call it whatever you want)

2. state your opinion without any evidence or support

3. declare your opinion a fact

4. wait for white noise poo posters to drown out anyone who would disagree with you

5. drink deeply from a 40 oz can of Ballz and stroke your neck beard

wow "you must spread rep around before giving it to Fiz again" rep rep rep rep

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CRA Grand Master

CRA

Posted
Posted

Those moves made were not only about winning this year but for years to come.If we wanted to win right away and not care about the future i'm sure we could have made a play for mcnabb and others but thats not the plan. Its hard to gauge whether 100% of the moves were correct moves, but none of them are blatantly wrong. I like what the team has done overall so far and I look foward to what I actually consider an exciting draft, because were only a couple pieces away from being a playoff team on paper.

these moves were about getting ready to win post Fox......Fox knows it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
unicar15 Experienced

unicar15

Posted
Posted

Call it whatever you want.....winning in 2010 is not the #1 goal for Carolina and is not what the moves this offseason will be about. Winning in 2009 was the main goal prior to that season. Spin or use whatever words you want....but that is pretty much a fact.

Yeah, the Panthers normally aren't very active....that is b/c they normally don't send there entire DL packing....and are just left looking for one or two fillers.

Maybe they think that the guys we have are pretty good and think they can win with them while at the same time preparing for a lockout. IDT we really downgraded at any position other than DE (and we really didn't have an option with that one).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • TD alt
      C Mc. Gotta love this guy!!

      By TD alt · Posted

      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.
    • TD alt
      Scourton isn't signed (& apparently it's a thing)

      By TD alt · Posted

      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.
    • jfra78
      Are all veterinarians this greedy ?

      By jfra78 · Posted

      Get any shot you can at humane society, so much cheaper
×
×
  • Create New...