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!

     

Teams without a Super Bowl (updated list)


JakeDel5674

Recommended Posts

Bengals- gonna be a bit

Browns- gonna be a bit longer

Cardinals- won't make playoffs for a few years

Chargers- will probably be in the playoffs next year

Falcons- Hate to say but they still have the window open to win one

Jaguars- If they land a QB they will be next off the list

Lions- gonna be a bit

Panthers- NEXT YEAR MOTHA FUGGERS (you can get over my optimism)

Texans- If Watson is back to what he was doing they will do some damage in the AFC

Titans- Meh 50/50 on them to get back to the playoffs 

Vikings- Same as Jags, they get a QB and they wont be on the list much longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, thomas96 said:

We're guaranteed going to win at least one with Cam and Luke. Even if it's like John Elway really late, Cam's bringing us a Super Bowl win. Guaranteed 100%.

I dont know if anything in the NFL is guaranteed especially with freak injuries occuring. I like the Elway comparison , he went to SBs but never had a complete enough team to get it done until late in his career . They won SB when they made it less about him and more having a great supporting cast and better coaching staff, which I could see happening here (already happening a bit). If we continue to struggle with Turner it may take us having a different HC . Cam needs better WRs and a good dependable RB to lean on. And a much better defensive secondary. 

I'm hoping for more of Payton Manning though, he won the SB at age 30 and then again in his last season. Hope Cam does both with the same team. 

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...