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!

     

If you haven't seen "The Blind Side" yet...


Jangler

Recommended Posts

It is a very good movie, I thought. But the best reason to see it is...

Sandra Bullock's Ass!!!!

the-blind-side-poster-1.jpg

Damn, Jesse James is a fool. And after watching her ass for two hours I am now convinced of that. So, if you like Sandy you will love it. Plus she looks pretty good as a blonde.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah really....I mean her ass is epic! And she is pretty good in it.

I am probably in the minority but Sandra Bullock is not an attractive woman. She has something about her that irks me also......although I admit I did see her in Speed and Forces of Nature which were tolerable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

who is ure fav actress? johnny?

You mean besides Dakota Fanning and Miley?

Honestly that is probably half the reason...there really isn't an actress out there that makes me want to see a certain movie because they are in it, but they can make me not see a movie. Merryl Streep is the only one that I can think of that might make me consider seeing a movie because she is in it.

If Witherspoon or Aniston are in a movie.....I already know it is a movie my wife would like which means I would hate it.

Sandra at least does take on different roles but like I said...she just irks me. I would have seen the Blind Side if she wasn't in it.....I know I am in the minority.

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...