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!

     

"Sam needs preseason reps, this coaching staff is clueless."


Rags
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Mother Grabber said:

does Darnold get credit for the low snap that he picked up off the ground and rolled out to try to make a play? 

 

He played great. I’m not really worried about the pick. He was getting hit in the back while trying to toss a quick pass to a wide open Hubbard. Getting hit in the back messed up his release and someone else tipped the ball. Should he had just taken the sack? Sure, but he had no clue he was about to get hit in the back before he decided to toss it.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ForJimmy said:

Who were the Saints missing on offense? Our defense had their way with them. Honestly could have been a shut out aside from that TO that led to the short field TD…

I know they were missing their center which would have some effect, but most of the pressure was not from the interior.

That's fine.  Let the saints believe their missing players were the reason.  No need to adjust, Saints.  Just stay the course.

  • Pie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, hepcat said:

Darnold looks better than I expected him to and I admit that. But to be fair he’s been backed by 2 dominant defensive performances so I’m not crowning him the franchise savior yet either. We haven’t seen him in a game where he has to play from behind or make a game winning drive so there’s a lot still to see.

Exactly. We have a game manager who keep the chains moving. Exactly what you can win games with if you don't have to score 30 points to win. The defense is always so important to the offense. I remember when Brees used to put up huge numbers and they went 7-9 until they got a defense. I hope Darnold can come back and win if we need it. I like even better when we lead from start to finish like we have so far. I am on the Darnold train. I sure hope it is a great ride. 

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

Exactly. We have a game manager who keep the chains moving. Exactly what you can win games with if you don't have to score 30 points to win. The defense is always so important to the offense. I remember when Brees used to put up huge numbers and they went 7-9 until they got a defense. I hope Darnold can come back and win if we need it. I like even better when we lead from start to finish like we have so far. I am on the Darnold train. I sure hope it is a great ride. 

In theory he should only get better the more he plays in this offense. He made some nice throws on 3rd down to seal the game. I might be more concerned with Brady and our offensive line coming back from behind than Darnold…

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

In theory he should only get better the more he plays in this offense. He made some nice throws on 3rd down to seal the game. I might be more concerned with Brady and our offensive line coming back from behind than Darnold…

To me Darnold is a battler. He is tough and keeps trying to make plays. I have been impressed. He has to be really happy at 2-0 with this defense. He has never had this kind of team to play on. He must be thanking his stars he got traded from the Jets.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LinvilleGorge said:

It's the truth. A win is a win and I'll take it, especially a divisional win. But I'm not gonna strut around and act like the Saints weren't seriously hampered today. 

The Panthers played an NFL team and had an absolutely convincingly dominating win. How long has it been since we can say that? Let us be happy please.

  • Pie 3
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

Who were the Saints missing on offense? Our defense had their way with them. Honestly could have been a shut out aside from that TO that led to the short field TD…

Apparently Erik McCoy is the difference between putting up 38 points against the Packers versus only having 128 yards total and a measly 7 points after getting the ball in the redzone on a turnover. Someone give that man a $50 million per year contract.

  • Pie 2
  • Beer 1
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • 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...