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!

     

2004 Season vs. Now


beastson

Recommended Posts

I'd have to agree. The only season you can compare this to is the 1-15, except this time we have the talent. We are on week 13 and are easily one of the worst preforming teams in the NFL. It does get worse, we could have went 0-16.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd have to agree. The only season you can compare this to is the 1-15, except this time we have the talent. We are on week 13 and are easily one of the worst preforming teams in the NFL. It does get worse, we could have went 0-16.

Luckily, I think a lot of people think it's not because the team sucks, but because of one player, coaching or just a fluke.

Versus like, the Lions or the Raiders, for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 2004 Jake was a good QB. We had devastating injuries but we also had decent depth and high character guys to lead the team. We also had Jordan Carstens. Fox did a great job in rallying the team to a 6 game win streak. I think 04 squad was actually one of the better teams of this franchise. And even though they don't have the talent the 09 team does I think that team would kick the 09 teams ass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why bring up 2004? That was an exciting year. The worst years under Fox have been the past four (2008 excluded). And that's a bad sign, he's trending down down down.

Trending down makes no sense since you can't just exclude the 12-4 season last year. Plus this year is not over. If you had said we were inconsistent and erratic, you could surly make a case. But as for trending down- not so much.

Plus you could also say that he has had only one losing record in the past 4 years not counting this year which isn't complete and that was only 7-9. This year may be his worst but we won't know until we see what Moore can do.

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...