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!

     

Matsko named Oline coach


Tutto

Recommended Posts

That's all well and good, but what's the real reason behind his firing? Has he lost his mojo?

Did the Ravens have a what-have-you-done-for-me-lately type of attitude?

More like remember when we fired dan henning because we thought he was the one that couldn't come up with any good plays and we blamed him for our atrocious running game in the NFC Championship game against the Seahawks because it was apparently his fault we didnt have any running backs(yea the NFC championship game, that game that is one away from the super bowl....) yea pretty much the same deal with Matsko.

Something funny about dan henning, his philosophy was feed the stud, so thats why you saw steve smith and musin Muhammad have their best years under him becuz he designed plays just for those guys. Worked out good for us the years that it worked. 2003, second half of 2004, all of 2005 until NFC championship game, didn't work out to well in 2006 tho when he confused keyshawn johnson for a stud the year before he got shitcanned. But its apparent he was strangled by Fox to run a vanilla offense. Coincidentally we haven't had much success solely feeding the running back since his departure when john fox took over as OC.... i mean... uhh... when john fox trained the new OC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More like remember when we fired dan henning because we thought he couldn't come up with any good plays and we blamed him for our atrocious running game in the NFC Championship game against the Seahawks (yea the NFC championship game, that game that is one away from the super bowl....) yea pretty much the same deal with matsko

Oh. He's the sacrificial lamb.

Good!

Perhaps he'll bring a chip on his shoulder.

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...