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!

     

People, stop blaming the offense, blame the DEFENSE


Mr ocho nueve

Recommended Posts

The defense didn't play great but they also don't deserve an F- either. They deserve more of a C+. They did what they did and provided narrow windows of opportunity. Yes, they could have played 10x better than what they did but you can only do so much when your QB is throwing the game. This wasn't the defenses fault, this wasn't the offenses fault, this wasn't "entirely" the coaches fault it was all JAKE DELHOMME.

Our defense stops them on their first drive and they pin us deep and Delsuck does what he's been doing all year - fumbles. Putting them in the red zone. Then, when we are about to score again, he throws another interception in the end zone. Delhomme single handedly screwed this game over for us. He should shoulder 85 percent of the blame for this one, no joke.

That along with piss pore coaching is unacceptable. I was taking nyquill for 2 weeks just so I could go to bed at night bc I was so amped about this game and it turns out we don't even really get to see our offense play because of Delhomme. Sporting one of the absolute best tandems in the past 10 years, and they don't even get to do their thing because of this guy.

We were never in it people. Never in it. Jake Delhomme was sure of that. Williams and Stewart had no say in the matter.

And Fox saying "well we had a good year" baffles me. We pay out the ass for tickets and FINALLY get a playoff game to not even show up. Tennessee lost, but hell, at least they got to actually watch a GOOD football game.

I'm depressed and going to bad now, off to search for some more nyquill...

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...