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


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, countryboi said:

You do when you’re trying to establish a culture. When you tell the media that you wanna a team full of dogs, you have to pay those dogs for their work hard

We are trying to create a winning culture by doing things that winning teams don't do? I am not mad at the extension. It's just not the move I would have made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, X-Clown said:

I am seeing 4 years, 33.2 million with 15 million guaranteed per Ian Rapoport

https://x.com/RapSheet/status/1854536482125447332

 

My rule (but nobody listens!!) is to never give a second contract to a RB--this one is decent.  Always remember, contracts are not rewards--they are for expected future performance, everyone!  On offense, with Brooks, Chuba could earn this contract--so I will hold my breath.  I also think we have all the pieces in place--except a QB==on offense.

  • Pie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, CarolinaLivin said:

We are trying to create a winning culture by doing things that winning teams don't do? I am not mad at the extension. It's just not the move I would have made.

It's a culture move investing in a football player, not a running back (Even though, yes, he is a running back, but chuba the football player earned a payday).

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not bad and we got it done before FA started. Brooks could very well end up being good and at the same time end up being a bust because of injury history.  

Chuba has displayed special qualities for a RB do that's atleast worth resigning. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Eazy-E said:

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.

Ok Sanders is gone Brooks goes down and the draft pick SUCKS what do you do?? People just assume draft picks are gonna be good lol. We've let EVERY good player we've had go assuming we can replace them. It just doesn't work like that that's why we are talent deficient now!! 

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

2 minutes ago, BullCityP said:

Ok Sanders is gone Brooks goes down and the draft pick SUCKS what do you do?? People just assume draft picks are gonna be good lol. We've let EVERY good player we've had go assuming we can replace them. It just doesn't work like that that's why we are talent deficient now!! 

One of the reasons people devalue the position is you can find RBs fairly easily. With a good OL it gets easier too. 

I want a banger bruiser type in the mix too lol. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ricky Spanish said:

It's a culture move investing in a football player, not a running back.

That's like saying Rhule drafted a football player, not a long snapper (joke).

Position does have to play a role in this. I just don't think its a move we should have made. Is it a culture move? Sure I'll agree on that. Was it the right move? I guess we will have to watch it play out and see.

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, strato said:

One of the reasons people devalue the position is you can find RBs fairly easily. With a good OL it gets easier too. 

I want a banger bruiser type in the mix too lol. 

Yea people think you can find GOOD running backs easy when that's not the case lol. You see Dallas fans crying for a rb Cincinnati let theirs walk now they had to trade for one, the Giants let theirs walk and you see what that looks like. 

  • Flames 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BullCityP said:

Yea people think you can find GOOD running backs easy when that's not the case lol. You see Dallas fans crying for a rb Cincinnati let theirs walk now they had to trade for one, the Giants let theirs walk and you see what that looks like. 

Well Dallas basically said fug RB after we drafted brooks. Not sure if they are a good example. They could've used a late round pick. Some of those late round RBs are playing pretty good. They just went all in on the ghosts of elliott and cook for some reason. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kinda torn on this one. Generally I think it's a bad idea to pay FA RBs. On the other hand, this deal is really not bad at all.

Was expecting him to get around 5 year, 55-60 mill as a FA. 4 years with only 15 guaranteed is very reasonable. Even if he completely flops, it won't hurt the team that much. And if he balls out at maxes out the deal, it's still only a little over $8 mill a year at most. Honestly, don't hate it.

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 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...