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

By Eazy-E,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

LinvilleGorge Grand Master

LinvilleGorge

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Snake said:

Bad teams are flush with cash so it's going to happen because of that. The thing that has changed this year is that teams are fully guaranteeing huge amounts of coin. That's going to hurt in the long run. 

I'm still just shocked at Watkins and Richardson getting the money that they got. I mean, talking about rolling the dice...

I think Norwell got too much for an OG, but at least you're getting a player who has played at an All-Pro level. I can rationalize that a helluva lot better than guys like Watkins and Richardson getting big time WR money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Peppers90 NC Community Regular

Peppers90 NC

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, Eazy-E said:

Are you delusional? Did you not see what Washington just gave Paul Richardson? Funch has better stats and is two years younger. I'd be willing to bet his floor is 8 million per in this market. 

I think we are all going to be sick when we see what Baltimore pays Moncrief.

yea that dude has fallen off the deep end it appears, delusional is a kind way of saying it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Snake Grand Master

Snake

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

I'm still just shocked at Watkins and Richardson getting the money that they got. I mean, talking about rolling the dice...

I think Norwell got too much for an OG, but at least you're getting a player who has played at an All-Pro level. I can rationalize that a helluva lot better than guys like Watkins and Richardson getting big time WR money.

Agreed,  but there wasn't anyone better and this draft is looking slim on WR. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LinvilleGorge Grand Master

LinvilleGorge

Posted
Posted
Just now, Snake said:

Agreed,  but there wasn't anyone better and this draft is looking slim on WR. 

I'd rather take a shot at a rookie than pay those guys that type of money. The draft looks light at WR if you're looking to spend a high first round pick, but it looks pretty damn strong in that 2nd-4th round range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CPF4LIFE Grand Master

CPF4LIFE

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, The Lobo said:

He is going to replace TD, I feel like he does. When he plays a true LB spot like Davis’, he plays well. 

To me, thats what we have yet to find out. He has been average in limited snaps dont know how good he is full time. He still no t better than TD and he is about to retire 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MechaZain Veteran

MechaZain

Posted
Posted

Yes. The longer we wait the more we just build his highlight reel and increase the cost. If he was our #2 or #3 guy we could play hardball but he's a major part of this offense and thus has a lot of leverage.

I also think he's low risk. Worst case scenario he's currently as good as he'll ever be and he's not a bad receiver by any measure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Lobo Grand Master

The Lobo

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, CPF4LIFE said:

To me, thats what we have yet to find out. He has been average in limited snaps dont know how good he is full time. He still no t better than TD and he is about to retire 

In situations where he played a true OLb he looked awesome and showed flashes. I think it was the first Seattle game of ‘15. There were times where he read the play correctly and got in the backfield a couple of times. He isn’t bad at blitzing either. It is when we play him in the Buffalo package where he doesn’t play as well. It’s a bummer bc we drafted him for that, that and his eventual replacing TD. He does well on Buffalo against slower WRs, but matches up against an RB or shifty wr, he’s toast. Playing him in Tds spot is where he is best. To me, it is crucial we pick up his 5th year bc TD is gone next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Snake Grand Master

Snake

Posted
Posted
41 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

I'd rather take a shot at a rookie than pay those guys that type of money. The draft looks light at WR if you're looking to spend a high first round pick, but it looks pretty damn strong in that 2nd-4th round range.

I guess it's perception. Hopefully we draft another WR cause Samuel and Byrds durability is a question. Then again Shulas playbook was rough on WRs too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Palmetto Newbie

Palmetto

Posted
Posted
47 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

I'd rather take a shot at a rookie than pay those guys that type of money. The draft looks light at WR if you're looking to spend a high first round pick, but it looks pretty damn strong in that 2nd-4th round range.

Exactly!! Drafting well and having Depth allows you to make smart decisions when its time for extending or  resigning players on the roster

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheRed Newbie

TheRed

Posted
Posted

Funchess has the essential qualities you want in a WR, he has the size, he has good enough speed, and he has a good head on his shoulders, plus he's only 23. The problem is he's a borderline #2 right now realistically, but with the WR market, he's getting paid as a #1 regardless.

We should at least kick the tires to see where we're at. If we're far apart, go WR early in the draft and let it ride.

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

    • 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.
    • LinvilleGorge
      2024 College Football Thread

      By LinvilleGorge · Posted

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