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!

     

More NFL News

Mr. Scot

By Mr. Scot,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

45catfan Grand Master

45catfan

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, KillerKat said:

I like Warriors but they would have to do a slight modification to the logo. They may want to stay away from anything native and instead of the spear, maybe a medieval sword or something like that have a knight as a mascot. On the other hand, the Chiefs use an arrowhead on their logo. I guess they would have to have discussions about the spear.

It wasn't the logo but the name itself that was objectionable.  I figure as long as the depiction of the elderly Indian isn't the logo they could even use the old feather logo too, just with a 'W' encircled instead of an 'R', if they went with Warriors.

Chiefs stadium is literally Arrowhead stadium, Atlanta still uses the Braves in baseball and FSU uses the Seminoles name.  Referencing Indians in sports isn't offensive to most as long as it's done with integrity.  I get were Redskins was the most offensive nickname is sports, but it doesn't mean that DC should have to steer 100% away from Indian theme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KillerKat Grand Master

KillerKat

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, 45catfan said:

It wasn't the logo but the name itself that was objectionable.  I figure as long as the depiction of the elderly Indian isn't the logo they could even use the old feather logo too, just with a 'W' encircled instead of an 'R', if they went with Warriors.

Chiefs stadium is literally Arrowhead stadium, Atlanta still uses the Braves in baseball and FSU uses the Seminoles name.  Referencing Indians in sports isn't offensive to most as long as it's done with integrity.  I get were Redskins was the most offensive nickname is sports, but it doesn't mean that DC should have to steer 100% away from Indian theme.

yeah it would be sweet to go back to the old uniforms. Ive thought of other names:


Warriors - With the original spear or some other form of pointy object and could keep the current W as secondary or primary.


Warthogs - Self explanatory.


Calvary - Would be a good option as a throwback to the older forms of the military. Could use the old calvary sword as a logo along with the current W as secondary or primary.

Reds - Shortened version for the Redtail Hawks. Could easily use the bird as the logo with the W as secondary, but they may think there are already too many bird names in the league. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OneBadCat Grand Master

OneBadCat

Posted
Posted (edited)

I thought the Commanders name was just another insult to Native Americans, granted I don’t speak for them. But it felt like doubling down on the insult instead of changing the name to something like The Warriors or The Natives that would at least attempt to honor and put a positive light on them. 

Edited by OneBadCat
  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WUnderhill Grand Master

WUnderhill

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, OneBadCat said:

I thought the Commanders name was just another insult to Native Americans, granted I don’t speak for them. But it felt like doubling down on the insult instead of changing the name to something like The Warriors or The Natives that would at least attempt to honor and put a positive light on them. 

Might as well own speaking for them, that’s how we got here to begin with. How many Native Americans did you see on ESPN banging the drum for the name change? 

And oh lawd “The Natives” would have been lambasted lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jackie Lee Grand Master

Jackie Lee

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

I remember growing up RB was the most popular position to play. I played it in highschool. Now it seems like the worst position to play less money and you take the most hits on the team.

 

I can understand why these RB's feel a certain way. That position is no joke. Imagine taking the most hits on offense yet you're the lowest paid player.

And you're taking on difficult blocks when you aren't physically running into a wall of 300 pound guys. Unlike the receivers who can just kinda pretend to block db's when they aren't the read

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gerry Green Veteran

Gerry Green

Posted
Posted

Until a QB pay scale gets worked out. Or the Cap goes up to account for those larger salaries. I'm afraid teams are going to have to find ways to cut costs. Last year the WRs got lesser contracts, and this year it's the RBs. 

 

The Cap was supposed to help level out the field. All it has really done is muddy up the waters.

 

Putting a Cap on the QB pay scale would make it easier to even out the spoils. But I wouldn't hold my breath on it happening.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BlackPanther22 Rising Star

BlackPanther22

Posted
Posted

Not to detract from the convo going on in here but I’ve been exposed to Bears twitter this week….man those are some of the most delusional fans ever. I know we have some delusional people in our fanbase but they be trippin over there lol. 
 

I get that they have our pick next year and want us to do bad but the way some of their fans talk you’d think they didn’t earn the #1 pick and that we did lmao. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LinvilleGorge Grand Master

LinvilleGorge

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Gerry Green said:

Until a QB pay scale gets worked out. Or the Cap goes up to account for those larger salaries. I'm afraid teams are going to have to find ways to cut costs. Last year the WRs got lesser contracts, and this year it's the RBs. 

 

The Cap was supposed to help level out the field. All it has really done is muddy up the waters.

 

Putting a Cap on the QB pay scale would make it easier to even out the spoils. But I wouldn't hold my breath on it happening.

For the good of the players as a whole, a QB cap would be a great thing. Or just a max contract stipulation, period. But for competitiveness the current system is best. Want that MVP caliber QB? It's gonna cost you a big chunk of your cap. Put a cap on contracts and that handful of teams that has a legit MVP caliber QB on the roster is gonna have an even bigger competitive advantage than the huge one they already have. 

 

  • 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
Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • jasonluckydog
      C Mc. Gotta love this guy!!

      By jasonluckydog · Posted

      Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • TD alt
      C Mc. Gotta love this guy!!

      By TD alt · Posted

      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.
    • TD alt
      Scourton isn't signed (& apparently it's a thing)

      By TD alt · Posted

      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...