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!

     

Fox, Jake, Peppers, Moving on

pantherpain

By pantherpain,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

pantherpain Apprentice

pantherpain

Posted
  • Author
Posted

You're confusing elite with competitive.

Elite teams don't f**k the monkey every other year, nor do they wilt and fold whenever there are expectations on them.

We're a competitive team. We're nowhere near elite.

Agree, we like to pat ourselves on the back to much on this board sometimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lout Newbie

Lout

Posted
Posted

You're confusing elite with competitive.

Elite teams don't f**k the monkey every other year, nor do they wilt and fold whenever there are expectations on them.

We're a competitive team. We're nowhere near elite.

Maybe "elite" was the wrong word, but we are the 2nd most successful team in the NFC in the last 7 years overall. No one can compare to Philly in the NFC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
panthers55 Grand Master

panthers55

Posted
Posted

Why in the world would we pay Peppers that!

Because we value him for whatever reason and it is cheaper to pay him 20 million on a one year deal than pay him long-term to a 90 million deal and guaranteeing him 30-35 million which is what it would take.

This way we get his best years, are not on the hook for a long term contract and still come out cheaper. If 2011 is a lockup year it will be a great decision not to have to pay him a cent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Squirrel Collaborator

Squirrel

Posted
Posted

Because we value him for whatever reason and it is cheaper to pay him 20 million on a one year deal than pay him long-term to a 90 million deal and guaranteeing him 30-35 million which is what it would take.

This way we get his best years, are not on the hook for a long term contract and still come out cheaper. If 2011 is a lockup year it will be a great decision not to have to pay him a cent.

But if their is a cap we cripple ourselves. Plus the way the team is acting they dont have that much money to spare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
unicar15 Experienced

unicar15

Posted
Posted

I don't see Fox being a "lame duck" at all. He is one of the most well-respected coaches in the league and would be picked up at least as a coordinator if he left here.

There is no way he leaves on his own accord. He will stay and have his typical good season (after a bad one this year) and will probably get a contract extension out of it and the cycle will continue...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
panthers55 Grand Master

panthers55

Posted
Posted

But if their is a cap we cripple ourselves. Plus the way the team is acting they dont have that much money to spare.

There won't be a cap until 2011 and by then he will be approaching 32. We either let him go or sign him to a much lower contract. The money issue is that if there is a lockout, the team will be making no money but on the hook for lots of salaries. This way we cut out losses and owe him nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Squirrel Collaborator

Squirrel

Posted
Posted

There won't be a cap until 2011 and by then he will be approaching 32. We either let him go or sign him to a much lower contract. The money issue is that if there is a lockout, the team will be making no money but on the hook for lots of salaries. This way we cut out losses and owe him nothing.

Yeah but they will want to conserve some cash if there is a lockout. Last time I remebered a strike in the NFL was in 82. I know the NHL had one in 2002 or 2003 season where they didnt play. But in 82 the teams still played with scrubs. If there is a lockout I wouldnt be surprised if the teams did that again ( If they can).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pantherpain Apprentice

pantherpain

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Because we value him for whatever reason and it is cheaper to pay him 20 million on a one year deal than pay him long-term to a 90 million deal and guaranteeing him 30-35 million which is what it would take.

This way we get his best years, are not on the hook for a long term contract and still come out cheaper. If 2011 is a lockup year it will be a great decision not to have to pay him a cent.

Has any team ever tagged a player in back to back years? And for what would be close to 40 mill for 2 year's. Thats just crazy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pantherman Newbie

Pantherman

Posted
Posted
There won't be a cap until 2011 and by then he will be approaching 32. We either let him go or sign him to a much lower contract. The money issue is that if there is a lockout, the team will be making no money but on the hook for lots of salaries. This way we cut out losses and owe him nothing.
Umm by next training camp peppers will be 32. He is already 31 years ole right now. Where you been at.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
westcaro Newbie

westcaro

Posted
Posted

Just because Peppers is good doesn't mean we need to throw a lot of money at him. He either stays or leaves. He is not the team. He needs to realize that. We get some young defensive players in the draft along with one more running back. Once we do that and if, IF Moore can take over and do a better job than Delhomme, then we will be a better team. Only if Moore can do better than Delhomme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

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...