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!

     

Gettleman on Boston "He sets a tone, he's a very physical player"


Zod

Recommended Posts

I wasn't referring to both offense and defense..  the offense has actually been a bright spot although I guess there's always room for improvement.

 

my point that wasn't disproved is the defense faced a lot of injuries and brought on a few walkons as starters..  which the topic I thought we were discussing was all the 4 and 5 stars on defense that should have made Boston look better.

 

It doesn't really matter how many stars they have when they are wasted in a vanilla scheme.  You are acting like the team was devoid of talent.  Chapel Hill has alot of young players in the league that were drafted early.  Now they are contributors in better more elaborate schemes.  I believe Boston will be better once he is in our system. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't really matter how many stars they have when they are wasted in a vanilla scheme.  You are acting like the team was devoid of talent.  Chapel Hill has alot of young players in the league that were drafted early.  Now they are contributors in better more elaborate schemes.  I believe Boston will be better once he is in our system. 

 

regardless of how you feel about the scheme...  I'm saying they were starting walk-ons due to injuries (and young bucks without much experience) and you're saying they were all 4 and 5 star talents...  I haven't said anything more than that actually and felt your statement wasn't accurate.  That is all.

 

I think we both agree on putting him in a different scheme could show dividends.  Apparently Rivera and co feel that way too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...