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!

     

We are 2-5 the week following a Thursday night game under Rivera


Ricky Spanish

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Similar record after bye weeks, I think. Rivera and extra time just don't seem to mesh well.

I have to admit I don't really understand that.

It’s because Rivera likes clockwork, rhythm, flow.

Its always been his best asset and worst downfall. It’s why we look worse in late or primetime games(not always but if our overall flow is fuged then way worse).

Anything that disrupts it is like a reset button back to zero.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Harbingers said:

It’s because Rivera likes clockwork, rhythm, flow.

Its always been his best asset and worst downfall. It’s why we look worse in late or primetime games(not always but if our overall flow is fuged then way worse).

Anything that disrupts it is like a reset button back to zero.

You're an NFL head coach. You adjust.

 

 

Ooohhh... :thinking:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, rico6 said:

Honestly cannot understand how Rivera has a contingent of supporters around here. Dude is horrible.

Because he's a great guy.

You ever have that friend that you really care about who desperately wants to be a singer or an actor or a dancer or whatever but while you really really want to see them live their dreams, objectively you know they suck at it?

That's Rivera.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Because he's a great guy.

I agree with everything except this. Any HC who says he’d give his Franchise QB a concussion “I’d have taken the shot too” is probably not the “greatest” of people. 

Thats just me though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, rico6 said:

I agree with everything except this. Any HC who says he’d give his Franchise QB a concussion “I’d have taken the shot too” is probably not the “greatest” of people. 

Thats just me though

I put that under him as a head coach, but I grant there's an argument to be made.

I do believe he's a great guy all around, but a terrible decision maker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, rico6 said:

I agree with everything except this. Any HC who says he’d give his Franchise QB a concussion “I’d have taken the shot too” is probably not the “greatest” of people. 

Thats just me though

So he defends Cams mentality and will to win. Defends his QB and you poo on him for defending cam? Hypocritical at best. 

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...