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

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

Again, I admire your passion but I think you are wrong. We're both on the same side here but no way this team was even close to Bears Super Bowl team or any Super Bowl winner or loser for that matter. Our record reflects how bad this team was in every aspect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone remember the QB's from that super bowl team??? Exactly. Actually I do, it was Rex grossman but while he was out a young Kyle Orton filled in pretty well. Would love Kyle Orton next year but I don't think he is available. If Jimmy can be as good as grossman (not saying much) the defense shouldn't be a problem next year.

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.

You really think Urlacher was better than Beason? Jon didn't get to play inside this year, consistently anyways. Plus he had crap DT's.

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...