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!

     

What happened to Pac Man? (ESPN Radio)


1989

Recommended Posts

I agree with Dimbee and Panthro. I am not familiar with the previous work of Taylor and Marc but I must admit they stepped in and the transition seemed seamless. I think they do a really good job.

I don't have satellite radio and I do find myself listening to FOXSports on 730 more than 610 most days though. Nice to have a sports talk radio option in Charlotte now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wish he'd taken Q with him

Me too, but at least they got rid of that stupid "back of your neck looks like a pack of hotdogs" sound byte. It was kinda funny the first 12,000 times but jeez it got old.

I especially like how they limit him to 3 minutes with the voiceover guy taking shots at him, I lol'd the other day.

"hey Q, when was the last time the Cowboys won the superbowl? Get the fug outta the studio" :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eventhough he is the typical annoying Cowboy fan, I actually like QCB. The guy is witty and he usually makes me laugh during his segments...sometimes I laugh with him, sometimes I laugh at him but he does entertain me. I think he brings a good element to the show but it is a good thing it is in limited doses. Now would I listen to a show where QCB was one of the co-hosts? Not a chance.

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...