Carr Watch

[Mr. Scot]

Gantt it also makes it sound like a disappointment for us...

 

[kungfoodude]

Curious to see the numbers here.

[top dawg]

4 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Oh, we were definitely interested. Joe Person, Mike Kaye and others confirmed that much.

That we weren't as interested as the Saints is actually just my speculation. We'll have to wait until more details come out to know the full truth.

I agree that we were interested, and I stated that. The problem is that we were interested enough to pay Carr a relatively big-money, long-term contract. I said that no smart team was going to sign him early, and I stand by that.

[Mr. Scot]

Just now, top dawg said:

I agree that we were interested, and I stated that. The problem is that we were interested enough to pay Carr a relatively big-money, long-term contract. I said that no smart team was going to sign him early, and I stand by that.

Yeah, except the actual news (again) goes against what you say.

Reports have confirmed that we were calling Carr today to talk money, but the Saints swooped in and got him before we had the chance.

I get that it's your preference to ignore news that doesn't suit what you believe, but hey...

[kungfoodude]

2 minutes ago, top dawg said:

I agree that we were interested, and I stated that. The problem is that we were interested enough to pay Carr a relatively big-money, long-term contract. I said that no smart team was going to sign him early, and I stand by that.

Sounds like the terms may be standard fare for NO. Lots of bonus money and a low salary.

Really very interested in the details here.

[mrcompletely11]

2 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Yeah, except the actual news (again) goes against what you say.

Reports have confirmed that we were calling Carr today to talk money, but the Saints swooped in and got him before we had the chance.

I get that it's your preference to ignore news that doesn't suit what you believe, but hey...

Again, a dude on a message board is not a report or reports (plural as you say).  The writing is clear as day we just fuged with the saints and had no interest in signing believe whatever some dude named leaky says but the proof is in the pudding

[Mr. Scot]

Just now, mrcompletely11 said:

Again, a dude on a message board is not a report or reports (plural as you say).  The writing is clear as day we just fuged with the saints and had no interest in signing believe whatever some dude named leaky says but the proof is in the pudding

The dude on the message board isn't the only one reporting that we were seriously interested.

They just happen to have the most details, but their details are consistent with what others have already reported.

[top dawg]

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

Yeah, except the actual news (again) goes against what you say.

Reports have confirmed that we were calling Carr today to talk money, but the Saints swooped in and got him before we had the chance.

I get that it's your preference to ignore news that doesn't suit what you believe, but hey...

Whatever, Scot. Frame all the bullshit narratives that you want. Bottom line is that we did not sign Carr because the Saints obviously wanted him more than us. Moreover, if we wanted to sign Carr, we would have done it earlier than now. Most of the time, NFL players are going to go with the money. The Saints wanted Carr more, and everyone waited until the Combine and eve of the ending of the franchise period to do anything. Those are the facts, much like I said they were going to be. 

[mrcompletely11]

2 minutes ago, top dawg said:

Whatever, Scot. Frame all the bullshit narratives that you want. Bottom line is that we did not sign Carr because the Saints obviously wanted him more than us. Moreover, if we wanted to sign Carr, we would have done it earlier than now. Most of the time, NFL players are going to go with the money. The Saints wanted Carr more, and everyone waited until the Combine and eve of the ending of the franchise period to do anything. Those are the facts, much like I said they were going to be. 

Its clear as day but he is believing some dude on here named leaky

[Mr. Scot]

1 minute ago, top dawg said:

Whatever, Scot. Frame all the bullshit narratives that you want. Bottom line is that we did not sign Carr because the Saints obviously wanted him more than us. Moreover, if we wanted to sign Carr, we would have done it earlier than now. Most of the time, NFL players are going to go with the money. The Saints wanted Carr more, and everyone waited until the Combine and eve of the ending of the franchise period to do anything. Those are the facts, much like I said they were going to be. 

The only actual fact you've got here is that we're not signing Carr. The rest is your opinion.

And this is where you run into trouble, letting your opinion influence the facts instead of the other way around.

[top dawg]

9 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

The only actual fact you've got here is that we're not signing Carr. The rest is your opinion.

And this is where you run into trouble, letting your opinion influence the facts instead of the other way around.

No, that's what you do. 

I offered opinions based on what makes sense and actual human nature. I also actually give an opinion, but I'm open to things going differently. 

You? You just state some report, and then act like it's your opinion. You wouldn't know human nature if she popped you upside your noggin, so maybe you should just stick to facts which is essentially the fact that someone wrote something that you agree with. There's nothing wrong with that. Just stay out of my lane because I actually enjoy football discussion that is more interesting.

Edited March 6, 2023 by top dawg

[ForJimmy]

15 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

The dude on the message board isn't the only one reporting that we were seriously interested.

They just happen to have the most details, but their details are consistent with what others have already reported.

If we were serious about Carr we wouldn't have dragged our feet like we did.  The Saints and Jets brought him in day 1 and make it clear he was option 1 for them.  Several reports have also stated we were just "kicking the tires" on Carr.  My thought was always we would sign him if we could get him for relatively cheap.  The Saints more than likely gave him what he wanted financially.  

[Krovvy]

22 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

Again, a dude on a message board is not a report or reports (plural as you say).  The writing is clear as day we just fuged with the saints and had no interest in signing believe whatever some dude named leaky says but the proof is in the pudding

Yeah, I mean, he was completely wrong. One guy from here gets it completely wrong, while another person leaking information here got it right. For some reason the guy on a fresh ALT was to be believed, but the other member that had already been dead on with his coaching leaks was ignored?

The guy was wrong and was so unsure about their 'leaks' they needed to make a fresh ALT.  

[ForJimmy]

1 hour ago, Krovvy said:

Yeah, I mean, he was completely wrong. One guy from here gets it completely wrong, while another person leaking information here got it right. For some reason the guy on a fresh ALT was to be believed, but the other member that had already been dead on with his coaching leaks was ignored?

The guy was wrong and was so unsure about their 'leaks' they needed to make a fresh ALT.  

Are you referring to that Leaky Faucet poster?  I don't think he was wrong.  I am sure our staff was going to meet with Carr like he suggested to get an idea of how cheap we could sign him for before going all in on trading up.  He was pretty clear about IF they are good on the price then we would bring him in to Charlotte.  It just wasn't a priority to us.