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!

     

"Panthers victory over Seattle means nothing"

heelinfine

By heelinfine,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

jbland Rising Star

jbland

Posted
Posted

According to another anti-Panther analyst the Washington Post choose to publish. 

Man seems like someone at the Post is going out if there way to find anti-Carolina contributors.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fancy-stats/wp/2015/10/19/carolina-panthers-are-not-for-real-even-after-the-win-in-seattle/

It means we won last week and will mean less if we come out flat this week. One game at a time. Nothing more, nothing less. We have to keep the same mentality all season if we want to make and advance in the playoffs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Khyber53 Grand Master

Khyber53

Posted
Posted

Hey, it was great to beat the Seahawks and it's great to celebrate. Honestly though, we just beat an overhyped 2-3 team. Next up is another team that was overhyped in the offseason and is underperforming now. And then we play yet another underperforming team that everyone thought would win their division.

Until we go head to head with Green Bay and come out a winner, we aren't going to be crowned as king of the league. 

This was great, but quit expecting everyone out there to treat us like we've won a Super Bowl before. 

Leave that for next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Growl Veteran

Growl

Posted
Posted

their ranking system ranks the team we just beat higher than us.  ok, then.

the narrative about seattle changes to accommodate what we did to them.

It was said all week. If we beat them, the media would suddenly shift their perspective to "WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE SEAHAWKS?" 

That has happened. They decided before the season that we werent going to be good. They dont like the way we play. The reality of the situation will continue to change to accomodate that narrative.

Just keep winning, keep making them cry and embarass themselves with strawgrab articles like this one, and keep winning. Go win the super bowl and delight in their tears.

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

    • Jackie Lee
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By Jackie Lee · Posted

      Strange, every news article and tweet I just searched all mentioned waivers. It is definitely his sixth year of at least 6 games. All I was trying to think of earlier was at the vet min could he beat out Bryce in camp next year lol. He's kinda got the old Darnold issue where he can obviously launch deep balls and qb run at a level Bryce will never achieve, but it sounds like he would be content being like a Josh Allen backup who doesn't throw the whole game plan out the window if he has to come in for a series or two. If we had him and for some reason still wanted to start Bryce he would kinda do what Justin Fields was doing the other night with Dangeruss, coming in for designed runs and maybe some play action/triple option rpo things to go deep. That would be so obvious and sad though. At least Russ can still sling it 40 yards in the air with a flick of the wrist
    • strato
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By strato · Posted

      Too late to edit above but the quote is from this Diane Russini article in the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5941684/2024/11/23/russinis-what-im-hearing-the-day-the-jets-fell-apart-and-the-broncos-rallied-belichick-best-fits/ Okay.. there you have sorry I left that out the first post.  Also waivers keep the contract intact. That is the major difference in released and waived. It's all in that link from the other post.
    • strato
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By strato · Posted

      Okay so I am reading something in The Athletic and it says that Jones had to pass through waivers. So I don't know. I looked this stuff up when we were number one there all offseason and I thought it said 4 years in the league got you vested, as they call it.  Vested gets you out of waivers as I understood it. I probably got something wrong, but when I think about the slack quality of journalism these days I wonder about that. So I went and looked, again. Well, well.  For everyone: "When a player has accrued at least four seasons in the NFL, they are considered a vested veteran. When these vested veterans get cut, they are released and their contract is terminated. When a vested veteran is released, they are an unrestricted free agent that can sign with any NFL team, and the team that released them doesn’t need to provide any additional compensation." It runs it all down here, where the quotes came from: https://www.profootballnetwork.com/waived-vs-released-nfl/ As far as Jones, the team turned down his 5th year option so I knew that meant he had 4 years in, because they re-signed him anyway, after turning down the much cheaper extra year.  The Athletic is owned by the New York Times so I shouldn't be surprised. That paper was an institution once upon a time but they let their standards go.
×
×
  • Create New...