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!

     

I think Luke knows the Panthers are planning to move on from Cam

Eazy-E

By Eazy-E,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

bigdavis Rising Star

bigdavis

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, micnificent28 said:

IS this a tread speculating on a players speculation that a certain player wont be on the team and thats why he retired? well if this isnt a new low as of luke's retirement.

Another new low:

I admit, this is speculation on my part, but I'm speculating on the OP's speculation that Luke may have been speculating about Cam's (speculated) absence from the team.

But I have my sources...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rippadonn Grand Master

rippadonn

Posted
Posted

Getting rid of Aaron Rodgers is exactly what the Packers did when they got a new coach and rebuilt their team. Look at them now.

 

^ Doesn't make sense does it.

I'd like to see Cam Newton in the hands of Rhule and Brady. It could be special. But nah, trade CMC, cut KK, trade Cam, what can we get for DJ?

SMH.You guys.

Colin Cowherd a known Cam hater would love Cam with the Chargers or, ooooo, the Bears, he would solve THEIR problems, he said as much and more. You chaps are the only ones complaining about having a franchise QB.

You guys aren't the only ones talking about making this franchise a failure just for the sake of "growth"?!? Losing and losing and losing doesn't create "winning" look at the Bucs. Look at Winston.

The weak mindedness on this site is astounding. The Panthers have had success in the league. Reload.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Montsta Community Regular

Montsta

Posted
Posted

If you listen to Luke’s announcement video he seems to allude a lot to now being the chance to go in a different direction. I think being on a poo team going nowhere probably had 10% to do with it and 90% was health. Like others said, if we looked stacked to make a super bowl run, Luke might have sucked it up for a season for the chance, but given that this is a rudderless ship going nowhere for at least two years, it probably cemented his decision.

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...