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!

     

Luck or AJ Green?


Ricky Spanish

Recommended Posts

Drafting Luck is the obvious choice if we have the #1 overall pick. Trade Clausen for a 3rd if we can get it. A great Qb can make WRs look like All Stars. Look at Peyton.. he makes Pierre Garcon and Austen Collie look insane. I guarantee those guys would be nothing on the Carolina Panthers. QB is the answer.. the QB can improve our defense too.. keeping them off the field and keeping them fresh. Everything goes through the QB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I argued that he already has a good supporting cast, the offense just looks like poo due to bad play calling and clausen looks like a deer in headlights under center.

You argued that he has a good supporting cast? Have you seen how atrocious our line is?

The entire argument seemed like he was being a huge homer, specifically when he claimed that luck is only a decent Pac-10 QB, and won't be an elite one in the NFL because he only plays in the Pac-10, but Clausen will... I called him a retard then named every good QB to ever come out of the Pac-10 in the history of the NFL.

I have a better one for you, name 1 good QB in the NFL today thats from the Pac 10 not named Aaron Rogers....

To give a rookie only 1 year to play the position and bail on him is ignorant. If we draft Luck he will be given more then 1 year, soooo why is he any different?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe Brad Johnson won a superbowl with the Bucs in 2002, veteran QB. So there goes your theory.

Last i checked that was a one of a kind buccaneers defense, same gos for Dilfer and the ravens....

there have also been several rule changes since then that make that style of play obsolete so you really haven't said a thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a better one for you, name 1 good QB in the NFL today thats from the Pac 10 not named Aaron Rogers....

To give a rookie only 1 year to play the position and bail on him is ignorant. If we draft Luck he will be given more then 1 year, soooo why is he any different?

Name the last Notre Dame QB that was worth anything in the NFL...

We will bail on Jimmy this early because he looks absolutely, completely lost out on the field. We will have an entirely new coaching staff, none of which were responsible for drafting Jimmy. Competitively and financially we have very little to lose if we do draft Luck. (Just because we draft Andrew doesn't mean we cut Jimmy)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe Brad Johnson won a superbowl with the Bucs in 2002, veteran QB. So there goes your theory.

Oh wow, the exception to the rule, tell me more. Don't leave out the part about the the majority of super bowl teams of the past ten years having elite qbs.

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...