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!

     

Malcontents: To sign or not to sign?

Mr. Scot

By Mr. Scot,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
Posted

So in the ongoing Greg Hardy discussion, there been some folks who have expressed the thought "I don't care what he did. I just want to win." Setting aside the obvious moral issues with an idea like that, there are loads of angles that this notion could be examined from. I'm going to leave out all but one.

Pragmatism.

Devoting a significant portion of your salary cap to and/or building part of your team around a guy who could go off at any minute and do something incredibly stupid is a major risk. If you question that, ask the Browns about Josh Gordon or the Jags about Justin Blackmon.

Or, for that matter, watch what's been happening with Greg Hardy in Dallas.

To be clear, the Panthers are a team that will sign a guy with red flags on his record (Brandon Wegher being the latest example of that) if they think he's cleaned up his act and he's not a huge risk to blow it again in the future.

Greg Hardy is another story altogether. Hardy has never shown anyone any indication that he "gets it". Just the opposite. All signs point to him having learned pretty much nothing from his past mistakes. That's not someone you put yourself in a position to depend on because, as sure as you do, they'll flake out at completely the wrong time and you'll be left scrambling to fix the mess they've left you in. Panthe

Panther GM Dave Gettleman expressed this same thought when he recently said "Building a roster is hard enough. Who needs a time bomb?" And this is especially true in the post-Ray Rice, hyper image conscious NFL under Roger Goodell.

So bottom line, some folks seem to think that not wanting head cases on the team somehow means that the team is not totally committed to winning.

The reality: It means the team is smarter than to put itself in the position of depending on someone who has shown themselves to be undependable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PizzaTheHutt Rising Star

PizzaTheHutt

Posted
Posted

It's nice to not have the locker room distractions. To get nothing but positive press and MVP talk.

Let the Cowgirls talk and try to wiggle their way out of this PR nightmare. They are already WWE-style heels. 

We win with class and style. The "feel good" Panthers. We're on too much of a roll right now to have to worry about dealing with antics and nonsense.

Keep pounding, boys. Pound your way into everyone's hearts and souls.

Babyfacin' it to 7-0.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Frizzy350 Apprentice

Frizzy350

Posted
Posted

Even putting aside the off-field stuff for Hardy, it didn't seem like a good signing.  Guy wanted CJ money and we cant even afford CJ on CJ money.  Sorry but that cap is better spent on Cam and Luke, and will be needed to keep KK, Star, Norman and KB.

DE will be addressed in a big way - probably this offseason.  I'm not worried.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PanthersUnited Newbie

PanthersUnited

Posted
Posted

Good read.. I will admit that several months ago I was all about the "keep Hardy, win at all costs!" Group but I have had a change of heart. Seeing just how good Gettleman builds this team along with Rivera and the coaching staff and seeing how we aren't a team that doesn't need big name players, I realize it's not a good idea to fall in love with individual players

Its also why I have changed my stance on signing FAs, I guess you can say that I finally "get it." We need guys that are young and hungry and have the true desire to win, not guys that are looking to get paid because of their name recognition alone.

Its why I'm so torn on re signing Norman. On one hand I would love to keep him but on the other hand I'm just not so sure he is a "no brainer" keeper like Cam and Luke are

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pantherj Grand Master

pantherj

Posted
Posted

Any player who shows any sign of being a psychopath should not be signed, nor kept on the team if they're already signed. Mercilessly beating and strangling a terrified woman screaming for mercy is psychopathic behavior. Now Hardy the psychopath is gone, and no new psychopaths should be added to the team under any circumstances. A violent psychopath will often escalate the level of violence, see O.J Simpson's attacks on Nicole Brown Simpson prior to her murder. Hardy is a danger to himself and those around him. Absolutely no new psychos should be added to this team. 

 

 

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

Mr. Scot

Posted
  • Author
Posted
8 minutes ago, NanuqoftheNorth said:

Classic case of sacrificing long term goals for instant gratification.

Heck, even the teams that did sign guys like Terrell Owens, Randy Moss and Percy Harvin only took a few years to decide it wasn't worth it (even while they were still performing on the field).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pantherj Grand Master

pantherj

Posted
Posted

Now I don't have a problem with having a player on the team who is suffering from narcissistic personality disorder (Steve Smith), but we need to keep those type of players to a minimum. Metaphorically they can light a fire to keep the house warm, or their fire can burn the house down. Gettleman is the type of GM who thinks the fire will burn the house down.

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

    • pantherclaw
      99.9 Espn podcast reactions immediately following game

      By pantherclaw · Posted

      Interesting that people are calling for our DC'S head, when we never would have been in the game if it wasn't for the defense.  Never should have gotten to OT. 
    • Mage
      Week 13 other games

      By Mage · Posted

      Philly's defense is great and they run the ball a lot and control the TOP (and they certainly will vs us - this is a big mismatch), so even if Bryce is at his best, I doubt he would have a chance to crack 300 passing yards.  Be damn impressive if he does though, but it all just depends on volume, efficiency, and most importantly... not turning the ball over.
    • SmokinwithWilly
      When a boy becomes a MAN!

      By SmokinwithWilly · Posted

      Even with Cam I don't think it would have been a hard sell. He always loomed larger than life, but most people that understand football understand the reality of the game. One wrong hit, one wrong step, and a career can be over. It's the thing I've been frustrated about most with every GM we've ever had, including Morgan to this point. We never really developed the QB room. We relied on our starters and when Jake and Cam fell apart, so did the franchise. That's the one position that you can't really afford not to develop a plan B, but we do it with regularity. Dalton wasn't supposed to be a serious threat to Bryce's job and Jack was never a threat to be anything at all. JMO, but we should always have a young guy we're trying to keep on the bench with at least 2 years in the system. If they're not getting it, move on, but always keep rotating guys through. It seems like 2-3 years really is the magic point for QBs to either get a handle or not. It's probably not going to happen, but I'd really like to see that 3rd QB emergency slot become a permanent place to work on developing young QBs. I think it could benefit every team in the league because it's so hard to carry 3 QBs on the roster with all the turn over during the season due to injuries. 
×
×
  • Create New...