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!

     

Byron Leftwitch


89=#1

Recommended Posts

First of all, I have read the FA QB boards and i no hes is not a free agent, but is their away we could trade for this guy? I am not as knowledgeable as most of you on these things so please dont crucify me for this post.

If it is possible i think he would be a hell of a fit. He has a cannon for an arm, he has some escapability (at least a lot more than jake), and still has age on his side. The only thing that scares me with him is he is definetely injury prone.

Look what he would have in his favor,

1. A great running game

2. A great o-line

3. An elite reciever who still has 2-3 years left in his prime, an older reciever that is still capable, an up and coming reciever in Dwayne Jarret (I believe he was one of the only bright spots last night).

4. A play action passing game that I believe would fit him and his big arm well.

Let me end by saying I love Jake Delhomme, he is a great guy and has had some good seasons here, but it is time for a change. Imagine what we could do with a guy who could hit smitty in stride on the long balls, the guy would have 300 more recieving yards and 5 more tds next season. Jake has been ok but, is OK enough i dont think so. If not B. Leftwich then maybe someone else but we need a change bad. We have a brutal schedule next year.

Like I said I dont even know if it is possible but give me your thought thanks.

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...