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!

     

"Blue Chip" players


tim

Recommended Posts

Interesting that our blue chips are spread out over every level of the offense and defense. We're the only team with a blue chip in each level of defense (D-line, LBers, secondary) and offense (O-line, Wr, backfield). Can't agree with him on the Lewis as an almost blue chip though, the guy is just average as a 3 down player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that our blue chips are spread out over every level of the offense and defense. We're the only team with a blue chip in each level of defense (D-line, LBers, secondary) and offense (O-line, Wr, backfield). Can't agree with him on the Lewis as an almost blue chip though, the guy is just average as a 3 down player.

I agree with you there. I also agree with Gantt that I would put Davis in the almost blue-chipper group. I would probably put Godfrey in the almost blue-chipper group instead of the blue-chipper. He is a really good corner, but how many games has he changed the outcome of?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you there. I also agree with Gantt that I would put Davis in the almost blue-chipper group. I would probably put Godfrey in the almost blue-chipper group instead of the blue-chipper. He is a really good corner, but how many games has he changed the outcome of?

in his earlier years he iced a lot of games but wasn't as good of a corner. Teams wern't scared of him and he got a lot of picks because of that.

Now he holds down one side of the field down and still gets a few throws but teams definatley respect him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you there. I also agree with Gantt that I would put Davis in the almost blue-chipper group. I would probably put Godfrey in the almost blue-chipper group instead of the blue-chipper. He is a really good corner, but how many games has he changed the outcome of?

you mean gamble?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really a positive IMO

It's just like playing RISK.

strong armies are nice to have but if they are not spread evenly or are scattered it's hard to gain ground without a master strategist and even then it's pretty tough.

Whereas if you concentrate your big armies in one area you can strategize, slow-play, and really become a force by playing to your strengths.

having a blue chip at every level seems nice but can be a negative if your "holes" are exploited and the blue chips (big armies) exhaust too much of the finite resources.

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...