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

59 minutes ago, bull123 said:

I want Thomas from standford....would love to have mccaffrey too


Sent from my iPad using CarolinaHuddle

Me too. Keep this in mind and take it for what it's worth because this is from walterfootball.com...they are saying that an NFC playoff team and a couple afc playoff teams feel Thomas is a late first round pick. It could be smoke and mirrors to scare teams away from him that pick higher. I still like the guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheMostInterestingMan said:

I would be very happy with Fournette... but my heart desires Adams, Hooker or an elite DE. So I would actually be happy with this. Seems if this played out AND the Browns took a QB at #1 the we are locked for a future star at DE or safety.

Fournette has been my awesome consolation prize leading up to the draft. I REALLY want Adams, Hooker or Thomas 

Thomas is closer to a DT than a DE. Don't understand why so many of us want him just because he dominated a piss poor UNC O-line in a bowl game 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Yaboychris28 said:

Thomas is closer to a DT than a DE. Don't understand why so many of us want him just because he dominated a piss poor UNC O-line in a bowl game 

He's absurdly athletic and I think many analysts agree he has the highest or second highest ceiling of any DE in the draft...

You have your opinions and I have mine. The fact we disagree without each other doesn't make either of us stupid or lacking in football knowledge...

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...