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!

     

The NFL moving this game to 4:25 is more evidence they want Brees in the SB

PanthersNC1984

By PanthersNC1984,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

PanthersNC1984 Newbie

PanthersNC1984

Posted
Posted

Like seriously, why?! What on earth could other reasons be for randomly out of the blue moving this game to an early evening one? NFL rarely moves time slots for games this early in the season, usually it happens weeks 14-16, but now?!

You might be asking what on earth this has to do with Brees? It’s simple, which would be easier for us? Playing this game early during the afternoon and sunshine, or playing this game where it will be pitch dark by half time in a freezing Lambeu field?! 

Us and the Packers aren’t division rivals, we aren’t tied for the same record or anything, there is no interesting story line for this game at all, why?! WHY?!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Smithers Grand Master

Smithers

Posted
Posted

Maybe the NFL assumes people want to see MVP candidate running back CMC against a Packers run defense that is prone to giving up big plays.  Maybe they also assume that people want to see two teams who are still in the playoffs race square off against each other.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Peon Awesome Experienced

Peon Awesome

Posted
Posted

Look at the games this week. The only one even arguably with more national appeal is Cowboys-Vikings which is already the Sunday night game. I'm also not sure this game is as impactful to the Saints in the way you are implying. I doubt they're too worried about us with a 2 game lead, better division record and 2 games of Brees vs Allen left on the schedule. You could easily argue that us beating GB is better for them because it gives them an easier path to a first round bye. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • jasonluckydog
      C Mc. Gotta love this guy!!

      By jasonluckydog · Posted

      Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • TD alt
      C Mc. Gotta love this guy!!

      By TD alt · Posted

      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.
    • TD alt
      Scourton isn't signed (& apparently it's a thing)

      By TD alt · Posted

      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...