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!

     

carolinahuddle going gay for defense


frash.exe

Recommended Posts

seriously you guys sound like a bunch of fuging size queens

I'll be thrilled that we addressed one of our many glaring holes with a stud player, instead of some potential.

then I will sit back, crack a beer, and enjoy my draft day as we would have likely chosen a stud defensive prospect.

I don't want a repeat of last years draft where some of the picks made me cringe.

If we trade down because we have Carson then draft AJ then draft a stud DT in the 2nd.

< Draft boner

I think CJ will be great from here on out, and if we can get a stud DT that will only help him. But I think second city panther is right, A few more year's like 2010 and then we can start to see how CJ look's. He'll be fine, we still need that DT to cause havoc on the line to help CJ and all our DE's.

No brain fart. I agree with the offensive woes, but we all probably agree that we desperately need 2 DTs, a CB, and possibly a DE. On offense, we just need to mature--and possibly a QB in the draft. I even think RG is covered, but I could be wrong. While our defense and punting teams were on the field way more than the offense, we did well. I agree. We have good rotational depth DTs, but RIvera is about being the best on D. I don't see our offense being the best regardess of who we draft. But a stud CB and a stud DT in the draft and free agency, we are a force on that side of the ball.

FWIW, Brown improved last year, and will probably continue to get better. Give him a stud DT to play next to, and I bet he gets better still. This guy really didn't do his homework before making his list.

I would totally trade the #1 pick to the Bengals for Palmer, their 1st and 2nd.

Then you could still get a good stud defensive player with the #4 pick... and then get a good player with the #2.

Marvin is a stud. His strength and speed will command two blockers at least 50% of the time. He really knows how to alternate use of these two aspects of his game to keep 'em guessing and he excels at both.

There are a lot of "if's" in your argument. Why gamble on signing free agents who may or may not be affordable and may or may not want to play here when we could pick up a stud DT at #1?

mmmmmmstuddefensiveplay.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time for a uniform design thread!

Something with pleats like the Hornets' "costumes" back in year 1. We already have the shoulder padding, but wouldn't long sleeves that are rolled up to the elbow scream, "Look out NFL, here comes trouble!"?

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...