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!

     

Worse To Watch: Jimmy Clausen Era or Bryce Young Era?


PantherBoy95
 Share

Recommended Posts

Young era by far

Clausen year at the time felt temporary because it was the last year of Fox's contract, it was clear Jerry blew up that team to prove a petty point, and we all thought the Panthers would just get Andrew Luck. Yeah that of course didn't happen but we still got a great QB in the end.

Young era is just another chapter in the shitshow of the Tepper era. And deep down I think we all know the nightmare isn't going to end once Young is gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bryce is far worse. Clausen had confidence in himself, maybe too much confidence, and had no qualms about chucking a ball down field to be intercepted. Bryce plays scared and won't throw the ball beyond the LOS, which is far more boring to watch.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, spydaman27 said:

At this point let’s keep Bryce going, get the number 1 pick. Get some stud player. Still keep young next year get number 1 pick again and draft Manning to change our future.

 

And the league needs to force Tepper to sell. 

I'm all about the second part. That's where my last drop of hope lies. 

The first one doesn't matter. This team is locked in on a top 5 pick anyways. Dalton won't play too much before falling apart. The rest of the team needs a chance to improve and that's not happening with Bryce. It's very hard to justify not sitting him if they get behind like the last 2 games. Hell just play Plumber. It's not going to effect the draft position much anyways but the games would get more watchable and the guys on the roster would get a chance to improve. 

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

    • 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
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...