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!

     

Overreaction Monday


nctarheel0619

Recommended Posts

This from NFL.com. It's meh. Tepid reaction but that's to be expected at this point:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000535029/article/42-things-we-learned-in-week-2-pats-still-team-to-beat

Carolina Panthers 24, Houston Texans 17

 

1. Cam Newton is going to have to do this on his own. Outside of a beautiful touch pass bomb to Ted Ginn Jr. and a few fantastic catches by Greg Olsen, the Panthers are 2-0 thanks to a player that does everything but kick the extra points. Newton led the Panthers in rushing with 76 yards on Sunday in the face of an absolutely relentless pass rush.

2. Bill O'Brien is coaching the hell out of this Texans team and it's unfortunate that he won't have the record to show for it. After an overwhelmingly skittish Ryan Mallett tossed the first half away, O'Brien did a nice job of adjusting the game plan and giving him some underneath routes to hit in order to give Mallett his confidence back. In a game where Houston was thoroughly dominated by the Panthers, he had them within 20 yards of overtime.

3. Shaq Thompson isn't lighting up the box score like Luke Kuechly, but he's been a welcome addition to Carolina's linebacking corps. Is there any question that they have the most athletic set of non-rush linebackers in football right now? It may be overlooked, but their ability to control the intermediate portion of the field is winning them games.

-- Conor Orr

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the Eagles falling on their face and Dallas losing guys my $100 on the Giants winning the East is looking pretty good. I just felt like all of you should know

The Giants have imploded the first 2 games. I agree they may win by default, but I would not rule out Dallas until they start losing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's old. Generally old people don't give a fug.

Coughlin is an obsessive detail freak. He definitely gives a fug.  I just think his best coaching days might be behind him.

I could see him winding up with a front office role of some sort in New York. He was actually a pretty good talent evaluator when he had full control in Jacksonville.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the Eagles, and Seahawks are as bad as their records indicate.

If we can get some consistency from our WR's (and our running game, we can't always expect damn near historic rushing totals from Cam every week to win games) in the coming weeks, we will be right in the mix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the Eagles, and Seahawks are as bad as their records indicate.

If we can get some consistency from our WR's (and our running game, we can't always expect damn near historic rushing totals from Cam every week to win games) in the coming weeks, we will be right in the mix.

What about some of the other 0-2s?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm beginning to wonder if Tom Coughlin just doesn't have it anymore.

He's a sharp football mind, but lately his gameday coaching hasn't been very good.

Yea they gave up both their games due to bad coaching, but dont forget the bad play by their 2-time SB MVP quarterback!  He should be leaps and bounds better than he has been.  Last week's clock management decisions were those of a 3rd string, and his 2-minute drill yesterday was absolutely horrid.  No excuse on his end.

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...