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!

     

It's the freakin' preseason, people.


Bronn

Recommended Posts

Yes,  it's only Preseason, but Preseason with very, very vanilla plays on both sides of the ball, doesn't have anything to do with getting pushed around on the field. Training Camp is for working on technique amongst other things. I saw no technique, no umph, no i want this attitude, basically...no Steve Smith mentally,  just players going through the motions. That kind of stuff carry over into regular season if not corrected but honestly it shouldn't need to be corrected now, it should've already been coached! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, PantherPhann89 said:

Yes,  it's only Preseason, but Preseason with very, very vanilla plays on both sides of the ball, doesn't have anything to do with getting pushed around on the field. Training Camp is for working on technique amongst other things. I saw no technique, no umph, no i want this attitude, basically...no Steve Smith mentally,  just players going through the motions. That kind of stuff carry over into regular season if not corrected but honestly it shouldn't need to be corrected now, it should've already been coached! 

This, exactly how I see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Waldo said:

Even when the season starts, the first 6 weeks can be an ugly curve towards competency. Every year I talk to friends who can't believe the sloppy play and lack of cohesion and I'm like yeah, it still early and teams are still settling and we had this conversation last year. So buckle up it's not just one more preseason game, it's that game and real games too. At week six we will know what we have. Last year that was when Pitt reamed us and that was the look we produced until the last game of the year.

I almost ignore the month of September, other than the records (kinda how I watch baseball).  Most teams look very off the first three or four weeks.  We've seen a few teams own the first month and then fall apart.  Other teams look like they forgot how to play the game and then gel.  Even the Pats have had years where they looked like it was the year they were going to be displaced at the top of the AFC East, only to wind up winning it by four or five games as they came on and the other three faded.

I think Buffalo had several seasons where half or their wins, if not more, occurred in September.

My defense mechanism is not to take the actual game play in the first four weeks too seriously, but realize the wins and losses count.  I think the reason is that over the years, the amount of time the starters play in the preseason has gone down considerably.  I don't blame teams for that, you need to keep the A-team healthy.  But the downside is they don't always click at the same time the season starts.

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...