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!

     

It Just hit me...


Ricky Spanish

Recommended Posts

the entire time we have sucked I've been bracing for the event that andrew luck does not declare and we are forced to take someone else with our first pick, and it just hit me that we probably won't take a QB if that happens. I'm legitimately pissed about this. I don't want anything other than a QB with our first pick because all of ours suck horribly and i don't want to deal with another year of captain checkdown under center. I don't know what to do with myself if luck doesn't declare...

god help us...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Locker is just as good. We would probably have to trade down, which would be better because this way we pick up a first. Our FIRST pick better either be Locker or Luck, or I'm done with this team until JR dies..

I'm not on the locker bandwagon...

I'd rather have newton personally. him or mallett and i don't even want mallett or newton that badly...

fug it i'll take any of 'em over clausen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would take Clausen over Mallet though. I've seen Mallet play, and......lord he is terrible. But like I said if we don't take a QB I will not support this team anymore until JR dies.

I'm actually going to respectfully disagree with you on this one.

I believe mallet will be better than jimmy. a whole lot better actually.

I see somewhat of an "it" factor in mallett that i never saw in clausen.

don't see the "it" in locker either. I've been wrong before though.

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...