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!

     

I will say this. 49ers better hope they don’t get us in the playoffs.


PanthersNC1984

Recommended Posts

Yes they completely owned us yesterday, yes it was demoralizing but I am a HUGE believer in the notion that it’s very hard to beat a team twice in a row. So go on San Fran, enjoy the blowout, you deserve it, but if we meet again in the playoffs, the burden is on you to beat us twice in a row when we won’t be coming off a bye and recovering from London jet lag oh and with a healthy Cam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Seltzer said:

Just no

Remember 2013- we go into San Fran and beat them in the regular season, we get them in the playoffs again on our home turf and they come back and own us and make the NFCCG, look at all the times when Pats get beat by some random team in the regular season but they get a playoff rematch (Steelers and Chiefs come to mind in recent years) and win when it counts 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, PanthersNC1984 said:

Yes they completely owned us yesterday, yes it was demoralizing but I am a HUGE believer in the notion that it’s very hard to beat a team twice in a row. So go on San Fran, enjoy the blowout, you deserve it, but if we meet again in the playoffs, the burden is on you to beat us twice in a row when we won’t be coming off a bye and recovering from London jet lag oh and with a healthy Cam.

The same team that managed to get beaten by the Saints 3 times in one season?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron’s teams always struggle adjusting in game vs a team that gets them early 

Ron’s teams historically adjust well when a teams gets them good the next time.  

But we got a long way to go before we can even think about a next time.  If win some games...Seattle likely could be THE game.  They will be competing for a WC spot.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mjligon said:

The same team that managed to get beaten by the Saints 3 times in one season?

We had them in the postseason....just didn’t finish.  But we had them.  If Funchess didn’t play like he was 5ft tall.  The play was there to knock NO out 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CRA said:

We had them in the postseason....just didn’t finish.  But we had them.  If Funchess didn’t play like he was 5ft tall.  The play was there to knock NO out 

Funchess and KB have to be the two tallest 5 foot receivers in history. Smh what a waste 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys are underestimating the travel miles and the toll it takes on players. Leading up to San Fran we traveled to Arizona, to Houston, to London, a bye then all the way to San Fran, that is about as brutal as it gets. 
 

I think going forward this team will be hella focused and thank god for nomore different time zone games! 

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...