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!

     

Dan Graziano: Receivers aren't the issue in Carolina


Recommended Posts

It's oddly consistent that analysts who complain about the OL moves, don't offer much in the way of what they should have done. I'm of the opinion that we got the best that was reasonably available taking into consideration cap space and available talent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's oddly consistent that analysts who complain about the OL moves, don't offer much in the way of what they should have done. I'm of the opinion that we got the best that was reasonably available taking into consideration cap space and available talent.

No dude, don't you know? They should have done MORE.

Seriously though, last year I asked people what else they would have done given the cap space we had to work with and the talent that was available to sign/draft, and no one could give me an alternative to what we put together. Not a single person. Just a bunch of bitching about "Gettleman sucks and should have signed/drafted someone better"... 

Who, dammit, who?!?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Number of June practices Graziano attended? 

 

0

To be fair, they have a priority to other teams too.  Do you expect all these analyst to attend all the Panthers practices?  I mean, damn.  We're a small market team.  Give the man some kind of credit for at least knowing the dude was on our roster now.  Half the NFL.com analyst don't even know that.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, they have a priority to other teams too.  Do you expect all these analyst to attend all the Panthers practices?  I mean, damn.  We're a small market team.  Give the man some kind of credit for at least knowing the dude was on our roster now.  Half the NFL.com analyst don't even know that.    

Oh, I don't have a problem with what he says,  as long as people understand it is about as informed as an average message board topic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when people bring up our wr core and oline as a huge weakness i cant tell they dont follow this team. our wr core upgraded astronomically we added tedd gin which had a great season 2 years ago , we got a star in kelvin benjamin , we drafted another beast 6 foot 5 wr in funchess that knows every wr position, we got a young star in corey brown that is getting better every week .

now on to the oline , our oline isnt as bad as everyone thinks. oher and martin might not be great but they are upgrades over chandler and bell.  norwell and turner had  a solid rookie year , i believe they both did not give up a sack . remmers turned our oline around and created holes for stewart last 5 games and we also drafted a hog mollie in d, williams that dident give up a sack last season  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's oddly consistent that analysts who complain about the OL moves, don't offer much in the way of what they should have done. I'm of the opinion that we got the best that was reasonably available taking into consideration cap space and available talent.

DG traded up twice in this draft to get other players at other positions. He said himself we were going for the LT Humphries who got picked by the Cardinals one spot ahead of us. He must firmly believe Oher can play. If he fails, it's squarely on DG. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DG traded up twice in this draft to get other players at other positions. He said himself we were going for the LT Humphries who got picked by the Cardinals one spot ahead of us. He must firmly believe Oher can play. If he fails, it's squarely on DG. 

At least you're offering something. How far up should DG have traded to get LT Humphries? And of course if Oher fails, it's on DG; that's his job to take responsibility for the talent on the roster. I think he's done pretty good so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least you're offering something. How far up should DG have traded to get LT Humphries? And of course if Oher fails, it's on DG; that's his job to take responsibility for the talent on the roster. I think he's done pretty good so far.

Hes done very well.  And while every analyst destroys the lack of offensive lineman we've had the past well two years.  Did he upgrade over Bell?  Sure, but was it an upgrade from absolutely horrible to good?  fug no, it went from absolutely horrible to bad.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when people bring up our wr core and oline as a huge weakness i cant tell they dont follow this team. our wr core upgraded astronomically we added tedd gin which had a great season 2 years ago , we got a star in kelvin benjamin , we drafted another beast 6 foot 5 wr in funchess that knows every wr position, we got a young star in corey brown that is getting better every week .

now on to the oline , our oline isnt as bad as everyone thinks. oher and martin might not be great but they are upgrades over chandler and bell.  norwell and turner had  a solid rookie year , i believe they both did not give up a sack . remmers turned our oline around and created holes for stewart last 5 games and we also drafted a hog mollie in d, williams that dident give up a sack last season  

Every single team has people talking about unproven players that they are optimistic about in the offseason.  The same argument you made in support of Remmers was probably said about Nate Chandler last year.  He had a good finish in 2013.  I think people were saying PFF has positive grades on him.  In this league, everyone on the outside is going to doubt you until you indisputably prove yourself.  If you are not a sure thing, people are gonna point that out.  And even when you do start playing well, it takes awhile for people to notice.

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...