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!

     

2014 World Cup: Group F


Goondal

Recommended Posts

Argentina 3-0-0 (+3) 9

Nigeria 1-1-1 (EV) 4

Bosnia-Herzegovina 1-0-2 (EV) 3

Iran 0-1-2 (-3) 1


This group largely seems like a tune up for Argentina.  Throw in their Round of 16 match-up against Group E and there is not a team in the tournament that has an easier path to reach the quarters.  They still have to take care of business though but with all that talent and playing so close to home I do not foresee much of a problem.  The real question is who finishes second.

 

Bosnia-Herzegovina is making their World Cup debut this afternoon and they really could not have asked for a much better road out of the group stage.  The one downside is playing Argentina first, but if they can avoid ruining their goal differential in their first match they are in great shape.  Nigeria certainly could pose some issues for them but in the end I think Bosnia-Herzegovina gets out of their group in their maiden voyage.  It would not stun me if they beat the Group E winner to reach the quarters but I have them falling to the Swiss in the Round of 16.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how healthy Bosnia-Herzegovina is but they have several classy players. Most of their team is playing at some level in Europe. They shouldn't be viewed as a weak number second team in the group. Iran are most likely the punching bags and Nigeria looked undisciplined against team USA.

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...