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!

     

Seattle Times: What Happens to Athletes Bodies in the cold.


nctarheel0619

Recommended Posts

Just now, Zaximus said:

The biggest thing, is that it's just going to be really uncomfortable for everyone involved.  It'll be fun to watch, but man, I'm glad I'm not out there (or even in the crowd lol).  

Yeah, compared to what they're forcasting for Charlotte next Sunday, that is absolutely horrible.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah... It's the same temp where I live today that it will be in Minneapolis Sunday. I just took my garbage out and it's f'n cold and I'm used of this crap. I have to think Peterson will be strapped with some sort of heating pad so his back can stay loose but even then, I can't even imagine how sore these guys are going to be.

You can layer up all you want but sitting there and not moving for 3 hours makes it impossible to stay warm. Really starting to regret my decision to go down for this game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who says that the Vikings haven't played in those conditions...well, last year we played them and the high was 12 degrees, and they seemed to play alright.  What's crazier is they studied the game and found that there was a 20 degree difference in temperature from one sideline to the other...Let me reiterate, there was a 20 DEGREE DIFFERENCE from the home sideline to the visitors sideline.  Seahawks fans can downplay the weather all they want, but the Vikings have played in this kind of weather (or atleast close to it)...the seahawks have not and it more than the game, the weather will push their will to the absolute limit.

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...