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!

     

BREAKING:Panthers re-sign Chuba Hubbard


TheSpecialJuan
 Share

Recommended Posts

If they cut Sanders, and are paying Brooks 2nd round rookie contract money then where is the huge expense? They are giving Brooks 2 million per basically. Wasn't Chuba getting 3-4 million? It probably is a wash without Sanders' money on the tab.

spotrac overthecap they are all updated I had a hard time getting the older numbers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, NorthTryon said:

I haven't heard a damn thing out of the mid RBs that were supposed to be so serviceable and so good after we took Brooks. Only two have over 400yds with good ypc. Media narratives man. 

Yeah, that is kind of valid. But other years may be different.

I have used this before because it is possibly the best example of the counter or media argument: CMC 8th overall. Kamara went in the 3rd. (I think) the Saints got more from Kamara than the Panthers did from CMC the first couple of years. 

Edited by strato
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CarolinaLivin said:

I don't think I would've minded maybe a 2 year extension vs. the 4 year they gave him. I get it, realistically, you don't expect brooks to come in and explode on the scene. You also didn't draft brooks to be a bell-cow kind of back. I think a 2 year extension to build brooks into the lead back while also drafting chuba's replacement either 2025 or 2026 and work him in. Brooks was a sanders replacement and not a chuba replacement that much is evident.

Personally, I would have let him walk and brought in a bigger back via draft. Personally I don't like chuba and brooks being double trouble. I would prefer to pair either one with a bigger RB. 

It's only 15m guaranteed so most likely the contract is structured in a way where it basically is a 2 year deal.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, strato said:

If they cut Sanders, and are paying Brooks 2nd round rookie contract money then where is the huge expense? They are giving Brooks 2 million per basically. Wasn't Chuba getting 3-4 million? It probably is a wash without Sanders' money on the tab.

spotrac overthecap they are all updated I had a hard time getting the older numbers

Chuba was still on a rookie deal so he was only making a little over $1M a year

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tr3ach said:

It's only 15m guaranteed so most likely the contract is structured in a way where it basically is a 2 year deal.

I think you also have to take into account that we have no clue about Brooks yet, so 4-yrs covers us if he is a bust without giving us an issue in 2 years to fix.  Plus that will mean he will need a new deal again as soon as Brooks needs one, so if Brooks is a stud you don't have a lingering expensive contract for Chuba.  All around seems sensible to me

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Stingray3030 said:

I think you also have to take into account that we have no clue about Brooks yet, so 4-yrs covers us if he is a bust without giving us an issue in 2 years to fix.  Plus that will mean he will need a new deal again as soon as Brooks needs one, so if Brooks is a stud you don't have a lingering expensive contract for Chuba.  All around seems sensible to me

Shouldn't you also take into account that Brooks is playing this weekend and Chuba didn't have to be signed this week?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, strato said:

Yeah, that is kind of valid. But other years may be different.

I have used this before because it is possibly the best example of the counter or media argument: CMC 8th overall. Kamara went in the 3rd. (I think) the Saints got more from Kamara than the Panthers did from CMC the first couple of years. 

Even with that one, Kamara was a mess at Tennessee. He fumbled every fifteen carries like clock work, had suspect hands, and was very frail/fragile. When he come out of the gate playing like he did for New Orleans, everybody was surprised. Don't get me wrong, there has been good RB talent all throughout and after the draft over the years. But when you have a chance to get that difference maker, you take him. Last week, watching Gibbs run that 76 yard touchdown validated everyone in Detroit for taking him top ten. That is four/five passes Goff doesn't have to throw, o-line doesn't have to block, plays kept in the vault, and it demoralizes defenses! There are maybe 3 guys in the NFL that could've made that play and because of plays like that I will never buy into that narrative of RBs are a dime a dozen.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PNW_PantherMan said:

Shouldn't you also take into account that Brooks is playing this weekend and Chuba didn't have to be signed this week?

Brooks is likely to be very limited the rest of the year.  I don't think we will see enough from him to judge his long term value.  Plus we still need a 2nd RB regardless - the 2025 FA class is gonna be slim pickins compared to last year.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, BullCityP said:

Yea people think you can find GOOD running backs easy when that's not the case lol. You see Dallas fans crying for a rb Cincinnati let theirs walk now they had to trade for one, the Giants let theirs walk and you see what that looks like. 

Yeah, the notion that you can get great guards and RBs on day 3 of the draft is Huddle/internet folklore. Sure, it happens sometimes....by teams that draft way better than the Panthers. Dan's first draft seems promising. If he's going to succeed as a GM he's going to have to have really goods drafts, with tying a lot of money in guards and RBs.

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

9 minutes ago, NAS said:

Chuba is worth this contract and we’re nicely set up for Brooks to take over as featured back when his rookie contract is up.  Smart move

Yeah hope this 2back system brings many wins like people keep comparing to other teams.

 

Problem is we lack talent on defense this won't result in wins. I hate the timing this could have been done in the off-season and we could have had more options. If Brooks balled out we could have used that money on a defensive starter. RBs come and go.

  • Pie 1
  • Poo 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

    • I’m not necessarily advocating sticking with Bryce. His highs show the ability is there, but there’s enough bad film out there to doubt that he can consistently enough play at a high enough level. But this video from Brett Kollman is a pretty good argument to give it a bit more time, whether that be rolling with Bryce just next year or picking up his 5th year option (not extending him).      The gist is that the structural (wider hashes) and rule (3 yd vs 1 yd thresholds for intelligible offensive lineman downfield penalties) differences in the college and NFL have led to wildly different play calling and scheme diets in college. There is much more shotgun and RPO calls in college and screen/quick throws. This simply doesn’t set up young QBs to be able to play under center, which is more preferred in the NFL due to RBs being able to more effectively run out of that formation.  They don’t know how to do it and have to learn. Yes, the NFL has trended more toward college style offense in the last decade or so, but it isn’t that pronounced and is more out of necessity than desire. And on top of all that, they ask the young QBs to do all this learning with coaching and other personnel churn going on around them.  Bad results lead to coaches getting fired and new ones with different ideas on scheme and footwork and different terminology and playbooks coming in. It makes it harder on those young QBs to learn.     So we may drop Bryce for a young QB starter in the draft and be in a similar situation. With a QB who is going to take years to learn how to operate in an NFL style offense and will struggle along the way.  So you have to weigh whether the struggles we see from Bryce are more due to this learning process vs solely physical limitations on his part. It’s almost undoubtedly a bit of both, but the answer to that question I think dictates your strategy at QB over the next few years. And of course, you have to consider what the alternatives available are.    I’m neither a Bryce hater or a Bryce Stan and I don’t have an answer to that question. But I do fear that if we move on from him, unless it’s for an established player, we’re just in for continued frustration on the QB front because it’s going to take a few years for a college QB to develop (Drake Maye’s don’t grow on trees). 
    • The defense has pulled that feat off this season though.  Multiple times. offense has not had a single good first half all season.  Only and good opening scripted drive paired with disappointing play.  defense has been the actual unit you can measure real and consistent improvement IMO.  Still holes and flaws to it that aren’t going away until new bodies get here but they really are the story of the season IMO
    • One thing about RB's and LB's is they are going to get hurt. It's inevitable. Having a fresh Chuba is not a bad thing.  My only criticism of this entire situation is that I wish our staff would adjust personnel to matchup a little better. I think Chuba is a lot better than Rico against the stacked boxes we've seen the last two weeks. They are very different backs with very different strengths, and I love them both. Rico is so good at identifying the hole early, and hitting it full speed early. He's much better at breaking the big run. Chuba is a much more patient back, and finds 3 yards when there's nothing there better than Rico.  It's in no way a criticism of either, but I think Chuba would have had more success than Rico the way the Saints and Falcons attacked us from a Defensive standpoint.  When you put 9 in the box, often times there is no hole to attack. 
×
×
  • Create New...