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!

     

Question about a game years ago


Ricky Spanish

Recommended Posts

I don't know why, but this memory randomly popped into my head when I was reading about our Special Teams. This happened over a decade ago so I could just be making it up. It's kind of dead here right now anyway, so please help me clear this up. 

 

I remember watching a game on TV when I was a kid, and a returner went back to receive a punt. One of the announcers was doing commentary and mentioned that this returner put icy hot in his jock strap so it would piss him off because he played better pissed off. 

 

Now to me, that sounds like Smitty (classic Smitty), but I don't remember who they were talking about or if it was even a guy on our team. I do remember it being a Panther game though...

 

So yeah... Am I just imagining things or does anyone else remember this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was said about Smitty in his rookie season by Rosinski. It was Tiger Balm intead of Icy Hot.

 

I KNEW IT!

 

Thank you for validating what I've been randomly remembering for the past 13 or 14 years. I didn't think it was Icy Hot exactly but I knew it was something he put on his junk to piss him off. 

 

Next returner we get needs to lube up with some Tiger Balm before each game. it breeds viciousness and sick return skills. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who remembers when Dwight Stone got knocked the fug out so hard on a return that when he got up, his eyes were moving side to side in his head and he fell back down again?

Broncos game in Denver, 1997. Darrien Gordon returned two punts for TDs that game as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • 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.
    • Get any shot you can at humane society, so much cheaper
×
×
  • Create New...