*IF* the Panthers release Jonathan Stewart....

If the Panthers release Jonathan Stewart....

  • Hell yes. Bring him home and offer him a deal the day free agency begins.

    Votes: 10 28.6%
  • No thanks. Too many rushes and injuries on his soon to be 30 year old body.

    Votes: 18 51.4%
  • I like cake!

    Votes: 7 20.0%

  • Total voters
    35

2_0_6

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2013
Messages
3,540
Reaction score
0
Location
South Seattle
The Panthers released Tolbert today, and a few rumors were circling on Twitter and national radio today that he might be asked to restructure or potentially get released as well. Im really not sure why they would want to release him, but they have done some odd things over the past few off seasons.
 

Pandion Haliaetus

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2013
Messages
3,844
Reaction score
766
Idk how this board feels about oft-injured players especially ones on the younger side of 30, I would say it's lukewarm.

Stewart, imo, would have to come at the right price knowing he'll likely be a role player if Rawls and Prosise prove to be healthy. That role being short-yardage/goal-to-go bruiser.

Question is whether or not, IF available, if he'll chase the most money or if he would possibly take a cheaper deal to play for his hometown team and help them get a Championship.

The ladder would certainly be a great ending to his career.
 

chris98251

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Messages
39,524
Reaction score
1,522
Location
Roy Wa.
If they are 27 and over on any Free Agents that were starters your either paying big bucks or rolling the injury dice, add a big name and chances are they have had their wear and tear and a release is due to bang for the buck isn't there anymore or they would not be Free Agents.
 

ctrcat

New member
Joined
Feb 20, 2014
Messages
866
Reaction score
0
Hawk_Nation":g8t3whhs said:
The Panthers released Tolbert today, and a few rumors were circling on Twitter and national radio today that he might be asked to restructure or potentially get released as well. Im really not sure why they would want to release him, but they have done some odd things over the past few off seasons.

If they get Fournette I think he gets released. The only way he stays a Panther is a restructure I think.

They have admittedly done some odd things from an outside perspective, but this wouldn't be one of them. His contract is the last of the previous GM's regime from nearly 5 years ago. As good as he's been, the age/injury history/production/cap hit in 2017 simply doesn't match. Releasing him is a free and total release from bad contracts.
 

DJrmb

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
2,169
Reaction score
501
I don't understand why people are wanting to address a position where we had injury problems by adding more players that have injury problems. This and the thread talking about us bringing in AP or Jamaal Charles just don't make any sense to me. I'm all for adding to the RB position but lets do it with someone that isn't already a proven injury risk every year. It's one thing if you're talking about signing a guy for the Vet minimum or with zero guaranteed money but guys like Stewart, AP, and even Charles, to an extent, will still get a decent amount of money. Thanks, but no thanks.
 

Largent80

New member
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
36,653
Reaction score
5
Location
The Tex-ASS
DJrmb":1j9tenfg said:
I don't understand why people are wanting to address a position where we had injury problems by adding more players that have injury problems. This and the thread talking about us bringing in AP or Jamaal Charles just don't make any sense to me. I'm all for adding to the RB position but lets do it with someone that isn't already a proven injury risk every year. It's one thing if you're talking about signing a guy for the Vet minimum or with zero guaranteed money but guys like Stewart, AP, and even Charles, to an extent, will still get a decent amount of money. Thanks, but no thanks.

The draft. TONS of young, hungry talent this year. Stewart can call AARP for a job.
 

Attyla the Hawk

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 11, 2013
Messages
2,559
Reaction score
47
Don't have an issue with it in the least. If the market isn't too hot -- we could use either of those guys.

This is a really good draft. Good for RBs too. But if you can band aid a RB group without using draft picks this year, you can really focus the remaining draft at other equally great prospect groups.

It's never a binary decision. Clearly getting a healthy young bellcow back is empirically better. But it comes at a cost.

Would I rather have a 1 year rental of Jonathan Stewart or AP or some other quality (if limited availability) back AND Kevin King/Baker/Melifonwu/Reddick?

Or get some tier two back in this draft and sort through lesser options for DB/LB.

Remember, UFA signings of these kinds of players is over well before April. So doing so also allows you some flexibility in day one of the draft. If we've painted ourselves into a 'have to draft a RB' corner at that time, then we're left unable to potentially move up if an OT slips to a manageable trade up range.

So I'm not opposed to postponing our acquisition of a stud RB for a year. I'm not even opposed to doubling down and signing one of these guys AND maybe getting a tier 2 back on day 2 that we target as a 'guy we can't leave the draft without' or if that tier 2 guy we really like just unexpectedly keeps dropping in the draft. Which happens with multiple prospects in every draft. Any signing of these kinds of players only serves to grant us more options in the draft. And allows us to get greedy -- just like in 2012. Allow players we want to sit by the phone and maximize the returns.

They don't have to be the ideal solution in order to be a good solution. Nor do they have to represent the final solution.
 

Popeyejones

Active member
Joined
Aug 20, 2013
Messages
5,525
Reaction score
0
DJrmb":3sccb1b6 said:
I don't understand why people are wanting to address a position where we had injury problems by adding more players that have injury problems.

Unless you want to spend a lot of money there's going to be a trade-off.

To get a vet RB without an injury history you're going to have to trade in talent.

For my money, the thinking is that the Seahawks don't need somebody to be a below average every down back, as their cupboard at the position isn't bare.

With Rawls and Prosise they need someone who can be dynamic and part of that mix, and keep that mix going when one or two of the three of them go down with injury.

There's of course some risk in three dynamic backs all with injury history, but for a team majorly in contention I think you're much better off rolling that set of dice than spending money on a guy like Rashad Jennings, who really isn't going to help you more than Alex Collins would if Rawls and Prosise go down.

That's my thinking on it, at least.
 

DJrmb

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
2,169
Reaction score
501
Popeyejones":pqfqobd9 said:
DJrmb":pqfqobd9 said:
I don't understand why people are wanting to address a position where we had injury problems by adding more players that have injury problems.

Unless you want to spend a lot of money there's going to be a trade-off.

To get a vet RB without an injury history you're going to have to trade in talent.

For my money, the thinking is that the Seahawks don't need somebody to be a below average every down back, as their cupboard at the position isn't bare.

With Rawls and Prosise they need someone who can be dynamic and part of that mix, and keep that mix going when one or two of the three of them go down with injury.

There's of course some risk in three dynamic backs all with injury history, but for a team majorly in contention I think you're much better off rolling that set of dice than spending money on a guy like Rashad Jennings, who really isn't going to help you more than Alex Collins would if Rawls and Prosise go down.

That's my thinking on it, at least.

Hmm, makes sense and I can see where you're coming from.

Personally I don't want them to get a veteran RB at all. I'd much rather them grab a RB in a deep class coming into this years draft. I've also never been a fan of multi back systems though so that definitely plays into the way I think and I know others have different opinions. Personally I would prefer to have 2 feature backs (1 starter, and one to back him up) and 1 3rd down back. I also tend to prefer younger backs because of how short a RB's NFL lifespan is. They just wear out so fast my philosophy is to consistently bring in young backs.
 

ctrcat

New member
Joined
Feb 20, 2014
Messages
866
Reaction score
0
ctrcat":2clurp1q said:
Hawk_Nation":2clurp1q said:
The Panthers released Tolbert today, and a few rumors were circling on Twitter and national radio today that he might be asked to restructure or potentially get released as well. Im really not sure why they would want to release him, but they have done some odd things over the past few off seasons.

If they get Fournette I think he gets released. The only way he stays a Panther is a restructure I think.

They have admittedly done some odd things from an outside perspective, but this wouldn't be one of them. His contract is the last of the previous GM's regime from nearly 5 years ago. As good as he's been, the age/injury history/production/cap hit in 2017 simply doesn't match. Releasing him is a free and total release from bad contracts.

He restructured and extended through 2018 today. Gives cap relief and flexibility if Fournette is taken before 8 or if they go in a different direction. RB remains a relative need.
 

Seahawkfan80

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 5, 2011
Messages
11,207
Reaction score
615
Do you think they would try to trade up for Fornette anyway? Just curious.
 

ctrcat

New member
Joined
Feb 20, 2014
Messages
866
Reaction score
0
Seahawkfan80":3h54h12k said:
Do you think they would try to trade up for Fornette anyway? Just curious.

No chance. He's in play, but they might prefer Howard or one of the defensive lineman.
 

Latest posts

Top