BREAKING:Panthers re-sign Chuba Hubbard

[tukafan21]

16 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

RB committees are how the league works now.  It's part of the reason they have been undervalued.  We are freaking out over a 8 million dollar a year contract. 7 years ago Stewart signed a 1 year $8 million dollar contract with us.

Previous bad contracts don't make a bad one now acceptable.

And there is nothing wrong with a committee, but we traded up in the 2nd round to take the widely regarded #1 RB in the draft class.  You don't do that with the intent of him being a backup for his entire rookie contract, and you don't sign someone to be the 9th highest paid RB in the league to be the backup either.

If we were a contending team and we could afford it, it would be different, such as with the Lions and their RB room right now.

But we're not, we have SOOOOO many holes, that spending $10 million on an RB when you have someone who should be a 3 down workhouse on a cheap 2nd round rookie contract, is just a completely irresponsible use of the cap room.

How can anyone be okay with spending that $10 million there as opposed to a starting DE, CB, or LB?

Or if we go QB in the draft next year like so many want, that $10 million could be used towards a WR as even with Legette and what people want Coker to be, that WR room next year is looking like one of the worst in the league right now.

Contracts can never be looked at in a vacuum, when you take everything into consideration, it's a terrible signing unless they already know Brooks isn't going to be THAT guy, and if that's the case, then it was a terrible draft pick.

Again, one of the two decisions is terrible, we just may not know which one it is yet, but time will let us know.

[Frank9999]

6 minutes ago, tukafan21 said:

Previous bad contracts don't make a bad one now acceptable.

And there is nothing wrong with a committee, but we traded up in the 2nd round to take the widely regarded #1 RB in the draft class.  You don't do that with the intent of him being a backup for his entire rookie contract, and you don't sign someone to be the 9th highest paid RB in the league to be the backup either.

If we were a contending team and we could afford it, it would be different, such as with the Lions and their RB room right now.

But we're not, we have SOOOOO many holes, that spending $10 million on an RB when you have someone who should be a 3 down workhouse on a cheap 2nd round rookie contract, is just a completely irresponsible use of the cap room.

How can anyone be okay with spending that $10 million there as opposed to a starting DE, CB, or LB?

Or if we go QB in the draft next year like so many want, that $10 million could be used towards a WR as even with Legette and what people want Coker to be, that WR room next year is looking like one of the worst in the league right now.

Contracts can never be looked at in a vacuum, when you take everything into consideration, it's a terrible signing unless they already know Brooks isn't going to be THAT guy, and if that's the case, then it was a terrible draft pick.

Again, one of the two decisions is terrible, we just may not know which one it is yet, but time will let us know.

Because you cant just always let all your good talent walk? 
 

 

[ForJimmy]

1 minute ago, tukafan21 said:

Previous bad contracts don't make a bad one now acceptable.

And there is nothing wrong with a committee, but we traded up in the 2nd round to take the widely regarded #1 RB in the draft class.  You don't do that with the intent of him being a backup for his entire rookie contract, and you don't sign someone to be the 9th highest paid RB in the league to be the backup either.

If we were a contending team and we could afford it, it would be different, such as with the Lions and their RB room right now.

But we're not, we have SOOOOO many holes, that spending $10 million on an RB when you have someone who should be a 3 down workhouse on a cheap 2nd round rookie contract, is just a completely irresponsible use of the cap room.

How can anyone be okay with spending that $10 million there as opposed to a starting DE, CB, or LB?

Or if we go QB in the draft next year like so many want, that $10 million could be used towards a WR as even with Legette and what people want Coker to be, that WR room next year is looking like one of the worst in the league right now.

Contracts can never be looked at in a vacuum, when you take everything into consideration, it's a terrible signing unless they already know Brooks isn't going to be THAT guy, and if that's the case, then it was a terrible draft pick.

Again, one of the two decisions is terrible, we just may not know which one it is yet, but time will let us know.

He is getting 8 million a year with only 15 guaranteed.  The Lions just drafted a RB in round 1 and then signed Montgomery and then threw more money at him.  There won't be many of these 3 down workhorses you are talking about, it will be a committees.  Our OC even said he had plays drawn up with both RBs in the backfield.  The starting DE you are getting for $8 probably shouldn't be a starting DE.  I'm not against paying a proven RB who is a locker room leader $8 million a year with our other RB being on a mid 2nd round contract.  That's pretty normal and nothing over the top for cap allocation.  You are still thinking old school.  The Falcons spent a high first on Robinson and he still splits with Allegier, The Lions spent a 1st on Gibbs and he splits with Montgomery not to mention injuries over a 17 game season.  

[tukafan21]

6 minutes ago, Frank9999 said:

Because you cant just always let all your good talent walk? 
 

 

Two problems with this

The first is easy, yes you do when you already drafted their replacement with the highest ranked RB in the draft class

The second is also easy, and it's exactly why I was screaming for us to trade him at the deadline, so we got a draft asset in return for him instead of letting him walk for nothing.

[tukafan21]

15 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

He is getting 8 million a year with only 15 guaranteed.  The Lions just drafted a RB in round 1 and then signed Montgomery and then threw more money at him.  There won't be many of these 3 down workhorses you are talking about, it will be a committees.  Our OC even said he had plays drawn up with both RBs in the backfield.  The starting DE you are getting for $8 probably shouldn't be a starting DE.  I'm not against paying a proven RB who is a locker room leader $8 million a year with our other RB being on a mid 2nd round contract.  That's pretty normal and nothing over the top for cap allocation.  You are still thinking old school.  The Falcons spent a high first on Robinson and he still splits with Allegier, The Lions spent a 1st on Gibbs and he splits with Montgomery not to mention injuries over a 17 game season.  

First, you can't compare it to the Falcons when both of those guys are still on rookie contracts.

Second, you also can't compare it to the Lions because again, they already had an almost fully built out roster before that, one that was obviously ready to compete for a SB run immediately upon making that draft pick and signing last offseason

That's the point, it's not about the player or contract, it's about how that does or doesn't make sense with the rest of the roster.

It's not an argument against a RB committee, it's an argument against this contract given our draft pick of Brooks.  Last offseason guys like Zack Moss signed for 2 years and $8 million, Derrick Henry for 2 years and $16M, Ekeler for 2 years and $11M, Gus Edwards for 2 and $6.5M, Antonio Gibson for 3 and $11M.

Brooks is the future RB of this team, he has the skill set to be a 3 down back.  Even if you're going with a committee, signing any guys like the above to a cheaper deal to be the compliment to Brooks is a significantly better use of money.

And to your point of a $10 million pass rusher probably not being worthy of a starter... yes, you're correct.  But it's more like that $10 million would be used in addition to the $5-8M that we'd be already giving to a DE, to get a legit $15+ pass rusher in FA.

Give me a $15-20M pass rusher and a 5th round draft pick or cheap 1 year FA to compliment Brooks at RB over Hubbard and a below average DE who will be here for one year as a bad rental starter.

People need to stop looking at every contract, draft pick, trade, signing, etc, in a vacuum.  They need to start looking at the bigger picture and how all the pieces fit together, it's why we keep failing as a franchise as we keep repeating our same mistakes.

Edited 2 hours ago by tukafan21

[Frank9999]

9 minutes ago, tukafan21 said:

Two problems with this

The first is easy, yes you do when you already drafted their replacement with the highest ranked RB in the draft class

The second is also easy, and it's exactly why I was screaming for us to trade him at the deadline, so we got a draft asset in return for him instead of letting him walk for nothing.

Brooks hasnt even stepped on the field. Mingo was a 2nd rounder and look how that worked out. I like Brooks a lot but this isnt a break the bank contract and hes a good player. I am cool with securing a good RB committee esp when we have Brooks on a rookie deal for a while 

[tukafan21]

This is WAY closer to the Falcons drafting Penix after signing Cousins than the Lions drafting Gibbs after signing Montgomery.

Poor allocation of assets across the full roster given where we are as a franchise and state of the roster

Edited 2 hours ago by tukafan21

[tukafan21]

Just now, Frank9999 said:

Brooks hasnt even stepped on the field. Mingo was a 2nd rounder and look how that worked out. I like Brooks a lot but this isnt a break the bank contract and hes a good player. I am cool with securing a good RB committee esp when we have Brooks on a rookie deal for a while 

Then Brooks was the wrong pick.

Again, like I said, it's not about this signing, it's about the whole picture, one of the two was bad, the pick or this signing, time will tell which was the wrong decision, but one of them was wrong.

But if I were to bet on it, I'd say the contract was wrong, as if he can stay healthy, then I think Brooks is going to be a very good RB in this league for a while.

[PantherKyle]

1 minute ago, tukafan21 said:

This is WAY closer to the Falcons drafting Penix after signing Cousins than the Lions drafting Gibbs after signing Montgomery.

Poor allocation of assets across the full roster

With the way QB's have been failing early recently I really don't think the Penix thing is as bad as most do. 

[tukafan21]

2 minutes ago, PantherKyle said:

With the way QB's have been failing early recently I really don't think the Penix thing is as bad as most do. 

I have no issue with a team drafting a QB and letting them sit to learn at first.

But when they had the roster they put together and then spent the money they did on Cousins, it was with the intent of contending for a SB with Cousins as the QB.  

That gives them a 1-3 year window for the SB, drafting Penix does NOTHING to help them win that SB, all it did was take away a legit difference maker at another position they could have used the pick with.  

While at the same time, eliminating their chance to utilize a rookie QB contract to save money to spend elsewhere while trying to win a SB.

Again, people need to stop looking at draft picks in a vacuum, they need to look at it in regards to a franchise's roster and current goals and expectations in the coming years.

Edited 2 hours ago by tukafan21

[Memphis]

I'd prefer we only had RBs on rookie deals. Really never want see a 2nd contract to be honest. Just don't see the value. And Carolina has a bad history of overpaying RB's.

[jb2288]

Relative to other teams, we’re paying basically nothing for a QB so this feels not a big deal the cap ppl are making it out to be. If we draft a rookie QB we won’t need to pay him until this deal is over. If we keep Bryce we won’t pay him for another 2-3 years either and he won’t be near top dollar. It’s a long term roster building move. Setting culture is important, see the lions.  Rhule understood this, he was just really bad at executing it. 

[ForJimmy]

1 minute ago, tukafan21 said:

First, you can't compare it to the Falcons when both of those guys are still on rookie contracts.

Second, you also can't compare it to the Lions because again, they already had an almost fully built out roster before that, one that was obviously ready to compete for a SB run immediately upon making that draft pick and signing last offseason

That's the point, it's not about the player or contract, it's about how that does or doesn't make sense with the rest of the roster.

It's not an argument against a RB committee, it's an argument against this contract given our draft pick of Brooks.  Last offseason guys like Zack Moss signed for 2 years and $8 million, Derrick Henry for 2 years and $16M, Ekeler for 2 years and $11M, Gus Edwards for 2 and $6.5M, Antonio Gibson for 3 and $11M.

Brooks is the future RB of this team, he has the skill set to be a 3 down back.  Even if you're going with a committee, signing any guys like the above to a cheaper deal to be the compliment to Brooks is a significantly better use of money.

And to your point of a $10 million pass rusher probably not being worthy of a starter... yes, you're correct.  But it's more like that $10 million would be used in addition to the $5-8M that we'd be already giving to a DE, to get a legit $15+ pass rusher in FA.

Give me a $15-20M pass rusher and a 5th round draft pick or cheap 1 year FA to compliment Brooks at RB over Hubbard and a below average DE who will be here for one year as a bad rental starter.

You keep rounding up to $10 in order to exaggerate your point which usually means your point is very strong.  Bijan is making 5.5 millions a year to Chuba's 8.5 and they used an absolute premium pick on him in a top 10 pick.  That pick vs were we picked Chuba or even Brooks are two very different draft prospects. 

Chuba has the attitude and skillset we want to build a better team and culture.  He has shown he can be a top RB and we are paying him a moderate salary. You also need to look at the contract again.  Only $15 million is guaranteed.  It could look very similar to that Henry 2 year $16 million dollar one you are suggesting we do instead.  Always look at the guaranteed vs the total money.  If Chuba gets the total money he is cooking and we are happy.  

You want us to use assets elsewhere because we have so many holes but you also want us to draft another WR in the first, probably top 5 this year will all of the other holes we have on the roster.  To me those two opinions don't line up.  Back to back 1st round picks on WRs when we have so many holes.  I think we are just keeping good young players that want to be here and Chuba fits the mold.  TMac could also fit that mold.  

[vorbis]

6 hours ago, LinvilleGorge said:

A guy suddenly having a career year in contract year only to revert back to his norm after getting paid is a tale as old as professional sports. Don't be surprised if it happens again.

fans looking at the "up to $X" numbers on a contract announcement, doing simple division, and thinking it will be an $X/year cap hit is a tale just as old, though.

$15M guaranteed over 4 years. hope to see the numbers, and wonder if they even shifted any of the guaranteed money into this year since he signed mid-season. if he drops off a cliff then it won't be difficult to get out of that contract. otherwise he's clearly a cornerstone of the offense and they're rewarding the right kind of player.

deep breaths!