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 rescind Norman's franchise tag...


Nick_81

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, NanuqoftheNorth said:

I believe there is an excellent chance.  

Panthers likely left their "best and final offer" on the table.  

Now it is up to Norman and his agent to find out what he is really worth around the league.  

He may eventually come to the same conclusion "Big Money" did.   Like Dorothy once famously said... there's no place like home, there's no place like home! 

 

 

two things worry me..

 

Gettlemans statement, and the bidding war thats aparently going to go down between SF and Jax.  CJ already got paid, Norman hasnt..

 

i still hold hope and have a gut feeling

 

maybe i have to fart

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was offline for 4 or 5 hours last night when the news broke, and it was very late in my time zone when I caught the news, so I didn't try to comment, just tried to figure out what happened.  I've now skimmed through all 40 pages of this thread, and some of the others, as well as the news articles, trying to process this...

This caught me off guard for sure.  I can see both sides to the comments.   At this point, until / unless other facts emerge, I still respect both Gettleman & Josh.  I will miss him greatly, but think our system probably means we'll be ok without him.  Hoping there's still that 5% chance he could listen to other offers now that he's released from the tag and decide as someone else posted that "there's no place like home." 

This makes Boykin's signing really huge.  Phew.  So glad we got that done!   This also increases the likelihood of a Tillman or Finnegan return, which I already "prophesied" some weeks ago.

Gettleman is well on the way to getting a serious reputation as a "CHEAP B***tard."  DANG but he plays hardball.  But heck, he's OUR CHEAP B***tard and that excites me because it is this kind of ruthless financial management and very careful player evaluation and methodical risk evaluation that I think are essential to a contender becoming a dynasty.

Hope this somehow ends well for both sides.  It certainly makes things more interesting in Pantherland right now.  This offseason has not been too boring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TEAM means all 53 guys are a unit and win or lose as a,whole. Norman thinks he is the best CB to ever lace up cleats, so be it. Play somewhere else. D.G will reshuffle the deck at draft time and fIll the position. I have total confidence in him to keep this train rolling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has the potential to go down as one of the worst moves in franchise history. Getting him an extra year on the franchise tag and then letting him sign his big contract elsewhere seemed perfect based on his age. I just don't see the upside to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, KillaCamNewton said:

Sorry but this is astronomically stupid. When You have a team that is built to win a Super Bowl TODAY you don't go telling a game-changing, Top 5 shutdown corner to kick rocks. 

Gettleman can be the alpha dog all he wants, but you can't let your pride get in the way when dealing with a player you can't afford to lose. For anyone saying no one player is more important than the team, go watch some games of Antoine Cason and remind yourself what our defense looked like before Norman was the starter

This has probably already been said a dozen times since your post was 15 hours ago, but damn there are 41 pages to read through in this thread......anyhow, I honestly don't believe that this has anything to do with DG's "pride" getting in the way.  It's his philosophy dude.....big men allow you to compete....this shouldn't be shocking to anyone at all.  I'm happy we didn't give him north of 15 mil a year for the next 3-6 years or whatever the contract length Josh and his agent were after.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, WUnderhill said:

This has the potential to go down as one of the worst moves in franchise history. Getting him an extra year on the franchise tag and then letting him sign his big contract elsewhere seemed perfect based on his age. I just don't see the upside to this.

I hear ya man, but think about it....If we let Josh play this upcoming season under the franchise tag, what if he tore an ACL?  What if his play regressed?  At that point, we basically just screwed over a local NC guy from a multi year contract (from us or any other team for that matter).  

The dude wanted to get paid big money not just in 2016, but for the next 3-5 years.  You can't blame him, he's gonna be 30 before ya know it.  Plus if he was gonna show his @ss even more than he already does playing under the tag, everyone should know DG is not gonna let ANYONE be a distraction in our stellar locker room.

I understand the people that like it and the people that don't.  It's just the business side of football ladies and gents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • 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
    • 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.
    • 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...