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!

     

NFL Wildcard Weekend , Saturday Games Thread


Hoenheim

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Harbingers said:

Chiefs, Falcons(sadly).

yea i wouldnt be surprised if the Falcons won either. They clearly have much more playoff experience and as good as the Rams have been this year , thats one thing just about everyone on their team has none of. 

I'm the most interested to see if both road teams can win today. Some good omens for us if that happens ill have more faith in our game lol 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I legitimately could care less who wins Tennessee vs. Kansas City. Normally I have some reason to hate or like a team, but I have no interest whatsoever in either of those franchises this year. Furthermore, the result of this game seems largely irrelevant to the outcome of the AFC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

I legitimately could care less who wins Tennessee vs. Kansas City. Normally I have some reason to hate or like a team, but I have no interest whatsoever in either of those franchises this year. Furthermore, the result of this game seems largely irrelevant to the outcome of the AFC.

Living in CO I'll pick the Chiefs since that will cause the donkey fans butthurt and consternation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LinvilleGorge said:

This thing where receivers run after catching a ball down the field... that's legal? Watching our offense play you'd never know it.

well Tyreek Hill and Kareem Hunt are alot more talented than an aging Jonathan Stewart and a decent but not game breaking speedster Devin Funchess

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The closest thing we ever had to Tyreek Hill was Tedd Ginn before he learned how to catch the ball consistently 

And even then Ginn didnt really have that much elusiveness. But had that ability to burn people down the field that we so dearly miss right now . 

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...