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 exorcism of ron rivera


PhillyB

Recommended Posts

> fantastic play clock management

> decent situational awareness

> situationally appropriate up-tempo offense

> punt coverage wasn't a flaming trash pile

the jury is still out on rhule and co. but these are vast improvements over rivera's regime. amazing that he couldn't improve in any of the areas during his decade-long tenure here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We looked better than expected, we moved the ball, we made adjustments at halftime, we didn't screw up the clock too much, had a good return game, still ran the ball right into the middle of the pile on 4th and 1 with 1:43 left to go in a winnable game.

Things are looking better in some areas. Others will take some time.

Rivera did get the win after five days of chemo treatments and practices afterwards. Perhaps the change was good for both sides. Ron used to be a heck of a coach, he seems to have found something in himself there. Rhule seems like he can be a heck of a coach, too and the pro game certainly doesn't seem to be to big for him and his basically college-level coaching staff.

We move on, wish the old teammates well and cheer on our new ones.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PhillyB said:

> fantastic play clock management

> decent situational awareness

> situationally appropriate up-tempo offense

> punt coverage wasn't a flaming trash pile

the jury is still out on rhule and co. but these are vast improvements over rivera's regime. amazing that he couldn't improve in any of the areas during his decade-long tenure here.

Most crucially for me, the defense was in disarray...but then improved somewhat midgame, despite being a young and weak unit.

Whereas when things fell apart under Ron, they tended to just keep on disintegrating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PantherBoy95 said:

Ron won.

He did but it sure seemed like the Eagles did everything they could to give away that game. Pederson definitely falls into those one year wonder/everything goes right type of coaches. You are up 17-0 and you go for it on 4th down at midfield twice? You deserve to lose. Both of those led directly to Washington scores.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron also came from years as a coveted DC in the NFL, Rhule did not

And yet for all his time here his defense ranked an average of like #18 in the NFL...

His offense ranked slightly worse

Special teams even worse than that

I’m still trying to figure out what exactly he did so well and can’t help believe the players really just had to overcome his BS

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...