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!

     

Panthers interested in DeSean Jackson for the right price...


Ja  Rhule

Recommended Posts

Even Megatron had less than 50 catches, less than 800 years, and 4 TDs as a rookie, so the best possible scenario, Benjamin, should not be expected to do more than that.

That's actually pretty darn good for a rookie when you have john kitna throwing you the ball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thing to think about:

If it's true his cap is front loaded that works in our favor going forward.

The skeptic in me and this being the panthers organization translates to me thinking there's about a 10 percent chance of this happening

oh yeah well guess who just so happens to wear the number 10.

illuminati/halo 5 confirmed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They can find a way to do this, but it would require a commitment.  I am not an expert in this stuff, but the way I understand it----

 

What DeSean is making is misleading. Guaranteed $$ is swallowed by the Eagles.  We need to trade them a player who has some guaranteed $$ we will eat.  For example, if we traded them Jonathan Stewart, we would actually have to absorb money we were not getting anything for anyway-then we could draft a RB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They can find a way to do this, but it would require a commitment. I am not an expert in this stuff, but the way I understand it----

What DeSean is making is misleading. Guaranteed $$ is swallowed by the Eagles. We need to trade them a player who has some guaranteed $$ we will eat. For example, if we traded them Jonathan Stewart, we would actually have to absorb money we were not getting anything for anyway-then we could draft a RB.

That's a question I've wanted to ask because we ate the money with the beason trade, but that was in the middle of a season, too. I guess it would depend on the signing bonus/guaranteed money, but I don't think the Eagles' GM was as dumb as Hurney to drop a huge signing bonus, by the looks of it, doesn't seem like the contract is ridiculously backloaded for starters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • 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...