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!

     

Underdogs this week?


ncfan

Recommended Posts

I know we are not underdogs in the lines.  But holy crap, still the lack of respect we are getting is unreal.

 

Turned on the TV after work only to see 2 ads on NFL network before I flipped away highlighting "how the Giants will beat the panthers this week".  Turned over to ESPN and PTI 3 out of the 4 predicted the Giants.  The host guy asking the question dogged the guy predicting the panthers to win talking how we haven't played anyone and laughed about our "streak" saying it shouldn't count considering it's over 2 seasons.  Soon as that was over PTI both guys liked he Giants to win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The media is always in the tank for the "big" teams like Pittsburgh, New England, New York, and of course Dallas.  That's the way it's always been and the way it always will be no matter their respective records.  Heck you'd think Dallas was in the middle of some dynasty last year the way they were covered.  Believe me if a team like Dallas were 13-0 looking at an undefeated season ESPN would probably have to start a new channel just to slurp them 24/7.

Panthers -1 in Jerruh' world was the easiest bet of the season, and Panthers -4 right now like i'm seeing in some books is the second easiest bet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The funny thing is, that the Panthers are in a no win situation in regards to if they win the game. They don't get any more respect by beating the Giants. If the Panthers win it will just be another week of the media saying who have the Panthers faced. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It makes sense, people think a team isn't going to go 16-0, that's natural as only two teams have ever finished the regular season undefeated.

So if they think we're going to lose based on that, this is the natural game to pick against them.

If we win tomorrow, I fully expect the national narrative to change to expecting us to finish 16-0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The giants beat the 1934 bears who were 13-0, how can you ignore that precedent?"

The media is so stupid. They're desperate for an NFC East to be anything approaching quality and will latch onto any possible narrative that could stand to that. I want this win so bad. Go crush these clowns and sweep the NFL's worst division (again)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i knew we would get disrespected this season but not at 13 and 0 . i could careless about what the media thinks and what other fan bases think but can some one answer this question? whats the difference between the  seahawks superbowl winning team and our team now? they got all the love and we get treated like we are a 5 win team 

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...