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

By Nick_81,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

steveSmokin_D Rookie

steveSmokin_D

Posted
Posted

Wow surprisingly Im not at all that upset about this move.  I have a feeling the defense will be chatting with Norman and whispering in his ear about chasing money. He will learn chasing money is a bad idea just like Ginn did. Being what 28 how much does he have left in the tank before he starts to decline? Save the money sign the people that want to be here and move forward. Norman is good corner (one of my fav. players on the team with dat swagger) but let the ego go or be gone. In all honesty we just need someone athletic with some speed to play within a role not a Revis guy. Our draft board may change slightly but idea is the same win without selling the future (cough cough eagles).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ship Collaborator

Ship

Posted
Posted

if they think he was going to be a distraction in the locker room then he didn't have any business being with us this year. our locker room is why we are great and no one fugs with that or they're out.

plus, if josh held out into training camp then he would have fuged up our team for the season. guys who do that damage the team while they're out and aren't up to speed when they get back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Huddler Veteran

The Huddler

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, TheRed said:

If he goes to a division rival, that matchup is going to be ugly. He's got that Steve Smith in him.

Interesting how some people are so quick to paint him as a villain. It takes two sides to get to this point.

we will just throw it to the other massive reciever

Link to comment
Share on other sites
iamhubby1 Veteran

iamhubby1

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Sam Mills Fan said:

NO ONE has big money to offer now. They royally screwed Josh over. Eff it, if he signs with Atlanta I couldn't blame him.

 

You are just mad cuz nobody agrees with you about the broncos trolling us. You made a crappy thread that tanked. Take your medicine. Aw hellz, just be you. It is the only thing you are good at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
QueensKing Newbie

QueensKing

Posted
Posted

I know the popular opinion is that Gettleman did the right thing... but if he'd have taken a little risk on Josh he would've had a very friendly deal last year.  It goes both ways.  Josh bet on himself, and I'm sure Gettleman was friendly and supported his decision to "prove" that he was worth big time money at the time.  Gettleman may have very well reneged on his word, or given him the same pitch as last year.  

I think Josh's contributions from last year are extremely undervalued, and when we start getting burned in our already weak secondary again people will realize that he would've been worth the money.  We had a true shutdown corner, and let him walk.  Maybe Gettleman has an anger issue... we'll never know.  But we have just taken a step back as a franchise, and are officially weaker as a team possibly because of egos.  

We're trying to win a championship.  We just had part of our edge taken away.  How soon some forget, but regardless, there's a reason G-Man is paid the big bucks.  He better have something up his sleeve this time.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Growl Veteran

Growl

Posted
Posted

I don't see how a long term deal and the tag were connected. He turns 29 this year. I was pretty content to just have one more year put of him and then let him walk. His value may have dropped because of his age next offseason anyways. The only way it makes any real sense is if Josh was going to refuse to play this year, which I have a hard time envisioning.

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...