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!

     

Peters is out - GM Search down to 3 candidates


Zod

Recommended Posts

I wonder if it was our decision or his?

If a GM candidate has other options offering full traditional GM control, I can't see us appealing to that candidate with the model we seem to be creating. Sure looks like we're creating the full on Rhule Show and this "GM" is at best going to be a cog in the wheel and at worst be a rubber stamp and paper pusher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LinvilleGorge said:

1. Poles

2. Fitterer

3. Ossenfort

Ultimately, I think Ossenfort it will be the guy. Tepper has a hard on for the Pats and Ossenfort has the most experience in that organization.

Exactly where I’m at.

Although I’m thinking Fitterer may have an edge given he comes from a place that seems to have a very similar dynamic with Pete being involved 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 2013 everyone wanted Marc Ross. Everyone was making fun of the 49ers for hiring John Lynch. All the Giants fans I know were circlejerking over Dave Gettleman. I remember Panthers fans needing a vallium when it was rumored that Brandon Beane was going to take over for Marty Hurney, now everyone wishes he would have. 

 

The point is, there's just no way to know about executives when you're a fan. We have no idea who is actually responsible for what and who would actually be the best fit for the job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CanePantherHornet said:

In 2013 everyone wanted Marc Ross. Everyone was making fun of the 49ers for hiring John Lynch. All the Giants fans I know were circlejerking over Dave Gettleman. I remember Panthers fans needing a vallium when it was rumored that Brandon Beane was going to take over for Marty Hurney, now everyone wishes he would have. 

 

The point is, there's just no way to know about executives when you're a fan. We have no idea who is actually responsible for what and who would actually be the best fit for the job.

Most logical post ever made on this forum. [insert slow clap gif]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, CanePantherHornet said:

In 2013 everyone wanted Marc Ross. Everyone was making fun of the 49ers for hiring John Lynch. All the Giants fans I know were circlejerking over Dave Gettleman. I remember Panthers fans needing a vallium when it was rumored that Brandon Beane was going to take over for Marty Hurney, now everyone wishes he would have. 

 

The point is, there's just no way to know about executives when you're a fan. We have no idea who is actually responsible for what and who would actually be the best fit for the job.

Pffft...schlogic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CanePantherHornet said:

In 2013 everyone wanted Marc Ross. Everyone was making fun of the 49ers for hiring John Lynch. All the Giants fans I know were circlejerking over Dave Gettleman. I remember Panthers fans needing a vallium when it was rumored that Brandon Beane was going to take over for Marty Hurney, now everyone wishes he would have. 

 

The point is, there's just no way to know about executives when you're a fan. We have no idea who is actually responsible for what and who would actually be the best fit for the job.

Lol this ^^^
 

people thought Gettleman was the architect behind some dynasty. Reality was the Giants were an average franchise that strung together 2 improbable immortal runs that got them Lombardi’s. I would kill for just one and I dont care how we get it, but the idea that the Giants were the model franchise in the 10 years before we hired Gettleman was hilarious

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...