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!

     

Schefter: Bruce Irvin to Panthers on 1-year deal


UNCrules2187

Recommended Posts

Pending the contract details, this looks good on paper.  They do need to stay the course on draft day, however. 

Assuming he is a situational player, anybody who can get near the QB as often as he did when he is on the field will garner some attention by the opposing OL, and just maybe make the rest of the pass rush better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol at anyone who thinks Bruce is too old or won’t be good as a starter/rotational guy. 

Our best DE last year was almost 40. We signed him with the expectations of a rotation and we couldn’t even get good starter play and forced him to play more snaps than he should have. 

Irvin will be a good spark and good rotation for us. The fact it’s a 1 year deal means we are still probably going after a DE in the draft. I’m ok with a 1 year as it’s more of a “prove it” and if he doesn’t work out, then oh well. 

Also, Hoke was a terrible coach at Michigan, so much so he went from HC at a top 5 college program to a DC cord, then a DL, then DL for us. The defensive staff last year was a mess

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he is motivated this is a fantastic deal. He can play well both in a 3-4 and 4-3 scheme is still very effective when motivated at getting to the QB ESPECIALLY in the 4th quarter where we MASSIVELY struggled and single handedly lost games last year. 

Seahawks, Lions, Bucs, Browns, and Redskins all lost because we couldn't pressure the QB on a certain crucial drive. 

 

This is huge ....again if he is motivated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

067UwKP3_bigger.jpgJourdan RodrigueVerified account @JourdanRodrigue
FollowFollow @JourdanRodrigue
More

Bruce Irvin speaks highly of Luke Kuechly and Dontari Poe - but he said he's most excited to "get ahold of" Bryan Cox Jr., because Cox Jr. reminds him a lot of himself at a young age. He said he's eager to help Cox Jr. and take him under his wing.

11:43 AM - 19 Mar 2019
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

I am all for the youth movement but it would be hard to beat getting a player of Weddle's caliber. The Mike Adams signing was great for us as a secondary initially(prior to him finally slowing down last season) so I would have been a huge fan of getting him. It gives us the ability to punt on that position or grab a guy in the later rounds as a developmental guy. 

We will need to get younger at all these positions eventually but it is really tough to do that in one offseason. Signing some stop gap players like Weddle or Irvin is a necessity. 

Weddle, Adams, and Coleman fit the mood of right place but not athletic enough to make the play type safeties, weddle would be solid but the 2nd rd of this draft we could possibly get a playmaker, plus not telling when Father Time will tap weddle on the shoulder, it tapped the hell out of Coleman and Adams 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Cpt slay a ho said:

Weddle, Adams, and Coleman fit the mood of right place but not athletic enough to make the play type safeties, weddle would be solid but the 2nd rd of this draft we could possibly get a playmaker, plus not telling when Father Time will tap weddle on the shoulder, it tapped the hell out of Coleman and Adams 

No doubt. I am good with taking a good FS prospect or signing a vet on a short term deal. The one thing that has to happen is that we upgrade from what we had last year. 

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...