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!

     

Giants hire Mike Shula as OC


UNCrules2187

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, The Natural said:

LMAO!!! Let the Gettleman Brigade try to defend this one. Oh man, this is too good. Thank goodness we threw him to the curb. 

Again, only if you're not reading the thread, or you're willfully ignoring what's been reported...

...or you're just stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Ya gotta realize that with P55, it doesn't matter how many people report something. If he thinks it's another way, God himself would not convince him otherwise.

Kind of like 10 years ago when we were all stupid for wanting Jake Delhomme to be booted after the Arizona meltdown.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WOW!! said:

Ohhhhh.. DG apologist have a battle in their heads now..

And don't spend 80 post trying to convince ppl that Gettelmen had nothing to do with hire.. That is BS.. He had to sign off on this because his job is in jeopardy as well.. Hahahahaha

Gettleman ain’t here.

Shula ain’t here.

WGAF?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Dude, I've already refuted your statements. I'm not really interested if you want to come up with a different way of saying the same thing like your usual MO.

First of all what you did was quote a few Gettleman quotes out of context and spin it your way to justify your opinion. Secondly quotes in a news paper and TV are hardly proof of anything but what they want you to think, not what happens behind the scenes when no one is there. And again if you are so naive to believe that a GM who's  performance is tied to the win and loss record doesn't have a huge say in who gets fired or hired regardless of what they say publically, you really don't have a clue. 

I bet you believe what Trumps says too because he tweeted it, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

First of all what you did was quote a few Gettleman quotes out of context and spin it your way to justify your opinion. Secondly quotes in a news paper and TV are hardly proof of anything but what they want you to think, not what happens behind the scenes when no one is there. And again if you are so naive to believe that a GM who's  performance is tied to the win and loss record doesn't have a huge say in who gets fired or hired regardless of what they say publically, you really don't have a clue. 

I bet you believe what Trumps says too because he tweeted it, right?

You have a real problem with people believing somebody other than you, don't you? That really seems to stick in your craw.

Well, sorry dude. I'll take the words of people who are actually involved in the situation over yours. If that pisses you off, I don't honestly care.

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...