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!

     

If we go 7-9 or 6-10 how would you feel about keeping Rivera if..

CharlottePanther

By CharlottePanther,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

CharlottePanther Newbie

CharlottePanther

Posted
Posted

Say we have a top 3 defense, im talking about a D that resembles the steel curtain or 85 Bears D BUT we have say one of the worst offensive rankings in the league. Would you be ok if we kept Rivera ONLY if we went out and got a new OC? And no im not talking about some poo like promoting Ken Dorsey or some poo. I mean a real deal, legit OC. A Hue Jackson or Whisenhunt type.

I must say that what worries me greatly is our D will be so amazing but Shula might make us a sub .500 team, man how devastating would it be if we risk losing out on such a stout D by firing Rivera and starting all over again with a new HC. With all the pieces on D running like a well oiled machine under Rivera, it would really break my heart seeing that blown up.

Before the pitch forks come out, just think of this for a minute. Imagine for one minute if we had the 2011 offense to go along with this 2013 defense, EASILY a 12-4 team and that might be on the low end. Can you imagine how good this team would be with this defense and a Hue Jackson type OC?

Also one more thing. A similar situation happened with Kubiak. It took him 4-5 seasons before the Texans finally became legit under Kubiak and what kept his job safe year after year was the stout D he was building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CharlottePanther Newbie

CharlottePanther

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Sean McDermott, you're hired.

Rivera must go.

Im not so sure this would work. Is it more Rivera or Sean that the D is performing well? If we have a top 3 D but a bottom 25 offense, it will be clear as day it was Shula's fault and all we need is a top flight OC. Now obviously if our D struggles as well as the offense, yes then fire them all.

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

    • Mistuh Jones
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By Mistuh Jones · Posted

      This is gonna be longest six weeks ever 
    • PNW_PantherMan
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By PNW_PantherMan · Posted

      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
    • tukafan21
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By tukafan21 · Posted

      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.
×
×
  • Create New...