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!

     

True or False (food for thought for entertainment purposes only)?


top dawg

Recommended Posts

1.Colbert and Carter weren't so bad after all.

2.Dan Henning is a god!

3.A half of Pep is better than no Pep at all.

4.Jerry Richardson is the alter ego of Al Davis (with similar results).

5.One Hoover and one Muhammad does not an O-line make (or break).

6.Otah can apparently move earth (and men) like Bagger 288

7.Clausen is Carr's fraternal twin (not identical, mind you, but...).

8.At BOA, blackouts are closer to reality than black uniforms.

9.Steve Smith has another side that we have yet to see.

10.Foxholes are closer to black holes than assholes.

11. In reference to number 10, Jarrett is either a victim of all three and/or can't tell the difference between the three.

12. Double Trouble has morphed into Double Bubble.

13. Foxes chase their tails too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.Colbert and Carter weren't so bad after all.

False. They were still poo, and were typical Hurney picks at WR. For proper tear inducing perspective, Steve Smith was a Seifert pick.

2.Dan Henning is a god!

False. But he's better than we thought he was. And he has more Superbowl rings than John Fox ever will.

3.A half of Pep is better than no Pep at all.

True. And that frigging hurts.

4.Jerry Richardson is the alter ego of Al Davis (with similar results).

False. Al Davis spends money.

5.One Hoover and one Muhammad does not an O-line make (or break).

True. But no Hoover + no Moose apparently does equal a dropoff.

6.Otah can apparently move earth (and men) like Bagger 288

False. He's just another excuse for people to throw out rather than owning up to the fact that this is still the same predictable offense we've had since 2002, only now with less talent & guts.

7.Clausen is Carr's fraternal twin (not identical, mind you, but...).

False. David Carr is a crime against football, a Leaf-esque bust.

8.At BOA, blackouts are closer to reality than black uniforms.

True.

9.Steve Smith has another side that we have yet to see.

False. Smitty wears his heart on his sleeve.

10.Foxholes are closer to black holes than assholes.

I don't know, but Fox is an asshole I'd like to see shut his Foxhole, & be swallowed by a Black Hole.

11. In reference to number 10, Jarrett is either a victim of all three and/or can't tell the difference between the three.

Both. Jarrett is a victim of poor coaching, poor selection, & his own lack of work ethic.

12. Double Trouble has morphed into Double Bubble.

False. They've morphed into the only thing we've got other than Smith, combined with "let's reduce DeAngelo's carries so we can lowball him or let him walk & say his production was dropping"

13. Foxes chase their tails too.

If you mean go round & round in circles with the same results & never adjusting, hell yes it's true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4.Jerry Richardson is the alter ego of Al Davis (with similar results).

False. Al Davis spends money.

7. Clausen is Carr's fraternal twin (not identical, mind you, but...).

False. David Carr is a crime against football, a Leaf-esque bust.

9. Steve has another side that we have yet to see.

False. Smitty wears his heart on his sleeve.

Because Davis Spends money, and J-Rich has turned into J-Poor, that's exactly why they may be alter egos. So different, yet similar in many ways; first and foremost, in their respective products on the field (though their receivers may be a year ahead, and our RBs a year ahead). Just saying.

When referring to Clausen and Carr, I was really not speaking of their success (or lack there-of) on the football field. Jimmy hasn't even had an opportunity yet. Wierd? Again, just saying.

Number 9 is really a trick question (think other side of the field). Very true on one level, and very false on another.

Thanks for answering. That was entertaining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

richardson doesn't spend money? lol.

aside from this year, when has he shown an unwillingness to spend money. we were always at the cap max or pretty well close to it.

once the CBA gets worked out we'll be right back there.

Hell, man, the whole of the NFL is at or near the max. But this thread is more about 2010 than anything else. Some would argue that the Panthers were at a crossroads this year (not saying that I agree, per se), and this is the year that Richardson decided to close the coffers without regard to specific and obvious needs.

It is arguable, but what Jerry did was tantamount to that hot chick teasing the hell out of you, building you up (and even letting you get a little taste), and then forcing you to pull out by saying "Stop!"

That's a crazy ass bitch.

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...