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!

     

NBC blasts NFL for Rams going to Cam's head


CPantherKing

Recommended Posts

Dungy and Harrison made it known nationally that the Rams went to Cam's head with forcible hits and the officials failed to call unnecessary roughness.

They once again made it known the NFL needs to do something about it.

It happened twice with the Barron hit and the Donald hit. Both defenders left their feet. Both players should receive fines this week.

Barron hit. NBCs angle showed it definitively.

 

 

 

 

 

The NFL must make them pay and rack up 2 more missed calls. This has to stop. They could go for the body, but they launch for the head. Cam Newton is 6'5". It takes effort to hit him in the head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to mention, Dungy, Harrison and Faulk calling the NFL out will do nothing. Cam has called them out and it did nothing. Sure Ron said they've talked to Goodell about these hits, but call them out publicly on it. Make this a deal until it's resolved. Don't sit back, fold your arms and go on the good word. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may disagree completely with your views on Gettleman, but when it comes to hits and the poor referees, there's no doubt that it's atrocious.

Those two big sacks were BOTH helmet to helmets. You'd have to be blind to not notice it. I was completely shocked to see the Fox crew completely treat it like nothing.

Something needs to happen. And not a pat on the back and "it'll be okay"

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...