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!

     

We all know this needs to happen next game

Toolbox

By Toolbox,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

KB_fan Proficient

KB_fan

Posted
Posted

Ideally I'd be happy to have CAP active.

Question is whom do you DEACTIVATE, especially if all our players, including Marlowe, are healthy?

It is really tough to have to sit 7 healthy players when you know that several of them could really contribute.

Inactives last week were:

We played last week with only 3 safeties.  Not ideal.  Delaire stank up the joint, would like to see if Edwards can play... 

It's a good problem to have just about everyone on the team fully healthy, but at a time like this, the 46 player active limit really sucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nick_81 Newbie

Nick_81

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, KB_fan said:

Ideally I'd be happy to have CAP active.

Question is whom do you DEACTIVATE, especially if all our players, including Marlowe, are healthy?

It is really tough to have to sit 7 healthy players when you know that several of them could really contribute.

Inactives last week were:

We played last week with only 3 safeties.  Not ideal.  Delaire stank up the joint, would like to see if Edwards can play... 

It's a good problem to have just about everyone on the team fully healthy, but at a time like this, the 46 player active limit really sucks.

I'm sure Edwards will have his shot, once he's more up to speed with the defense.  He hasn't ever really played much though...

Player limit sucks, but it's there for a pretty good reason.  Coaches just have to make the best decisions they can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ricky Spanish Grand Master

Ricky Spanish

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Nick_81 said:

I'm sure Edwards will have his shot, once he's more up to speed with the defense.  He hasn't ever really played much though...

Player limit sucks, but it's there for a pretty good reason.  Coaches just have to make the best decisions they can.

Pardon my ignorance becuase I've never thought about it before, but what exactly is that good reason. Off the top of my head I can't thing of any good reason to carry 53 guys but not be able to utilize a set number of them every week. What's the point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nick_81 Newbie

Nick_81

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Cracka McNasty said:

Pardon my ignorance becuase I've never thought about it before, but what exactly is that good reason. Off the top of my head I can't thing of any good reason to carry 53 guys but not be able to utilize a set number of them every week. What's the point?

Good explanation here:  http://www.panthers.com/news/ask-bryan/article-2/Ask-Bryan-Picking-the-inactives/04093768-aac5-46ea-bfeb-34db24e3f153

Quote

So why are teams allowed to have just 46 of their 53 players active for games? In short, it's a move aimed at maintaining competitive balance. Both teams were pretty healthy for the season opener, but as the attrition natural to the game of football takes full effect, just about every team will have players too injured to play in a given week but not so injured that they should be put on injured reserve.

So, let's say one team has six injured players, while their opponent has just one. With the inactives system, both teams would have 46 healthy players in action, as opposed to one team having five more healthy players than the opposition. That type of discrepancy could make a significant difference in the game's outcome, and that's what the league wants to avoid.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
caatfan Newbie

caatfan

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, KB_fan said:

Ideally I'd be happy to have CAP active.

Question is whom do you DEACTIVATE, especially if all our players, including Marlowe, are healthy?

It is really tough to have to sit 7 healthy players when you know that several of them could really contribute.

Inactives last week were:

We played last week with only 3 safeties.  Not ideal.  Delaire stank up the joint, would like to see if Edwards can play... 

It's a good problem to have just about everyone on the team fully healthy, but at a time like this, the 46 player active limit really sucks.

BBR speculates T. Williams or Cash goes inactive, but for Marlowe, not CAP. Add him and it may be Williams AND Cash. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shaqattaq Grand Master

shaqattaq

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Nick_81 said:

I'm sure Edwards will have his shot, once he's more up to speed with the defense.  He hasn't ever really played much though...

Hopefully he's picked up more after having a long week. If so, I wouldn't mind him taking DeLaire's spot. He couldn't be much worse. 

As to the post's topic , I would love to see CAP get a shot. Make them load the box like they did on the Rams and leave our big WR's out there 1 on 1, or double our receivers and we can run it down their throats. Inactivate T. Williams, Simonson, or Cash if need be.

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...