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!

     

REPORT: 49ers Interested With Fournette At #2


Saca312

Recommended Posts

For those of you (including me) with hopes that Fournette drops to #8 with a deadly combo of him and Cam, well, some people in the 49ers office are having dreams of Fournette's doom.

According to Kevin Jones of KNBR - a radio station - he has heard that the 49ers are high on the idea of Fournette at #2.

http://www.49erswebzone.com/articles/103981-report-49ers-considering-leonard-fournette-pick/

Quote

Jones is hearing that LSU running back Leonard Fournette is highly regarded among the 49ers front office and staff. He is so highly regarded that the team might consider making him the second overall selection in April. The fact that Fournette is so highly regarded is not a shock. The idea that the 49ers might pass over a talent like a Reuben Foster, who would address a big need on the team, to draft a running back when the team already has Carlos Hyde, would be surprising.

"One crazy rumor I did hear, though, that Leonard Fournette might be in play at number two for the 49ers," Jones said. "That he's that talented of a player. They truly may believe that he's the best player in the draft. That would be wild because you already have Carlos Hyde. It wouldn't really make sense but if you think Fournette is going to be that good, is going to be a 15-hundred yard back a year and you're not sure on other guys, I think they would receive so much criticism for that move but I hear he's not being scratched off the board at number two."

You can listen to the entire interview on KNBR.

Literally makes no sense at all in any way, shape, or form, but they like him. Hoping it's a huge smokescreen, but it's rather interesting that Shanahan has him highly regarded when they have clear pressing needs elsewhere on the roster.

Discuss.

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...