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!

     

NFL Coach/GM Updates


ProcessBlue2
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Mr. Scot said:

I'd agree, it ain't just us.

I would argue from an analytical stand point we got it right compared to the falcons. Last 5 years, Offense coordinator hires .542 winning %, Defense coordinators hired winning % .415, Rehires winning % is .489, combine that with Morris's 24-38 first go around may not be a good hire.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure why people say our process was wrong. We hired an outside firm (a very successful one at that) to lead our search. In addition we included our president of football, our owners and a football vet in Caldwell. Made 100% sense to me.

We decided on a GM and he was a big part of the decision for the new HC.

Everyone might not like the choices, but the process seemed very sound.

  • Pie 5
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Martin said:

Not sure why people say our process was wrong. We hired an outside firm (a very successful one at that) to lead our search. In addition we included our president of football, our owners and a football vet in Caldwell. Made 100% sense to me.

We decided on a GM and he was a big part of the decision for the new HC.

Everyone might not like the choices, but the process seemed very sound.

People are so beat down that Tepper could hire Jesus or Buddah and people would complain. Folks love to wallow in a pit of negativity for some odd reason.

  • Pie 3
  • Beer 1
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, OldhamA said:

Have you been in a coma the last 6 years?

That may be preferable to some of the things I read on here. Look, Tepper is a problem but he is not going away and there is nothing any of us can do about that. I choose to have hope that he can learn how to be a decent owner over time. It can happen, Robert Kraft comes to mind. The alternative to that would be Daniel Snyder. Just living constantly in negative waves gets old. I will HOPE that Canales is the guy to turn this circus around, time will tell. Until then I will let it play out without shitting on every tweet or article or decision that is made by Morgan and Canales.

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

😄

If the team does anything to acquire a wr it should be to trade a defensive player for a young up and coming player on another team if possible. Otherwise, that money should go to building the oline and add a younger playmaker from the draft.

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
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...