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!

     

Scouts Feel Jonathan Allen's Stock Is Falling. A lot.


Saca312

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Saca312 said:

Another guy who assumes Allen will be a DT...let me post what I posted for another guy who thought the same thing:

You understand this guy was far and away the best defender in college, and I dare say more productive than Myles Garrett?

Plus, you understand he's not going to be a DT in the NFL, right?

Allen weighed in at the combine at 286, that's heavy for a 4-3 DE but not absurd. Both now and in the past the Panthers used ends at or close to 280 pounds such as Hardy(280) and Ealy(275), and Charles Johnson(285). We could easily draft Allen and ask him to lose a couple of pounds, it wouldn't be a substantial amount.

I'm not sure why it's difficult for people to imagine him as a DE in the NFL. He played end at Alabama, and he doesn't have the weight of a nose tackle or even plus sized 3-tech.

In the Panthers' 4-3 scheme I could see Allen as a end on first and second down. On third down he could go inside while Short kicks out to end. If not, I can see the opposite on 3rd down situations as well.

Additionally, we want to give Mario Addison more snaps so adding more run-stopping would make up for his deficiencies. 286 isn't too big to be an end in a 4-3 and with his talent the Panthers will figure out a way to utilize him.

So, again tell me how this guy wouldn't fit?

Its not about weight. It's about stiffness. He doesn't have the bend or explosiveness for a 4-3 DE. If we got him, we'd be getting the second coming of Tyler Brayton. 

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...