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!

     

Three young perennial pro bowlers on defense?


Jeremy Igo

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, hepcat said:

Now just think how much better the defense will be without Tre Boston 

I'm going to go out here on a limb and defend Tre. He's been playing well and he's been around the ball on every play throughout the year and has been at his best when he's been positioned and played aggressively by the scheme. The guy has given veteran leadership back there and has shown a willingness to not only be part of the pass defense but an active participant in the run defense and has been a better tackler this season than most of his career.

The guy catches a lot of hate on here, but sh!t the guy has been playing hard and making an impact. Really, evaluate the man for what he's doing on the field rather than making some unfounded hot take based on an easy to spot player. The guy is playing safety, not corner, and he's been pretty good at roving the field and making plays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Khyber53 said:

I'm going to go out here on a limb and defend Tre. He's been playing well and he's been around the ball on every play throughout the year and has been at his best when he's been positioned and played aggressively by the scheme.

Guy plays hard and generally is above average. Sure, he's whiffed on a couple of tackles and people here act like he misses every tackle. It's easy to pick on one glaring mistake and ignore the general body of work. For whatever reason, some guys just become punching bags for this forum without a lot of rationale. Probably related to general frustration.

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...