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!

     

Well, Fewell is the hire. Be ready...


Zod

Recommended Posts

Dont come on here and act like your a smarter or wiser fan than me or anyone else on this board. If thats the case you shouldnt comment here.

Kind of like what you are doing... I didn't say I was smarter or wiser then anyone on this forum.

I respect most people on this forum and rarely post but read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why cant our damn FO pick a frecking HC that has a offensive background? What is so damn important about having a defensive background? DAMN. If you really want a good defense hire a damn good DC. Pick someone who is willing to run the score up on other teams and not play the "bend but dont break" style play we have seen for 9 years.

FML

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and where do you get the idea they'd be better than Manusky? Hurney and Morrison obivously know something you dont..lol

They know more about what they are doing then we do and I will be happy with whomever they choose.

However, I am allowed to have my preference as well and Rivera has always been on the top of my list, and that's no knack on any of the other candidates.

He is known for his aggressiveness on defense and has always had his defenses both in Chicago and SD in the top 10. Plus, being a former Bears LB kind of helps as well.

I don't know how good of a HC he will be but he is a damn good coach period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perry Fewell, the guy who was fired by THE BILLS and replaced by CHAN GAILEY.

Awesome. No, really.

To be fair though, I swore I read somewhere that the Bills wanted a offensive minded HC, which is why they were looking at Chan Gailey and Brian Schottenheimer

So I don't know how much of that was a knack on Fewell

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...