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!

     

Lets go ahead and forget the notion Peppers will be a Panther anymore.


Kurb

Recommended Posts

:willy_nilly:

He doesn't love us any more.

He wants out.

He has done everything possible to try and get away from us.

His tag number is roughly 9% of our cap.

His production next season would be garbage. (He isn't worried about money)

There exists no contract on this earth that would make him WANT to be here.

HE MUST BE TRADED, and we mustn't be greedy in trading him.

Im talking 2nd + some picks might be the best we get.

Mainly because of the damage Pep and his Agent have done in there statements.

He is gone.:willy_nilly:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with all of that except for the greedy part.

Peppers and his agent have done nothing to stop the Panthers from getting a first round pick.

I would go as far as to say the Panthers would rather play Pep than to NOT get a first rounder.

Ill make that call now poo, I say Pep will be a Panther if we don't get a first, and he won't be if we do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then we should have let him walk.

Well the early impressions I am getting from ESPN, NFLN, and from Hurneys own comments, is just what i said.

Hurney is like pfff, yea right Peppers, really? not only are we getting what WE want for you, if we don't, your playing for us pal.

John Clayton backed that sentiment up 100%, basically saying that himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^I don't give Clayton any credibility tho.

It's completely against everything this team likes to do if we end up with some Media Circus Peppers Watch kinda thing at training camp next season.

Not to mention the locker room problems it may or maynot cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, I actually think if he plays next year in Carolina he'll actually be good, he'll need another "contract" year, cause he'll be 30 next year and teams will want to make sure he still has gas in the tank. He may be a problem in the locker room, but he never talks anyway so most likely not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clayton was reporting like we were actually planning on keeping him for the 09 season.. pfft..

we need to get a 1st and a 3rd for him.. it be stupid to walk away with anything less, because if we did give him his walking papers, we would be given a 1st round compensation pick next year, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the early impressions I am getting from ESPN, NFLN, and from Hurneys own comments, is just what i said.

Hurney is like pfff, yea right Peppers, really? not only are we getting what WE want for you, if we don't, your playing for us pal.

John Clayton backed that sentiment up 100%, basically saying that himself.

It's called posturing. Peppers/Carey did it the last couple of weeks, now it's our turn...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

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