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!

     

Why Ron Rivera?


Jeff L

Recommended Posts

It has started already and needs to be, because it has gotten old. But I guess it will depend on past comments too. I mean if you are just posting a dumb joke, could get a pass. But if it is something you seem to do on a regular basis, like NA...then you gotta go!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people just don't understand football (sighs...)

Ron Rivera is the best candidate out there. His Bears defense was one of the best in the league (if not the best). His chargers defense was ranked #1 last season. But oh no.... he's hispanic so he must be terrible... :facepalm:

check his papers!!!!!!!

i don't even like it as a joke because people just don't know their limits. they see someone do it once and they think it's acceptable around here.

I agree dont even start it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

back on topic, rivera's defenses are great. they are very aggressive...not some safe cover2 scheme. i thnk he has a much more aggressive mindset and will command the respect of the guys on the team. fox was just a likeable guy that we had as a coach. rivera will be respected on a level that fox wasn't and he will bring more out of the players than fox did. he will help them reach potential that they were never able to under fox.

if you're worried about his defense being in the AFCW...take a look at what he did in chicago and then what happened after he left. they got to the superbowl because of his defense and in spite of their piss poor offense and bad QB play. the only reason they didn't win that superbowl was because they didn't have a good QB or much in the way of receivers. our receiver corps as it is now is better than what they had. their QB situation was better than we had, but still it was not good. they depended too much on their defense to win games. the problem they had was if someone somehow got ahead by 2 TDs they could never catch up. that is exactly what we have here and the way it will continue to be unless we get serious about improving QB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to say at this point in time that I don't mind have Rivera as HC now. I wanted them to go after Bill. But it didn't happen. I will be happy with this hire and let it be. To be honest Panthers could of hired Bill and he might of come in and might have done avg compared to what he did with the steelers. You never know what you got in a Hc until you give the guy a chance. You can bring in the best guy in that was out there doesn't mean he would be a good HC here. It all depends on the guy you hire. I'm happy with the hire to honest.:lurk5:

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...