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!

     

Regarding the Seahawks meltdown/demise


Cary Kollins

Recommended Posts

Even after a disappointing injury-filled season, you have to like where the Panthers stand in regards to their locker room leaders: Cam, Olsen, TD, Kuechly, Kalil etc.

The same can't be said for the Seahawks. It appears Russell Wilson isn't the savoir the "twelves" made him out to be. The choir boy, holier than thou attitude doesn't work in NFL locker rooms after all, I guess. Richard Sherman has shown this season what kind of person he is. Earl Thomas can't seem to decide if he is retiring or not, but I'm sure he'll let us know via twitter soon enough. Michael Bennett is a head case.

 

The NFC will be ripe for the taking again next season. Atlanta may or may not go to the SB this season, but regardless it appears they could be a one hit wonder once Shanahan heads west.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Kevin Greene said:

Well let's see. The Seahawks are in the Playoffs yesr after year including 2 Super Bowls meanwhile we can't go above .500 two years in a row.

 

this year it helped having three division II teams in their division

 

btw, I'll take the 8th pick in a loaded draft over a 9-7 finish

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meh...the Huddle has been calling their demise each year, every year, for years yet they keep staying relevant and heading to the playoffs. "Wilson a lucky / one hit wonder, locker room falling apart, they are in cap hell now, without Lynch they are nothing, can't pay to keep the defense together, Pete Carroll looks like a lesbian......."

 

That last part has nothing to do with it really but it's funny and kinda true.

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...