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!

     

Saints be releasing Colston and poo


nctarheel0619

Recommended Posts

Would like for him to mentor Funchess on playing the big slot WR that I think Devin is best suited for and the role that Colston helped pioneer, but I don't really want to use a roster spot or playing time on him so whatever. I'm cool if we get him for cheap or if we show no interest at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Bogart said:

No more Saint's rejects!  Harper was tolerable but Colston is spent.  Never really thought he was all that anyway.

Guy has averaged 70 catches, 7 TDs, and just under 1,000 yards a year during his 10-year career. Even adjusting for some stat inflation from playing in that NO offense there's no arguing that he's been a quality receiver.

Not saying that I want to see him in Carolina (though I do think he'd be steps above the Legedu/Louis Murphy-type signings) since KB, Funch, and Ginn/Brown are a very solid group, but Colston probably has a couple of decent years left as a possession guy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't mind him as the Cotchery replacement, and a rookie to supplant Bersin. The man is 6'4" 230 lbs, I'd imagine a perfect tutor / vet presence for Funchess/KB. 

We'd have red zone threats across the board, big, can run block, can make contested catches, if the price is reasonable no reason not to. I like our receivers but we still need a dependable possession receiver, not to mention depth in the receiver size department. Behind KB/Funch we are pretty small at receiver, unless your'e counting Bersin who was rarely active. 

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...