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!

     

Opinions: Seahawks or Cards more dangerous in playoffs?


Jmac

Recommended Posts

Well, no matter what we'd play Seattle at home because our record would be better.  And if by some miracle we lose homefield and have to go to Arizona, I feel like we could beat them.  Seattle would be a tougher game regardless of where it's played, but we are the best team in the league..  Bring em on

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have said the Seahawks, and I might still say they would give us the most trouble, but they lost a key guy for their rushing attack.  I'm not scared of Arizona outside of John Brown's deep speed.  I believe we will get to Palmer a lot and take out their passing game due to being on his back.  It doesn't matter if we had to travel, but it won't come to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised this question is being posed as an either / or, because the way things are looking, we may well have to play BOTH.

I'm VERY VERY glad the Seattle game would be in CLT.  And even happier that we beat them in such a good game (i.e. we really won it, there was no let down by Seattle (ok yeah yeah, there was the blown coverage on the Olsen TD..., but Cam made the play) and no fluke on which the game was won, we came back and EARNED that win.) in Seattle earlier this year.  That's HUGE for our team's confidence. 

It doesn't hurt either that we beat Arizona last year in the playoffs.  Of course, no Carson Palmer then.  But still we held them to that ridiculously low total on offense.  Anyway, it should give us confidence that we can win.  I'm glad we had such a shoot out from Drew Brees & the Saints last week.  It's huge that we showed we can keep up and win in an offensive shoot out against a stellar QB.  Not something we've usually been known for.  This season we've got the confidence to win, even if AZ is playing their best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, pantherjack77 said:

both the Cardinals and Seahawks have great team chemistry and confidence...something we have...but that is what makes them dangerous...both Arizona and Seattle see themselves beating us...are not intimidated by us...and therefore are going to be tough games..

of course if we continue to play at the level we are...and get a crowd like we did yesterday (loud) I am sure we will handle either one

Agree that both teams have chemistry & confidence and will be tough to beat.  In some ways I really welcome the challenge.  Wouldn't it be something if we win the SB having played Seattle, AZ and NE.  No one could then write off our win as due to a "soft schedule".  Let's go out there and beat the best!

Love what you wrote PantherJack about the crowd.  I've not been at a game in person yet.  I'll be there on Jan 3.  But even just by watching the games via internet here in Africa, I can see the difference in how the crowd is engaged and LOUD.  The Keep Pounding chants are incredible and the energy in the stadium really is noticeable.  Can't wait to be a part of it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Jackofalltrades said:

Seahawks, easily. They're hitting on all cylinders right now and have playoff experience to help them.

They lost Rawls for the year.  Now that teams, non garbage Clausen led worst in the NFL Ravens teams, can gameplan for that attack? They aren't as scary as they were appearing to become. 

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...