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!

     

"John Kasay Stadium"


Stovewood

Recommended Posts

:confused: Uhhh were it not for Kasay's foot during that season we would have won ONE (1)....(That is less than two but more than zero.) games. I'd say the Super Bowl was his to lose. Hate they had dump the outcome in his lap again.

I haven't finished reworking the numbers to current date, but so far; up to but not including the 2003 season, Kasay's foot won an average of 4 more games per season, up to the '03 season. As I said his foot was critical in ALL but one win in the 03 season. I'm afraid the outcome of these stats will speak volumns about our ability to produce in the red zone.

FIFTY -FIVE YARDS !!!!!!!!! Pretty freekin good for an "old man."

If not for game winning field goals that season we would not have been in the Superbowl

One aww poo negates a hundred attaboys

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah its time to cut lloyd
kasay doing kick offs? lol.

well, we're not exactly a high scoring offense. he'd probably only have to do 3 or 4 a game this year. why not? sure, the ball would only get to the 40 but our kick off coverage is pretty good, right? right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no kidding. maybe if it was an MLS team, but you don't name a football stadium after a kicker. Name a sammich after him or retire his number. end of story.

Dan Morgan named pizza's after players, and we all see how that worked out...(his food was good though, don't know how his placed closed down though)

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...