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!

     

2016 NFL Schedule Release - Leaks, Rumors, Etc


Jeremy Igo

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Jeremy Igo said:

Rumor: Have seen a couple places now that the Panthers open against Tampa Bay. 

 

Meh. Hope it isn't true. 

This is good and bad IMO. That means it will most likely be a 4p game which is cool - it's a great weekend at the beach on our trip - but holy poo it was hot two years ago. When I take my shirt off at a game you know it's hot as balls

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, RoaringRiot said:

This is good and bad IMO. That means it will most likely be a 4p game which is cool - it's a great weekend at the beach on our trip - but holy poo it was hot two years ago. When I take my shirt off at a game you know it's hot as balls

Yep pretty sure that is you in the middle with your shirt off. 

image.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RoaringRiot said:

Let's do both at the same time. They're not mutually exclusive.

Go back to bed if you're going to be a grump on schedule release day.

I can't go to bed I'm at work. I'd love to though.

sadly I don't think this city will ever have a true home field advantage due to the number of transplants (I'm married to one) and the fact that there are a lot of selfish parents in this city who would rather force their kids to like a team 750 miles away then the team that is on their own back yard. I was at the GB game this year tailgating in the RV lot and it could have been a packers home game. Many of those people probably have never been to GB. Same goes with Cowboys and Steeler fans. 

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...