Pundits "Stabbed in the back"

[iamhubby1]

12 minutes ago, rodeo said:

There's some revisionist history going on with this whole thing. Norman refused to sign the tag and his agent had demanded a trade to try to bargain I guess. For all that Gettleman had been informed, Norman wouldn't be a Panther anymore under any circumstances without a new contract to make him the highest paid defender in the league.

The way it's being portrayed now, Norman was tagged and immediately signed and said "Oh yes please I want to play, I'll even take a paycut, I'll play for free, I just really love you so much." and Gettleman said "No! I rescind your tag! It was all a trick, also I am involved in pizzagate!"

 

This is one of those either or situations. Either you believe that Gman slighted Josh. Or you believe that Gman did his best, and when that didn't look to be working, rescinded the tag.

 

On this subject, until there is solid evidence. There seems to be no middle ground.

[CRA]

4 hours ago, iamhubby1 said:

 

See, this is the rub. You believe Josh would have signed a long term deal here. Some folks believe this as well. I believe that Josh knew from the get go he wasn't going to sign here, that we weren't going to be able to give him what he wanted.

 

Josh did not want the tag. He wanted a long term deal, with the guaranteed money that brings. We were not going to match what he wanted. People can argue all they want. But the crux of the matter is. Gman was not going to spend what Josh wanted.

 

After talks went no where, Gman figured the writing was on the wall. So he made a decision he thought could work. Rescind the tag, and use the money on KK. After all, the last time Gman tagged anyone, it was Hardy, and we all know how that worked out.

 

IMO, if we had signed KK long term. Fewer people would be so up in arms. But because the money wasn't used, people are all "Gman should have spent that money on such and such". Of course, with the year KK has had, people would probably be mad we gave him his contract at all.

 

Ever thought that IF Gman had known he was going to rescind the tag, he might have went after a FA CB? Or that Gman truly thought he was going to keep Josh?

 

It is not Gman's job to talk with Josh. That's what the agent is for. It is Josh's job to keep up with things. Maybe Josh fired his agent for a scapegoat because Josh didn't want to admit that maybe he wasn't as involved as he should have been. All I know is that if it were my money? I'd be talking to my agent every dang day.

 

Sorry for the rant. Sometimes I get carried away. I know, who'd a thunk it?

 

 

No, I don't believe Norman was or should of signed a long term deal here.  I got no issue with a long term deal not working out that suited both parties.

my only issue is he botch of the tag and our 2016 season. 

[The NFL Shield At Midfield]

5 hours ago, rodeo said:

There's some revisionist history going on with this whole thing. Norman refused to sign the tag and his agent had demanded a trade to try to bargain I guess. For all that Gettleman had been informed, Norman wouldn't be a Panther anymore under any circumstances without a new contract to make him the highest paid defender in the league.

The way it's being portrayed now, Norman was tagged and immediately signed and said "Oh yes please I want to play, I'll even take a paycut, I'll play for free, I just really love you so much." and Gettleman said "No! I rescind your tag! It was all a trick, also I am involved in pizzagate!"

if i remember correctly, norman's agent hadn't even successfully negotiated an NFL contract in his entire career at that point.  he was supposedly an NBA guy.

[Navy_football]

Josh Norman was a 28 years old cornerback, looking to get his first and likely only big payday. Those guys usually sign franchise tags late so as not to risk injury on meaningless OTAs, training camp, and preseason games. For a veteran that had been with the team four seasons with the same coaching staff, it made sense to wait to sign.

[Navy_football]

Gettleman did not want to rent Norman for a year. He didn't think a long term deal could be reached. I get that.

My concern is the team lost 4 (5 if you count moving Coleman to SS early on) defensive starters on a defensive minded team, and replaced them with rookies and backups. 

This team was 15-1 last season and lost in the super bowl. Not only did he not make moves to get the team over the top, but he didn't provide quality replacements for lost starters. 

 

[panthers55]

1 hour ago, Navy_football said:

Gettleman did not want to rent Norman for a year. He didn't think a long term deal could be reached. I get that.

My concern is the team lost 4 (5 if you count moving Coleman to SS early on) defensive starters on a defensive minded team, and replaced them with rookies and backups. 

This team was 15-1 last season and lost in the super bowl. Not only did he not make moves to get the team over the top, but he didn't provide quality replacements for lost starters. 

 

This is the point really. If we had replaced Norman and Tillman and Harper with suitable vets who performed well, we would not even care about losing Norman. But when you compound losing him with not adequately replacing them and turn a good secondary into the league's worse and go from 15-1 to 5-8 with three to play, it really just magnified the stupidity of his offseason moves.

[beastson]

Sad and unacceptable, in less than a year we went from SB to this

[Sasquatch]

16 hours ago, CRA said:

Eric Berry signed his tag after the 3rd preseason game.  You can look around be league or even at past tagged Panthers.  Players signing a tag immediately isn't the norm. 

past tagged Panther players?  You mean like Hardy?

[tiger7_88]

3 hours ago, CRA said:

No, I don't believe Norman was or should of signed a long term deal here.  I got no issue with a long term deal not working out that suited both parties.

my only issue is he botch of the tag and our 2016 season. 

And that is what hubby is pointing out... that Norman had NO INTENTION of signing the tag.

He wanted the long-term deal.  He was either going to get it from us (with very little chance of that happening because of the level of salary he was insisting upon) or with another team.

At his age, he had no intention, AT ALL, of signing that franchise tag and wasting another year of his career that could end at anytime on the field.

"So if he never intended to sign the franchise tag then why was he so sad and complaining so loudly?"  Post-negotiation PR and putting his "side" on the "good" side and not the "bad" side.  Seems to have worked perfectly with a lot of people.

[tiger7_88]

2 hours ago, Navy_football said:

Josh Norman was a 28 years old cornerback, looking to get his first and likely only big payday. Those guys usually sign franchise tags late so as not to risk injury on meaningless OTAs, training camp, and preseason games.

Or, using that same exact logic, he never intended to sign the franchise tag and threaten his opportunity at a big money, long-term contract by playing a single year  under the franchise tag at his age.  Supporting that logic is that we got intel in this forum straight from the horse's mouth that he didn't intend to sign the franchise tag.

But it was all that idiot Gettledouche's fault, y'all.

[panthers55]

34 minutes ago, tiger7_88 said:

And that is what hubby is pointing out... that Norman had NO INTENTION of signing the tag.

He wanted the long-term deal.  He was either going to get it from us (with very little chance of that happening because of the level of salary he was insisting upon) or with another team.

At his age, he had no intention, AT ALL, of signing that franchise tag and wasting another year of his career that could end at anytime on the field.

"So if he never intended to sign the franchise tag then why was he so sad and complaining so loudly?"  Post-negotiation PR and putting his "side" on the "good" side and not the "bad" side.  Seems to have worked perfectly with a lot of people.

Just one question then. If he had no intention of signing it then why when it was rescinded did he fire his agent and contact Gettleman to try and get it reinstated so he could sign it?  He clearly expected to be here and was only holding out because that was the only.leversge he had to get a long term deal done.

[panthers55]

35 minutes ago, tiger7_88 said:

Or, using that same exact logic, he never intended to sign the franchise tag and threaten his opportunity at a big money, long-term contract by playing a single year  under the franchise tag at his age.  Supporting that logic is that we got intel in this forum straight from the horse's mouth that he didn't intend to sign the franchise tag.

But it was all that idiot Gettledouche's fault, y'all.

The only Intel we have gotten says that he tried to sign it and Gettleman refused. I don't know how that can be skewed to say he never intended to sign it. Maybe his agent never intended for Josh to sign it and led him to play the hardline but Josh did try and sign it before going to Washington when Gettleman refused. Any other version is just posters making things up.

[Navy_football]

38 minutes ago, tiger7_88 said:

Or, using that same exact logic, he never intended to sign the franchise tag and threaten his opportunity at a big money, long-term contract by playing a single year  under the franchise tag at his age.  Supporting that logic is that we got intel in this forum straight from the horse's mouth that he didn't intend to sign the franchise tag.

But it was all that idiot Gettledouche's fault, y'all.

I think there is almost no chance that Norman would have sat out this season. I don't know what he said or who he said it to, but it would be hard to imagine him foregoing $14M in one season, particularly since he had only made about $4M combined in his first 4 years in the league.

[CRA]

3 hours ago, Navy_football said:

Gettleman did not want to rent Norman for a year. He didn't think a long term deal could be reached. I get that.

My concern is the team lost 4 (5 if you count moving Coleman to SS early on) defensive starters on a defensive minded team, and replaced them with rookies and backups. 

This team was 15-1 last season and lost in the super bowl. Not only did he not make moves to get the team over the top, but he didn't provide quality replacements for lost starters. 

 

I don't get not renting him for a year...especially given we lost Peanut, Harper, and no one on the roster.   That 2015 secondary helped aid DL that had great talent at spots but wasn't well rounded. 

Given Newton is our QB and windows aren't big.  If he was content on "off year"....I don't get that