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!

     

What would you have done?


Ricky Spanish

Recommended Posts

Please, be honest and don't be condescending in your responses.

 

What would you have done this past offseason to prevent this from happening? What would you have done differently than what Gettleman did with the knowledge we had at the time. Who would you have signed, who would you have drafted, and what personnel moves would you have done that would make this team better than it is now?

 

I see everyone clamoring for Gettleman's head on a platter right now, but no one is providing any counter arguments to what he should have done differently. I'm seeing "he should have addressed the line" but when I ask with who, no one provides me with an answer. I'm not being condescending or patronizing, I honestly want to know what our other options were. Please be specific.

 

Go back to right after we franchised Hardy: Not knowing what we know now, what do you do with the Cap situation we are in? Who do we sign, who do we let go? How do we prevent this from happening? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't of tagged Hardy. Luxury since we were cap challenged.

that means we could of kept some key roleplayers. I would have made sure Bell and Chandlers were backups even if it meant losing some future draft picks. Wouldn't need Pro Bowlers but some young talent added

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't of tagged Hardy. Luxury since we were cap challenged.

that means we could of kept some key roleplayers. I would have made sure Bell and Chandlers were backups even if it meant losing some future draft picks. Wouldn't need Pro Bowlers but some young talent added

 

90% of the fanbase was thrilled with the tag at the time. That's a hindsight call, that's why I said AFTER Hardy was tagged. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not franchising hardy then being forced to pass up on legit talent at OT, WR via FA or trade.

and i wouldn't have picked old guys in the secondary who were bad enough that they got cut from really bad defenses in our division.

and i wouldn't have given rivera an extension until after he pulled off two winning seasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree hindsight is always 20/20. just like all these guys that say we should have gone for it on 4th down and assume it could never fail. well there is your proof. The FO built a team they believed in. I was concerned about the OL i wish they had atleast tried to bring in some garbage level lineman to see if they were better then ours. Im not sure who, so i cant give you that. It has more to do with us not being a dominant D we all expected the D to be strong and the o to only need limited points to win. once we lost the ability to get off the field it all imploded. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't of tagged Hardy. Luxury since we were cap challenged.

that means we could of kept some key roleplayers. I would have made sure Bell and Chandlers were backups even if it meant losing some future draft picks. Wouldn't need Pro Bowlers but some young talent added

 

I would have let steve go, but would have replaced him with better WR's than what we did.  I definetely wouldn't have tagged Hardy.  Also I agree Bell and Chandler are very good backups.  That is our glaring problem.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

90% of the fanbase was thrilled with the tag at the time. That's a hindsight call, that's why I said AFTER Hardy was tagged.

i was in the 10% that wasn't thrilled. i questioned it all along. far too much money invested in two players from the same position.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

funny thing is Hardy says he wants to play and feels bad seeing us lose... that money was thrown away and now he's somewhat guilty. If we were going to commit to him we should have signed a realistic long term deal. if they give him a monster contract next year it really proved DG is rdicilous!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you missed were he said you already tagged hardy, so now answer again

Don't make us try to compensate for Dave's dumbass move. Hardy was never going to be here next year, it wasn't going to happen. So you spent 13 million on a 1 year rental. Any other job in America that's enough to get you fired.

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...