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!

     

SmootsTalks

SmootsDaddy89

By SmootsDaddy89,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

SmootsDaddy89 Enthusiast

SmootsDaddy89

Posted
Posted

Basically there are a few points of contention between fans and the new coaching staff, and it's my job to tell you all how dumb you are for having opinions that I don't like. You are welcome in advance.

1. OMG WE SIGNED DEREK ANDERSON RAAAAAAAGE WE SHOULD HAVE KEPT MOORE.

Firstly, you guys should be thrilled that we finally signed a neckbeard QB. Now you all have someone to identify with.

Secondly, Moore has never seen Chud's playbook before. Anderson has. So, with suckage being equal, Anderson wins.

"BUT BUT BUT HE'S IMMATURE AND NOT A LEADER. AND HE'S A DUMB REDNECK HE CAN'T TEACH ANYONE ANYTHING."

Well, slingblade, why do you think he can't help our young QBs learn Chud's offense? After all, Chud has to help the ENTIRE offense learn his playbook, he can't just coddle the QBs, no matter how important they are. Having someone else on the roster who can focus solely on the quarterbacks is a good thing.

"WELL HE GOT MAD IN AN INTERVIEW!!!!"

Not sure whether or not you've noticed, but living in Arizona apparently makes you go batpoo insane. Also, the reporter was being a retard. If I laugh at someone talking about a quirk my grandmother had at her funeral, it doesn't mean I'm happy she's dead or some poo. Essentially, the reporter was insinuating that Anderson liked playing like crap because there was one shot of him laughing, which is horsepoo. I kind of liked his reaction, tbh. It actually showed that he DOES care about sucking. Better than not caring. (lol Matt Moore)

Basically, you all have no LEGITIMATE reason to believe Anderson can't help Cam and Jimmy learn the offense. And if you're simply worried that we're going to ask him to start, don't be. Cam would have to be struggling worse than grits trying to keep his boner from showing while wearing sweatpants at a junior high school for Derek to start. More than likely, Anderson was told that his role will be to teach the young guys and have an outside chance at starting on opening day against the team who cut him. At this point in his career, that's probably about as good as he could hope for.

2. WE HAVE NO #2 CB RAGE RAGE RAGE

This is somewhat disconcerting to me as well. But the fact is, we paid Gamble #1 money, which means we're not going to pay another CB that kind of cash, even if he's actually better than Gamble and could be our top CB. That's why we haven't signed Aso, Joseph, Cromartie, and, realistically, probably not Rogers either. They all got or want(ed) too much money for our tastes. That means we sure as poo aren't going to trade for Samuel. We'd get raped and then have to pay him a fugton of money.

So, what are we going to do?

Well, at this point, Rivera seems to be taking a wait and see approach. They haven't even practiced in pads with full contact yet, so it's POSSIBLE he really doesn't know yet if we even need to spend big on a FA CB. If we DO end up getting someone, it's going to either be a trade for a young guy who has potential in our defense, or a mid-range FA signing. If you look at who we've signed, outside of our own guys, we haven't spent a lot. (with the exception of Olsen, who we traded for because, in chud's offense, TE was by FAR the weakest point. Thanks Fox, you dick.) That probably won't change if we go after a CB. Someone like Phillip Buchanon makes sense, but he wouldn't make your dicks hard.

If nothing else, we could always move Godfrey back to his natural position at CB and end this terrible experiment once and for all, then start Pugh. That'd be cool with me too.

In short, trust Rivera until he gives you reason not to. Or he'll pimpslap you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chknwing Veteran

chknwing

Posted
Posted

what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Squirrel Collaborator

Squirrel

Posted
Posted

what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Nice. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OneBadassCat Newbie

OneBadassCat

Posted
Posted

what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Lame and overused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

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...