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!

     

Cardinals fire Kingsbury


UNCrules2187
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, mav1234 said:

Nobody will care if the Chargers win or perform well in the playoffs.

It isn't just that.

It's been rumored for a while now that the Spanos family isn't happy with him and might want to move on.

If they think they can get Sean Payton, they won't need much of an excuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

It isn't just that.

It's been rumored for a while now that the Spanos family isn't happy with him and might want to move on.

If they think they can get Sean Payton, they won't need much of an excuse.

"You played some players for a couple quarters in a meaningless game and none of them missed time in the following playoff game but we're firing you anyway" is going to go over very well with folks lol.

I mean owners are weird beasts so hey...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mav1234 said:

"You played some players for a couple quarters in a meaningless game and none of them missed time in the following playoff game but we're firing you anyway" is going to go over very well with folks lol.

I mean owners are weird beasts so hey...

People are kind of used to the Spanos family doing stupid sh-t, so I don't know that anybody would be too shocked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Khyber53 said:

Cardinals should have released Murray instead. Their former HC and former GM will find gainful employment long before the Cardinals are relavent again.

Then again, it's the Cardinals, one of professional sports' most moribund enterprises.

Kingsbury probably gets another college job.

I'm not so sure about Keim getting another NFL job though.

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

14 minutes ago, Khyber53 said:

Cardinals should have released Murray instead. Their former HC and former GM will find gainful employment long before the Cardinals are relavent again.

Then again, it's the Cardinals, one of professional sports' most moribund enterprises.

Well, at nearly the same time they extended Kingsbury, who was in trouble this time last year, they extended Murray, whose future was also in doubt this time last year.

It's brilliant, really.  We should fire the coach and unload the QB, but instead, let's extend both!

 

  • Pie 2
  • The D 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Waldo said:

They are better off without either one but they also just extended both of them and their QB.

I have no idea who would want to work under that ownership or with that QB at this point. 

It has been a poorly run franchise for as long a I've followed the NFL, and hey were the team I grew up rooting for in St. Louis.  Bidwill senior was tight.  His coach and GM could do anything as long as it didn't cost him any money. 

Now his son is running the show and he doesn't seem as tight, but he also seems clueless.  His only upside, if my observation is correct, is he doesn't micromanage the football operations.  But he doesn't seem to be able to identify who can run the football operations, either.

I honestly thought they were going to unload both Kingsbury and Murray after the talk in the dying weeks last year.  You are correct, they would have been better off without them both.

  • Beer 2
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

    • 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...