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

10 hours ago, stbugs said:

I think he’s good depth but for people saying DE or 3-4 OLB is set now, it’s not. Irvin isn’t a great player anymore but he can be a good rotational guy. 

That's all he has ever been! He has been a situational player his entire career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There were some comments about how Irvin's effort was questionable...Give me a break. It was his first, what you would call a "down" year. That was mostly because the Raiders sucked and had locker room issues. Then he went to the Falcons halfway through the season and had to learn a new playbook. There were also comments about how he isn't here to be an every-down player....Serious? Have you seen this guy play? Irvin is one of those players that is a lot like those "special" players like J. Peppers, in the fact that they have this every down "high motor". Because of that high motor, these are the guys that can play into their mid to late 30's....Irvin is one of those players that plays with a different gear than most players. He's only 31 years old, I think he is here to fill the shoes of Thomas Davis. He's very versatile, and Ron Rivera actually talked about throwing in some 3-4 looks next season on defense. Just watch, Bruce Irvin will come into Carolina with fresh focus and FIRE in his gut. This is a great signing for what we got him for and could end up being a serious steal...This guy still has 2 to 4 good years of football in him.......WATCH!!! I really like this signing!

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...