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!

     

Official Matty Meltdown Thread: Failcons VS Packers


Saca312

Recommended Posts

Two teams duel out today for a Superb Owl Chance

Both teams have good offenses, crappy defenses.

Like seriously, no team this year has a stout defense in the playoffs this year. Like for real. The fuggin Patriots would probably be considered as having the best defense in the playoffs this year. Like how does that happen? /rant

Anyhow, who ya got?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm taking a step back from my personal hatred for the Falcons as a fan. I enjoy the game a lot better if I just watch the gameplay with no personal bias. 

That having been said, Atlanta has been known to be soft for a few years now. Not this year. 

Atlanta jumps on top of Green Bay, exposes their injury isssues and the Packers come back to earth. Crowd is going to be rocking too.

Falcons- 28

GB- 24 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the Steelers upsetting the Pats

Pitts D can & will stifle NE. Their showing against Houston last week was very umimpressive & I believe you're only good as your last game.

27 - 24 Pittsburg

Falcons pummel GB .. on paper our D isn't good due to garbage points/yards but I know better. We aren't Dallas, more team speed on D, better tackling & more physical. We'll hit the limping Pack until they fold, garbage time score makes it look decent.

34 - 24 Falcons  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, GeorgiaBoyz said:

I have the Steelers upsetting the Pats

Pitts D can & will stifle NE. Their showing against Houston last week was very umimpressive & I believe you're only good as your last game.

27 - 24 Pittsburg

Falcons pummel GB .. on paper our D isn't good due to garbage points/yards but I know better. We aren't Dallas, more team speed on D, better tackling & more physical. We'll hit the limping Pack until they fold, garbage time score makes it look decent.

34 - 24 Falcons  

I can see that happening. Falcons defense is better than GB for sure, but they're mediocre in my eyes. 

Which is like top tier in this year's playoffs.

I believe the Cowboys had a true better defense than the Falcons, which is where I'm holdin my horses. Will be interesting to watch and see how Green Bay reacts.

As far as Steelers upsetting the Patriots, it's a possibility. I think they got a better offense than the Pats, but their defense is to be desired.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Saca312 said:

I can see that happening. Falcons defense is better than GB for sure, but they're mediocre in my eyes. 

Which is like top tier in this year's playoffs.

I believe the Cowboys had a true better defense than the Falcons, which is where I'm holdin my horses. Will be interesting to watch and see how Green Bay reacts.

As far as Steelers upsetting the Patriots, it's a possibility. I think they got a better offense than the Pats, but their defense is to be desired.

 

Man no ones defense looks good or adequate to a Panther, Denver, Seahawk or Texans fan so I understand. Everybody can't have superstars on D. Lol. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as I want the Falcons to lose, I just do not see them losing in their dome. Falcons defense are at least average, while the Packers D is just too riddled with injuries in that secondary to stop that Falcons potent offense.

I also got the Pats. I just can't bet against Brady with the #1 scoring defense backing him up in Gillette stadium.

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...