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!

     

Official Peppers bitch/whine thread. And TRADE IDEAS HERE!!!!


xtheronx

Recommended Posts

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/nfcsouth/0-7-104/Weighing-in-on-the-Peppers-situation.html

"Although he had 14.5 sacks this season, Peppers hasn't been happy in Carolina for quite some time. When Peppers was playing miserably in 2007 (just 2.5 sacks), I asked a teammate about the widespread rumors that something might be wrong physically. The teammate laughed, said no and pointed to his head.

The teammate went on to say that Peppers had stopped buying into Fox and simply was going through the motions."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yea I read that earlier, I was thinking that was part of his problem last year. It seems it was his only problems last year. It's really disturbing though, cause you have to wonder what other players has fox lost????

With the exception of Ken Lucas I think our team is good. Beason is a star in the makeing and commands respect from the D players. I wondered why pep sat by himself on the bench.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if thats true he can gtfo. send the grim reaper in oakland some combine film and get him to trade a 1st and 3rd for him. al always like phyical beast and thinks he can do anything with them. if he doesnt by into the team and plays like it, he can go.

this is beginning to sound like randy moss 2.0.

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...