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!

     

Leadership


Mr. Scot

Recommended Posts

Pulling a small piece from the "who's to blame' thread because this issue has come up a lot.

I'm a big believer in veteran leadership. And yes, right now the team doesn't have as much as they used to.

But understand this: They are not getting rid of leadership. They are shifting more of it to the coaches than before.

You can like it or dislike, but don't automatically assume the team has a gaping leaderhship void just because veterans are fewer and farther between on the roster.

When they were reloading the coaching staff last season, they put a big emphasis on teaching ability.

The time has now come for those guys to prove whether or not they can teach...and lead.

Or, to put it simply, coach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just hope we can replace veteran leadership. Coaches leadership doesn't compare to on-field leadership, and a guy who is out there giving it his all with every other player. I just hope some new players can step up. Leadership will be really important for a team where a lot is unknown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who has played sports or coached them at any level beyond middle school know that the players on the team provide more leadership than any coach can during the game. And that is when it matters. Coaches provide direction, guidance and support but fellow players are the guys you live die and fight for, not the coaches. Veteran leadership or lack of it is why every year teams like St Louis or Detroit pack it in by week 12. It was also the reason we hung in there when we were 4-7 last year and didn't tank.

It is going to take several guys stepping up this year beyond the few guys who are already leaders. Should make for an interesting several months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you guys really think that Harris would have been a good leader on this team? given his off-season actions, I think he would have been a problem.

Hard to say. Off the field leadership is not the same as on the field. Smitty shows alot of leadership on the field on game day. The rest of the time not so much. Harris could still have lead the defense secondary although he didn't agree with all the changes. Others likely feel the same but certainly going forward will be much less verbal about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pulling a small piece from the "who's to blame' thread because this issue has come up a lot.

I'm a big believer in veteran leadership. And yes, right now the team doesn't have as much as they used to.

But understand this: They are not getting rid of leadership. They are shifting more of it to the coaches than before.

You can like it or dislike, but don't automatically assume the team has a gaping leaderhship void just because veterans are fewer and farther between on the roster.

When they were reloading the coaching staff last season, they put a big emphasis on teaching ability.

The time has now come for those guys to prove whether or not they can teach...and lead.

Or, to put it simply, coach.

that is a pretty big reach to try to justify what is going on. Shifting leadership to the coaches and away from players? You need leaders on the field....they need that this year just as much as past seasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hard to say. Off the field leadership is not the same as on the field. Smitty shows alot of leadership on the field on game day. The rest of the time not so much. Harris could still have lead the defense secondary although he didn't agree with all the changes. Others likely feel the same but certainly going forward will be much less verbal about it.

go to the newspaper and bad mouth your company...then see how long you stay employed.

Harris may not have agreed with the direction the team was going. I would not have a problem with him questioning it internally with the staff. However, when he started Twittering that crap, he went from a leader to a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • From what I gather, sure it allows you more room in that you can manipulate the cap more due to smaller prorated amounts to fit salaries in, but for cap purposes, you're still on the hook for the money at the end of the day.    "ChatGPT You said: What are the advantages for NFL teams to sign larger signing bonuses? ChatGPT said: NFL teams often use large signing bonuses as a strategic tool in contracts. While they cost real cash up front, they offer several advantages, especially when it comes to salary cap management, player retention, and negotiation leverage. Here's a breakdown of the benefits: ✅ 1. Salary Cap Flexibility Signing bonuses are prorated over the life of the contract (up to 5 years) for salary cap purposes. This allows teams to spread out the cap hit, even if the player receives the money immediately. Example: A $20M signing bonus on a 4-year deal counts only $5M/year against the cap. ✅ 2. Attracting Top Talent Players love signing bonuses because they're guaranteed money paid up front. Offering a bigger signing bonus can sweeten the deal without inflating yearly salaries. ✅ 3. Front-Loading Real Cash, Not Cap Teams with strong cash flow can pay big bonuses now while minimizing the immediate cap hit. Useful for teams trying to build around rookie QB contracts or with flexible cash budgets. ✅ 4. Locking in Key Players Larger bonuses make it harder for a player to be released early due to dead cap consequences. This can create more job security for the player and roster continuity for the team. ✅ 5. Leverage in Restructures Big signing bonuses create future cap hits via proration. Teams can later restructure deals (e.g., convert salary to bonus) to create even more cap space. ✅ 6. Competitive Edge In free agency, a team offering more guaranteed cash up front often wins the bidding war, even if the total contract value is lower than another team's. ⚠️ Key Caveat: Large signing bonuses increase dead cap risk if the player is cut or traded early."   I think that roster bonuses can be a useful tool if you're trying to keep players in by manipulating numbers and spreading the hit over time, but I don't think that it's something that you want to use unless it's "necessary." I don't know that you want to get into signing rookies on roster bonuses, as the bust rate is relatively high.    
    • not even if that team in New Orleans disbands before the first game.  Saw one 2026 mock that had them drafting first next year.  
    • Right, so basically what I said in my first post about this last night. Tepper needs to use that big wallet of his in one of the few ways it can be used in the NFL given the cap.   Give Scourton a bigger signing bonus but not a fully guaranteed deal. Everyone wins in that scenario as if Scourton is smart and hires good money people, he'll take that bigger signing bonus and use it to make more money in the end over the next 4 years than if he just had his fully guaranteed deal and a smaller signing bonus.
×
×
  • Create New...