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!

     

To the cat that got away....


Zod

Recommended Posts

You bastard.

I cut a tasty 4 inch perch for you, just the right size, just how you like them. I weigh him down with a 2 ounce weight and toss him out with a large hook. I wait.

You come along and take the perch while just about dragging my rod and reel in the water with you. You fight like hell for about a minute, bending the pole in half. Just when I think I have you a little tired out, you snap the line.

You will be caught my friend. Oh yes, you will be caught. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon you will be battered and fried.

Love,

Zod

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those BIG cats you want at least 20lb test.

And a bigger bait. You'll catch catfish faster using 4 inch cut, but if you double that, you increase your chances of catching a lunker.

People always look at me crazy when I hook a live bream about the size of my hand and lob it out. But if they ever see what I catch once in awhile, they'll see why I do it.

My trees are covered in catalpa worms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never eat a channel catfish. Now blues and flatheads on the other hand taste wonderful. Well, I've never eaten a flattie, but I hear they taste good.

Little known fact about blues and flatties is they prefer live food, and current, whereas channels eat just about anything and inhabit backwater coves where the water tends to stagnate.

Channel catfish taste like mud, but blues taste like some kind of awesome combo of chicken/pork/fish. I'll tear a blue up. You couldn't pay me to eat a channel that isn't farm raised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never eat a channel catfish. Now blues and flatheads on the other hand taste wonderful. Well, I've never eaten a flattie, but I hear they taste good.

Little known fact about blues and flatties is they prefer live food, and current, whereas channels eat just about anything and inhabit backwater coves where the water tends to stagnate.

Channel catfish taste like mud, but blues taste like some kind of awesome combo of chicken/pork/fish. I'll tear a blue up. You couldn't pay me to eat a channel that isn't farm raised.

Yep.

In my old age I'm almost exclusively C&R these days, but used to chuck stinky stuff for channels. Oily stinky fish cutbait. Livers in nylons. You name it.

Haven't had the pleasure of meeting ol' blue, but I've mastered the disaster that is the flat.

Hey Zod, my faves for cats

Fireline

berkley_fireline.jpg

With a Palomar knot

palomar_knot.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • 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...