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!

     

Should the Panthers try and extend Funchess before the season?


Eazy-E

Recommended Posts

Looking at how some of these WR contract are turning out, a 24 year old Funchess will be looking at 10+ million per year on the open market. If Funchess walks next year we are looking at a huge hole at receiver once again, even if we draft a WR.

I am sure his agent is seeing the inflated market and will probably make signing him to an extension now very difficult. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can try, but it wouldn’t make sense for Funchess not to trust in himself. He could potentially raise his stock by even more this year. 

I’m happy with how much improvement he’s made though. He was so terrible as a rookie, but his route running and hands are gotten so much better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Mage said:

We can try, but it wouldn’t make sense for Funchess not to trust in himself. He could potentially raise his stock by even more this year. 

I’m happy with how much improvement he’s made though. He was so terrible as a rookie, but his route running and hands are gotten so much better.

It does... he could get a TON of guaranteed money right now or go out and get a career changing injury...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Mage said:

We can try, but it wouldn’t make sense for Funchess not to trust in himself. He could potentially raise his stock by even more this year. 

I’m happy with how much improvement he’s made though. He was so terrible as a rookie, but his route running and hands are gotten so much better.

This. I can't imagine Funchess would be willing to sign right now for what we should be willing to pay.

He should probably bet on himself and try to have a career year and cash in big time. And we should probably be willing to wait and see that he's capable of that type of year before giving him $10M+ per year which he would probably command if he was a free agent right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not saying to low ball him it needs to be fair. We won't be able to offer anything close to market value come next year. If he has a 1000 yard season with another 8+ touchdowns he could be looking at a contract richer than ARob or Watkins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • 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.
    • Well, we got our answer on Army today.
×
×
  • Create New...