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!

     

Anderson wasn't good enough for Carolina


Jmac

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, top dawg said:

It's not a "guiding" principle. 

Teams let vets, particularly those who are basically on a one-year rental---those who aren't necessarily being used---go on their way to find greener pastures every once in awhile. This isn't a new precedent.

Smart teams let vets go because they're no longer good enough to help them win games.

Dumb teams let good depth walk because they're "unhappy".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m not saying anything about CMC.  

I am saying the entire CJ Anderson experience made the front office and coaching staff look foolish.

The team wasn’t “better” for only having one RB (who spent considerable time in the slot.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Smart teams let vets go because they're no longer good enough to help them win games.

Dumb teams let good depth walk because they're "unhappy".

You view things too simplistically for us to have a rational discussion. That's just what it is, so say what you want. I'm not discussing this with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, top dawg said:

People trying to act like Anderson was needed and would've made all the difference between us making the postseason obviously just want to argue about something. 

C-Mac > Anderson, it's as simple as that. Anderson really shouldn't have ever been signed.

Greg Olsen is pretty good. Let's cut Ian Thomas.

Kawann Short is a solid defensive tackle. No need to keep Kyle Love.

Curtis Samuel is playing very well at receiver. We don't really need both him and Jarius Wright.

(Examples of similar logic)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, top dawg said:

You view things too simplistically for us to have a rational discussion. That's just what it is, so say what you want. I'm not discussing this with you.

if I were trying to defend the things you were, I wouldn't discuss it with me either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, top dawg said:

People trying to act like Anderson was needed and would've made all the difference between us making the postseason obviously just want to argue about something. 

C-Mac > Anderson, it's as simple as that. Anderson really shouldn't have ever been signed.

You need more than one good running back. That's common knowledge.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought Anderson was unhappy with his role. It wasn't keeping 2 good happy players it was keeping one happy player and one disgruntled one. In our scheme he was redundant with CMC and Norv let him go when it was clear he didn't fit what we wanted to do.  Blame the system or blame Norv. But this is hardly unique for a player to be more productive in one system than another. And it isn't as if CMC got hurt or needed much backup. Seems just another way disgruntled huddlers are looking for a reason to rip the team. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Paintballr said:

I’m glad CJ is killing it just like the next person. 

But is Oakland an idiot too for not figuring him out too, or is LAs offensive line just that good 

Gruden wants a total rebuilt according to his design, hence letting good players go....Panthers just chase their tail going in circles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • 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...