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!

     

ECF Game 3: Carolina Hurricanes (0-2) vs. Boston Bruins (2-0) - 5/14, 8 PM, NBCS


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Proudiddy said:

Also, although Rask stops a lot of stuff most goalies wouldnt, we also whiffed I think at least twice on shots when he was actually out of position.

He’s been really lucky today. We’ve missed 3 wide open empty nets today would’ve been easy goals for apparently any team but us. Also had an easy empty net missed in game 1 that could’ve put us up 3-1 and essentially put them away in that game...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, t96 said:

He’s been really lucky today. We’ve missed 3 wide open empty nets today would’ve been easy goals for apparently any team but us. Also had an easy empty net missed in game 1 that could’ve put us up 3-1 and essentially put them away in that game...

Yeah, again, not being as familiar with our personnel as you, I still have to agree with what you previously posted about us not having any natural goal scores atm.  It also looks to me that we need some more playmakers/danglers next season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, t96 said:

He’s been really lucky today. We’ve missed 3 wide open empty nets today would’ve been easy goals for apparently any team but us. Also had an easy empty net missed in game 1 that could’ve put us up 3-1 and essentially put them away in that game...

We have made a lot of bad shots, otherwise it would be at least 4-2 in our favor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Proudiddy said:

Yeah, again, not being as familiar with our personnel as you, I still have to agree with what you previously posted about us not having any natural goal scores atm.  It also looks to me that we need some more playmakers/danglers next season.

We’ve ridden overachieving grinders like McLovin (Warren Foegele, a rookie who was a borderline 4th liner the whole season with no real offensive impact) and relied on outworking the other teams this postseason, as well as admittedly some puck luck against the Islanders (who also overachieved and don’t have much natural scoring talent). We’re really close but it was always going to catch up with us this year. Bruins have like 4x the offensive skill as us, and combine that with lack of experience and poor reffing and you have what we have this series. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Proudiddy said:

Man, I have not seen any other team in the playoffs mishandle the puck more than us, especially on passes back to the blue line.

This is what frustrates me. How poor we are at handling the puck and making passes. It's infuriating. I feel like we have beat ourselves more than getting beat by the Bruins.

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...