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!

     

BREAKING:Panthers re-sign Chuba Hubbard

TheSpecialJuan
 Share

Recommended Posts

ncfan Grand Master

ncfan

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, jayboogieman said:

And? His timeline doesn't match that of the team. That money would have been better spent on the defense, a TE, another receiver, or a center. Another mid to late round RB pick could run well behind the Oline.

You realize what the money we paid him would get you on Defense?

maybe another DJ Wonnum.  I’ll take a RB playing at high level over that.  Especially if you intend to use him.

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BullCityP Enthusiast

BullCityP

Posted
Posted

To all the people complaining about us resigning him. Ya'll do know this is football right? Say we let him walk and Brooks goes down are you comfortable with Sanders as you RB1? Everyone complains about our depth but complain when we build our depth. What kind of impact player are you gonna sign with that 8 million we would save?

  • Pie 1
  • Flames 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PappyMay Experienced

PappyMay

Posted
Posted

Seems like the type of guy you want to build your culture around which we have none of. Hard worker and never hear about him being in trouble. We already said you'd have to overpay free agents to come here with how trash we are.  I was hoping we'd resign him for around 6mil a year. He got a little over 8.

  • Pie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jon Snow Grand Master

Jon Snow

Posted
Posted
Just now, Jay Roosevelt said:

Honestly, I'm not a fan of paying RBs but this isn't a bad deal. I'm not sure how this fits with Brooks coming in. Maybe Dan Morgan is trying to replicate the old 'Double Trouble' days?

It wouldn't look so bad if they didn't already have an overpaid Miles Sanders taking up $6M per on the roster. 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
PappyMay Experienced

PappyMay

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
Just now, Jon Snow said:

It wouldn't look so bad if they didn't already have an overpaid Miles Sanders taking up $6M per on the roster. 

Sanders is gone. Cutting him saves 5.5mil next year 

  • Pie 10
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CarolinaLivin Veteran

CarolinaLivin

Posted
Posted

I don't think I would've minded maybe a 2 year extension vs. the 4 year they gave him. I get it, realistically, you don't expect brooks to come in and explode on the scene. You also didn't draft brooks to be a bell-cow kind of back. I think a 2 year extension to build brooks into the lead back while also drafting chuba's replacement either 2025 or 2026 and work him in. Brooks was a sanders replacement and not a chuba replacement that much is evident.

Personally, I would have let him walk and brought in a bigger back via draft. Personally I don't like chuba and brooks being double trouble. I would prefer to pair either one with a bigger RB. 

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eazy-E Mentor

Eazy-E

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, BullCityP said:

To all the people complaining about us resigning him. Ya'll do know this is football right? Say we let him walk and Brooks goes down are you comfortable with Sanders as you RB1? Everyone complains about our depth but complain when we build our depth. What kind of impact player are you gonna sign with that 8 million we would save?

Sanders is gone next season. You draft a mid to late rounder to be your back up like every other successful franchise does.

If Brooks pans out Chuba just becomes Miles Sanders part 2.

  • Pie 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
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...