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!

     

Delhomme Hospitalized


davos

Recommended Posts

what do you expect with the CRAZY LOVE for Delhomme on this board.

he could have thrown for 6 TD's in this game and people wouldnt care..

Ehh, that's not really fair. There was a thread about this already, or at least with a link to the Charlotte Observer article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First time I have ever seen a player in a panthers uniform go down and not be upset. Hell I was actually excited. I hate a person getting hurt but thats the only reason fox would make a change. I just don't see Jake being able to keep us in our next game against NO with only completing 7 passes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First time I have ever seen a player in a panthers uniform go down and not be upset. Hell I was actually excited. I hate a person getting hurt but thats the only reason fox would make a change. I just don't see Jake being able to keep us in our next game against NO with only completing 7 passes.

And you see how much confidence the staff has in Moore...they would not even let him throw a screen pass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jake played a good game even though he he only threw for 90 yards and had a 50% completion percentage. He faced his demons and conquered them. Jake played a vital role in the first drive of the game that helped open up the running game down the road. Jake completed 2 passes on 3rd downs to keep that 1st drive alive. Jake threw a nice pass to Smitty while he was in stride that went for a TD, and most importantly, he didn't turn the ball over, not even once.

Anyone that can't admit this was a good game for Jake considering the circumstances with the Cardinals and this season, is just merely being stubborn .

Now,having said all this,do i think Jake is the long trm answer to the Panthers QB position? My answer is still a big resounding NO!

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...