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!

     

On second thought...we should have paid Norman

AceBoogie

By AceBoogie,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

AceBoogie Veteran

AceBoogie

Posted
Posted

It's not just this draft that makes me realize we should have paid Josh Norman, it's thinking back to last season. How many times during the course of last season did you stand up and say "PAY THAT MAN"

I'm sure you can flip through old game threads, it was said a lot. Norman made game changing plays last year. He was a dynamic playmaker for this team. I'm not saying we should have paid him what Washington did, but I don't think we had to go that high. 

The Seahawks paid Richard Sherman, The cardinals paid Patrick Peterson, you could argue that Revis was the reason the Patriots won the Super Bowl. 

CB was already considered a need coming in, with Josh Norman on the team. I think two reaches by our GM, who typically doesn't reach for need, shows just how bad the situation really is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Blackmagic Newbie

Blackmagic

Posted
Posted

Norman was very good. but he's no Revis. Cardinals play man, and Peterson gets beat sometimes, but he's on an island. Seahawks play more man than we do. The CB's were rated as second rounders by Gettleman. So, no reaches.

The 14 million not spent on Norman, can be spent on KK, Star, Kelvin, Trai and Norwell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rags Mentor

Rags

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, AceBoogie said:

The Seahawks paid Richard Sherman, The cardinals paid Patrick Peterson

Read the post, decided to blow this up.

The difference between paying Sherman and Peterson is when they're in their 30s/Close to their 30s, theyy're be near the end or at the end of their contracts. Josh will be in the 2nd year of his 5 year deal when he's 30. 

And unless you're Champ Bailey or Charles Woodson, 30s are around the time CBs start dropping off a bit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheRumGone Grand Master

TheRumGone

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, AceBoogie said:

It's not just this draft that makes me realize we should have paid Josh Norman, it's thinking back to last season. How many times during the course of last season did you stand up and say "PAY THAT MAN"

I'm sure you can flip through old game threads, it was said a lot. Norman made game changing plays last year. He was a dynamic playmaker for this team. I'm not saying we should have paid him what Washington did, but I don't think we had to go that high. 

The Seahawks paid Richard Sherman, The cardinals paid Patrick Peterson, you could argue that Revis was the reason the Patriots won the Super Bowl. 

CB was already considered a need coming in, with Josh Norman on the team. I think two reaches by our GM, who typically doesn't reach for need, shows just how bad the situation really is. 

I think we should have kept the tag for a year but I get why we pulled it. This isn't static though, because Josh is gone OTHER players, regardless of position, are going to make plays, game changing plays. We have a ton of talent on this team. 

 

You ou can't just look at Josh being gone and say well we're gonna lose 5 game changing plays this upcoming season. It doesn't work that way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Castavar Grand Master

Castavar

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, GoobyPls said:

Everyone knows we should of payed Norman at least for this upcoming season.

 

People are just back tracking cause they blindly agree with every DG move.

We WERE going to pay for Norman this season. Blame Norman and his agent for not signing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The_Rainmaker Newbie

The_Rainmaker

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, TheRumGone said:

I think we should have kept the tag for a year but I get why we pulled it. This isn't static though, because Josh is gone OTHER players, regardless of position, are going to make plays, game changing plays. We have a ton of talent on this team. 

 

You ou can't just look at Josh being gone and say well we're gonna lose 5 game changing plays this upcoming season. It doesn't work that way. 

IDK about losses but it  will affect team in a sense that LBs will have to take on more responsiblity and will burden them slightly in doing their own assignments. Specifially the play where  Luke tipped the ball away from WR and started yelling at Finnegan trying to cover up that mistake. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoobyPls Mentor

GoobyPls

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Castavar said:

We WERE going to pay for Norman this season. Blame Norman and his agent for not signing it.

Nope can't blame him when he wanted to resign with the team the second he was cut.

 

Not only that but they had until June to reach a deal, so cutting him just cause you couldn't reach an agreement 2 month before the deadline is asinine.

 

 

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

    • mav1234
      Bryce contingency plan?

      By mav1234 · Posted

      Will he keep this up? Who knows. He's had a few decent and one good game. If he keeps trending in this direction I think we go with a veteran and late round development QB if one falls we really like. If he reverts back to early season play, I wouldn't mind earlier investment in a QB because he has had a lot of time to show consistency.
    • rayzor
      Bears fire Matt Eberfus

      By rayzor · Posted

      Sounds a lot like the clusterfug we had last year with Reich. Poor leadership loses the team. Poor leadership will cost you your job.
    • Jackie Lee
      Bears fire Matt Eberfus

      By Jackie Lee · Posted

      According to multiple players and staffers in the locker room, some players were asking why Eberflus didn’t call a timeout. Other players got going, too. “Guys were furious,” a staff member said. “It was an accumulation of this season.” “The locker room was ugly,” another staffer said. “There was a lot of yelling.” Said the first player: “We felt as players it’s been too many instances where we fought our way back into games to lose because of bad time management and decision-making.” Multiple sources added that the emotions were so high between the players and their head coach that Eberflus left the locker room immediately after his speech and the exchange with players. There was nothing left to say. It was a moment for this Bears team that would inevitably force chairman George McCaskey into something the franchise had never done before. By Friday morning, Eberflus was out — but not before the team decided to have him address the media over Zoom just after 9 a.m. Two hours later, he was gone. The Bears made it official by sharing statements from general manager Ryan Poles and president/CEO Kevin Warren.
×
×
  • Create New...