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!

     

Midseason NFL News


Mr. Scot
 Share

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, mav1234 said:

He is wrong about Dak. Dak isn't always amazing but he's not a game manager...

Others are harder.  They each have their moments. 

Game managers have moments. It's more about when you go away from that reality with the playcalls you are likely to see why they are game managers. It's 100% true for them all.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Waldo said:

Game managers have moments. It's more about when you go away from that reality with the playcalls you are likely to see why they are game managers. It's 100% true for them all.

I suppose it depends what you consider a game manager, but IMO, Dak is aggressive with the football, even at times he shouldn't be, which pays off in part because of the talent around him.  He DOES change the game.  He's very hot and cold tho... Like to Cam's point, his team is so stacked he could win games by just doing nothing. But that isn't what he does, and it's a big reason why they've scored 30+ in 6 of the last 7 including 4 games with 40+ points.

I mean IMO one of the best ways to measure a difference maker / game changer is 4th quarter come backs, come from behind wins, etc., tho of course this also depends on the team.  But still, Dak had 8 4th quarter come backs and 14 game winning drives in his first 3 years... Brock Purdy, by comparison, has only 1 4th quarter comeback so far (albeit in only 22 games). Lamar Jackson has 8 4th quarter come backs and 10 game winning drives...

Fwiw, Cam - who I love, and am not knocking - has fewer game winning drives (20 vs 21) across his career and with basically 40 more starts only has 3 more 4th quarter comebacks. A lot of that is the teams and I would 100% take prime Cam over Dak in a heartbeat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, mav1234 said:

I suppose it depends what you consider a game manager, but IMO, Dak is aggressive with the football, even at times he shouldn't be, which pays off in part because of the talent around him.  He DOES change the game.  He's very hot and cold tho... Like to Cam's point, his team is so stacked he could win games by just doing nothing. But that isn't what he does, and it's a big reason why they've scored 30+ in 6 of the last 7 including 4 games with 40+ points.

I mean IMO one of the best ways to measure a difference maker / game changer is 4th quarter come backs, come from behind wins, etc., tho of course this also depends on the team.  But still, Dak had 8 4th quarter come backs and 14 game winning drives in his first 3 years... Brock Purdy, by comparison, has only 1 4th quarter comeback so far (albeit in only 22 games). Lamar Jackson has 8 4th quarter come backs and 10 game winning drives...

Fwiw, Cam - who I love, and am not knocking - has fewer game winning drives (20 vs 21) across his career and with basically 40 more starts only has 3 more 4th quarter comebacks. A lot of that is the teams and I would 100% take prime Cam over Dak in a heartbeat.

As a game manager they win. With him as a gunslinger he can be a big liability. I guess they could let him be a gunslinger like he was more with his earlier coaching crew but as a game manager they are winning more and he is more reliable. They have had back to back playoff appearances with him playing that type of game since McCarthy got there and it works best for him. So  you are right he can be more than that but he really shouldn't until they don't have a choice like in the playoffs but his record is 2-4 there so I think that supports his best role as a game manager. 

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

    • 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.
    • Get any shot you can at humane society, so much cheaper
×
×
  • Create New...