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!

     

The Bears trade for Cutler.


thefuzz

Recommended Posts

Cutler: 17/36, 277 yards, 1 TD, 4 INTs

Delhomme: 7/17, 73 yares, 0 TD, 4 INTs, 1 Fumble

No contest

That's like being winner of the tallest midget contest, especially given the way that final interception went. I'd add that little shove of Clay Matthews wasn't exactly a shining moment.

Cutler didn't respond well in a pressure situation yesterday. That's a worry, especially with the Steelers coming in.

With that said, there's plenty of time to correct it, if he responds well to coaching. But even if that happens, the Bears have a number of other issues too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's like being winner of the tallest midget contest, especially given the way that final interception went. I'd add that little shove of Clay Matthews wasn't exactly a shining moment.

I really don't care about the shove- I'd rather see some fire from my QB then a roll over and die, who cares attitude. I agree that it's not much of anything to hang his hat upon, but he DID get the players around him involved- his #1 WR was part of the mix, got a TD and other players were in it as well... that can't be said about Delhomme, unfortunately. What did Smitty end up with? 23 yards or something?

Cutler didn't respond well in a pressure situation yesterday. That's a worry, especially with the Steelers coming in.

I actually disagree with you there- he had a horrible 1st half, then came out for the second half and led the Bears to scores on 3 out of 5 possessions. Other than the final INT, I think he did a good job of manning up in the face of adversity... he had his team in the lead with 2 minutes left in the game... so he didn't completely poo the bed... which can't be said about Delhomme

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol: at fuzzstradamus

Thanks for the week 1 end all, be all judgment... talk to me again after week 17

Don't worry, I will.

I just laugh at any fanbase that thinks that they had jesus in pads given to them. I guess I am more of a guarded optimism type of person.

Someone got rid of him for some reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't worry, I will.

I just laugh at any fanbase that thinks that they had jesus in pads given to them. I guess I am more of a guarded optimism type of person.

Someone got rid of him for some reason.

Lest you've been living under a rock, I think everyone understands that Jay's exit from Denver was not related to his level of play

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jay will improve, the pass rush is back and the secondary actually played better than most expected it to, except for that last play or lack there-of by Vasher(who tackled well most of the night). O-line needs run blocking improvement and the Urlacher/Pisa losses are frightening. Hopefully my Bears can fill the voids and continue on w/o too much relapse. GB and Chicago punched eachother in the throat for 60 minutes and the Bears suffered the biggest losses while Minnesota beat the all worldly Browns and the Lions continued to be the Lions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lest you've been living under a rock, I think everyone understands that Jay's exit from Denver was not related to his level of play

Didn't say it was because of play, although it has more to do with it than you may want to accept.

I would say that quote about any FA signing in which a team gives up MASSIVE amounts of anything to get said player.

Somebody got rid of him for a reason.

The Bears coaches and FO gambled their jobs, lets see if they win big or crap out....

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...