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!

     

While we continue to suck, and make no moves. Packers suck, and trade for Knile Davis.


nctarheel0619

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, raleigh-panther said:

Hmmm. The list is long of very poor owners. 

In the 21 years of JR there have been two super bowl appearances plus numerous  and playoffs

ask people in Detroit, 

DC. Cleveland. Dallas, oakland. If they would take that 

perspective

It certainly could be worse, but the fact is the right people have never been in place here to build a consistent winner. Pittsburgh and New England and to some extent Seattle now, seem to have it figured out......they seem to win year in and year out. None have Mr. Nice guy as a coach. I love Rivera as a person, but he is too slow to pull the trigger all too often not only with players, but coaches too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, raleigh-panther said:

Hmmm. The list is long of very poor owners. 

In the 21 years of JR there have been two super bowl appearances plus numerous  and playoffs

ask people in Detroit, 

DC. Cleveland. Dallas, oakland. If they would take that 

perspective

Compare our histories to the Browns and Raiders and be thankful? That's perspective?

 

also saying Dallas is funny cause the 4 years you extend history after 20 years and they're a multiple SB dynasty, doesn't count at all.

 

lolz

 

Betting we make more playoff/SB appearances in the 25 years after JR due to a new style of ownership is not far fetched at all well unless we compare ourselves to the worst three run organizations in the league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CatMan72 said:

Who would you trade for and what would you offer? 

HB's are a dime a dozen, teams don't have a ton of good CB's or DE's they're sitting around waiting to trade. 

 Which makes it even more bizarre that we let our all pro CB walk for no compensation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Packers are 3-2 so they still have a chance, literally have no RBs with Lacy now out, Davis sucks and he's been available for basically nothing since the draft. Davis will come in and fumble every 5 carries and they'll regret it. Last thing we need to do in our current situation is be giving up draft picks

not really a comparable situation to ours 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

So about that...

10/31

Packers waive RB Knile Davis

11/1

Jets claim RB Knile Davis off waivers from Green Bay

And now this

The Jets will cut Knile Davis to make room for Spiller on the roster, the report said. They just claimed Davis earlier Tuesday, and the Jets waiving him means he’ll be back on the waiver wire Wednesday.

 

Boy, how about that big bold trade, eh?

But hey, good news for the fans of Davis in this thread. He's available again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • 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.
    • Get any shot you can at humane society, so much cheaper
×
×
  • Create New...