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!

     

The Saints local newspaper adds insult to injury, per say.


JakeDel5674

Recommended Posts

They had to try to knock Cam Newton out of the game to win, and even after that and an atrocious intentional grounding call they still barely won. You would think they blew us out. Hey, let them talk, it will only make their downfall that much sweeter to bask in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this is also something of a reflection of the differences between the two markets

is there a question whatsoever what the pro football team in that city is?  do you think there are radio talk shows in new orleans that look on the saints with detached amusement at best or full-on trashing them at worst?  because that definitely happens in print and sports radio in and around charlotte. 

yesterday i had to step into a business that shared a wall with a bar next door.  they had the game on like every other establishment with a TV would.  i was streaming the game on my phone through NFL mobile so it was probably a minute and a half or two behind the TV broadcast.  i saw gano miss the chip shot and groaned, and then the people next door freaking erupted seconds later.  i thought something huge must have happened-panthers pick six, scoop and score, something like that.  no, it was a bar full of saints fans reacting to the ginn touchdown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeh,.. I’m going to say that’s something we would say when we were beating them on a regular basis.

they beat us 3 times in the same season and out of the playoffs— 

so ok.

they are still a dirty ghetto team and I hope the Vikings do to them what Ragnar did to the first church town they took the first season,..

”it was like fighting Babies”

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...