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

4 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Hence the Freeney comparison.

The percentage of plays where he produced pressure is good, but you have to pair that with the fact that he played fewer snaps than at any time in his career.

So yeah, situational rusher, like Freeney with the Falcons or Tim Harris back when he was with the 49ers and got paid per sack.

But, he was also in hell in Oakland for most of the season, where iirc, it was rumored they were trying to dump him even in the preseason as part of their rebuild.  And I think I remember there being an issue where the Raiders ended up punishing him for being insubordinate.

Just saying, I'm not gonna judge a decrease in activity or snaps off what happened in Oakland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like it. Feels like a 2015 Jared Allen kind of acquisition.

Expectations aren't very high because he's on the back end of his career now but he will be a much needed boost to the DL in multiple ways.

If you're upset about this signing then go be miserable somewhere else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there were multiple teams making offers, there is NO CHANCE that he didn’t get decent guarantees at signing which would make cutting him doubtful and wasteful.  Additionally, I would expect there would be some kind of voidable years added on so this bonus could be used to reduce the first year cap hit.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Proudiddy said:

But, he was also in hell in Oakland for most of the season, where iirc, it was rumored they were trying to dump him even in the preseason as part of their rebuild.  And I think I remember there being an issue where the Raiders ended up punishing him for being insubordinate.

Just saying, I'm not gonna judge a decrease in activity or snaps off what happened in Oakland.

Possible. Like I said, I'm for it. I just wouldn't expect him to return to his old form.

People thinking we just signed the Bruce Irvin of 3 or 4 years ago might need to adjust their expectations a little.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TheRed said:

I like it. Feels like a 2015 Jared Allen kind of acquisition.

Expectations aren't very high because he's on the back end of his career now but he will be a much needed boost to the DL in multiple ways.

If you're upset about this signing then go be miserable somewhere else.

Hell yes.  This is what I always think when people get upset about a signing like this.  1 year deal people....this is a good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great signing. We needed to bolster our pass rushing ranks and this fits the bill perfectly. He may not start but he should provide us some flexibility in terms of the defensive looks and will instantly be an upgrade in our rotational pass rushers. 

Hurney 2.0 is really making some good moves on paper. Hope they all end up panning out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Possible. Like I said, I'm for it. I just wouldn't expect him to return to his old form.

People thinking we just signed the Bruce Irvin of 3 or 4 years ago might need to adjust their expectations a little.

Understandable.  Still exciting for us, imo...  Even a lesser version of Irvin is the best or second best edge rusher on our team last year.  It's a quality, relatively-cheap signing at a position of need...  so, I'm all for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're snapping up what we can afford at positions of need. That's all I ever asked for. Irvin only got a one year deal so that kind of proves he's on the downside of his career, but the guy can still rush the passer and play well enough to contribute.

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...