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!

     

Film Room: Panthers/Saints


ellis

Recommended Posts

The 34 defense is concerning, but even more concerning is the lack of proper utilization. There doesn’t seem to be any coordinated effort to put the right players in the right places on certain downs. Just bad situational football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ellis said:

The 34 defense is concerning, but even more concerning is the lack of proper utilization. There doesn’t seem to be any coordinated effort to put the right players in the right places on certain downs. Just bad situational football.

For which my question would be are people doing their jobs poorly or have they just stopped caring?

I'd assume it's the former but I allow for the latter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

For which my question would be are people doing their jobs poorly or have they just stopped caring?

I'd assume it's the former but I allow for the latter.

I don’t think anybody stopped caring. But I’m not a fan of this alignment and I’m even less of a fan of how they choose to use certain players. Burns v 13 personnel is idiotic. Butler off the EDGE in 3rd & 11 (with 53 on the sidelines) is egregious. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, ellis said:

The 34 defense is concerning, but even more concerning is the lack of proper utilization. There doesn’t seem to be any coordinated effort to put the right players in the right places on certain downs. Just bad situational football.

All the evidence I need to get Ron out of here 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, morgan55 said:

Man those were the good ole days... Ron fuged up the d this year... but hey we have sacks

When they had Star and Short in the middle, the run defense got infinitely better. The defense looks like the soft Swiss cheese crap we saw in 2011-2012 now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was never the alignment / front that was the issue.  It was our super expensive DLine not playing worth a dime.  Give Luke good space eaters in front of him, and suddenly he's the best MLB in the game.  His game is so cerebral that he needs the space to read and react.  Not that he isn't athletic, but his game above the shoulders is so good that you need to give him every chance to use it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, GoPanthers123 said:

Some feedback.  I find backhanded compliments as synonymous with bad reporting.  Allen had a great game, please give the man his credit without cheapening the moment.

I thought he had a fantastic game. He showed a lot of growth. 

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...