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!

     

Saints vs Cardinals Gameday Thread


Kevin Greene

Recommended Posts

from behind? How is that not a block in the back at least?

The hit was from the side, not the back... it was a legal hit. That's why they say "keep your head on a swivel" or you'll get killed. Warner found out the hard way.

Nobody's mentioned the other aspect of that play... it was a hell of an interception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The hit was from the side, not the back... it was a legal hit. That's why they say "keep your head on a swivel" or you'll get killed. Warner found out the hard way.

Nobody's mentioned the other aspect of that play... it was a hell of an interception.

If that was a punt returner and not a lineman barreling down the field, it would have been called a block in the back every time. :icon_bs:

Even if it was legal, it was a legal cheap shot. :coolgleamA:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that was a punt returner and not a lineman barreling down the field, it would have been called a block in the back every time. :icon_bs:

Even if it was legal, it was a legal cheap shot. :coolgleamA:

All defense men are taught to try to get a good legal hit on the QB if an interception is thrown. Warner was in the play and was perfectly ellegible to be blocked. Yes it was a nasty hit, but this is typical.

Panthers players would have done the same thing. You want to get big hits on the QB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that was a punt returner and not a lineman barreling down the field, it would have been called a block in the back every time. :icon_bs:

Even if it was legal, it was a legal cheap shot. :coolgleamA:

if it was Smitty throwing that block on Vilma we could call it amazing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that was a punt returner and not a lineman barreling down the field, it would have been called a block in the back every time. :icon_bs:

Even if it was legal, it was a legal cheap shot. :coolgleamA:

No way... they protect QB's in the NFL like little babies...they would have called it in a heart beat if it was illegal...

I see how you can say it was a cheap shot, but if a defensive player can take a legal shot at a QB, they'll do it every time and why not?

It would have been a lot more "cheap" if Warner was further from the play, but he was right there in the middle of it.

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...