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!

     

Round 2 - The Carolina Panthers Select Jonathan Mingo - WR - Mississippi


rodeo
 Share

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, jb2288 said:

Trading up isn’t free lol. What they gave up to take a DE was stupid (and I think CJ will be a bust but that’s subjective) 

Both of those takes are bad. They’ve got so much draft capital why not trade up for the best defensive player in the draft. Better to have one stud than three jags. 

Edited by JawnyBlaze
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JawnyBlaze said:

Both of those takes are bad. They’ve got so much draft capital why not trade up for the best defensive player in the draft. Better to have one stud than three jags. 

In what world is the #12 pick (higher than Burns was drafted just saying) and a probable top 5 pick in 2024 jags? Now THATS a bad take 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jb2288 said:

Yes and we should have (and would have) taken them if one was a 2023 

Only to use one of them on a pass rusher.

 

So basically it's Burns for a 1st.

 

Good thing some of you dudes don't make these decisions. Premium pass rushers are the next most important position in football after the QB. You just don't get rid of elite pass rushers.

  • Pie 1
  • Poo 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

Only to use one of them on a pass rusher.

 

So basically it's Burns for a 1st.

 

Good thing some of you dudes don't make these decisions. Premium pass rushers are the next most important position in football after the QB. You just don't get rid of elite pass rushers.

Did you just state the most obvious thing ever back at me and then go on a victory rant? Yes, of course we would’ve used one on a DE. That isn’t a breakthrough you just made man

  • Poo 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • 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...