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!

     

panthers thin @ RB for the moment but....

rayzor

By rayzor,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

rayzor Grand Master

rayzor

Posted
Posted

that could be a good thing.

just like smith being out is the best thing that could happen as far as reps for the non-89ers, being without stewart, sutton, and now goodson will/may mean more attention paid to the passing game.

our run game is already set. they all know what to do. it's the passing game that has needed the most work and this gives them an excuse to focus a lot more on it.

it already looks like the passing game is going to be a bit more active and advanced even with the n00bs at WR. a new QB that is capable of a lot more combined with a new WR coach that isn't old enough to be everyone's great-grandfather may mean that the overall passing game does take it up a few notches this year.

you take williamson (very old school) and jake (old dog ≠ new tricks or schemes) and you have a recipe for a very scaled back and limited/not very creative passing game regardless of who you have at WR.

since we have both of those things changed and now a reason to scale back on the rushing game during training camp it should be much better this year.

thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PantherProfessor Newbie

PantherProfessor

Posted
Posted

I agree, as long as our key players get enough reps to shake the rust off, i am all for keeping them healthy. one thing the vet purge has caused is a huge lack of proven depth, so injuries (i.e. Davis) at key positions from our elite guys must be prevented at all costs.

but it atleast makes the preseason and camp more fun, since we get a look at some unknown players who have a chance to standout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wither Newbie

Wither

Posted
Posted

i agree that it will be good for the passing game, but i think we should bring in someone until every1 is back practicing. maybe someone like Justin Fargas or maybe even Brian Westbrook.

Yeah... won't happen.

The FB's can still block on passing downs (play as RB).

Also, why does everyone think Smitty will be in the slot? I doubt he will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wither Newbie

Wither

Posted
Posted

Better matchups with Smitty in the slot.

Nobody is saying he'll play only in the slot, but with some other talent out on the field, it'll be easier and better to move Smitty around.

I just have a feeling he won't be in the slot that much...

Actually I think playing Moore in the slot with Smitty on the outside will be better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • jasonluckydog
      C Mc. Gotta love this guy!!

      By jasonluckydog · Posted

      Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • TD alt
      C Mc. Gotta love this guy!!

      By TD alt · Posted

      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.
    • TD alt
      Scourton isn't signed (& apparently it's a thing)

      By TD alt · Posted

      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...