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!

     

Comparing the last 4-3 defensive roster Rivera had to ours...


SorthNarolina

Recommended Posts

Beason now might be better than Urlacher now. Not certain Beason now is better than Urlacher then.

I admit I'm worried about how good Davis can be after two major injuries. I'd make a push to keep Anderson just in case but he may have an assured starting spot by signing elsewhere.

Connor's health (hip) may be a concern too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We could have all-pro talent at every position, but if they don't play well together it won't matter. That Bears defense mastered the team concept of the sport, and that's why they were dominant.

If you are talking about 05, they were definitely not dominant. In fact, our offense handled them in the playoffs, with only one legit threat at receiver and an average run game. They were very good at the beginning of the season, but they tailed off a little bit as the season ended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are talking about 05, they were definitely not dominant. In fact, our offense handled them in the playoffs, with only one legit threat at receiver and an average run game. They were very good at the beginning of the season, but they tailed off a little bit as the season ended.

I'm talking about the 2006 version, that was his last defense there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Urlacher was better then than Beason is now.

Gamble is a very good cover corner, but not the playmaker of Vasher or Tillman. I think with Munny at the 2, which o don't want, I think we have an edge.

What you're eluding to, and rightly so, is that the unit does look a lot like what Rivera terrorizes the league with.

Vasher and Tillman only made plays due to the push from the DL. They were the recipient of bad passes by QB's. They have proven to be mediocre DB's overall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Problem I have, is that MOST DT's take time to develop at the next level. For whatever reason its hard to come in and make an impact right away. A lot of those plays last night Fairly was doing his thing, some he was unblocked for. Regardless, if he can command a double at the next level that is a win win situation for us. I like him, I like that he is fiesty, but I dont like, and I do think that he is a DIRTY player. I do not think he is very smart either. I guess only time will tell. I am nervous about taking him, but I do not disagree at all, that he will help make us better. I am more than open to looking for a team that really wants him to trade up, (perhaps).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beason now might be better than Urlacher now. Not certain Beason now is better than Urlacher then.

I admit I'm worried about how good Davis can be after two major injuries. I'd make a push to keep Anderson just in case but he may have an assured starting spot by signing elsewhere.

Connor's health (hip) may be a concern too.

I think Anderson has an assured starting spot here. The mysterious scary hip injury to Connor only cements it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I admire your bias towards our beloved Panthers but I think that your assessment is completely off. Their defense single-handedly took them to the Super Bowl. Our defense and personnel is nowhere near that level of play.

I tried to limit my bias but I don't see how our personnel + some DTs will limit Rivera to do his job which involves a top 5 defense.

Also the Bears defense didn't single offhandedly get them to the SB. They had excellent special teams and while their run game wasn't dominant it was good enough for them to control the clock.

Give the 2010 Panthers D some DTs and an average offense = 2006 Bears D.

Gut the 2006 Bears D and cripple the offense = 2010 Panthers D

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...