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!

     

Someone's been naughty


Mr. Scot

Recommended Posts

PFT: At least one “good prospect” tested positive at Scouting Combine

A source with knowledge of the situation tells us that at least one “good prospect” generated a positive urine test in February during his visit to Indianapolis.

The source hasn’t supplied a name. And even if the source did, we wouldn’t be repeating it here without confirmation.

Doubt it'll turn out to be anyone we're considering, though that's pure "gut feeling" on my part.

How stupid do you have to be to get caught with drugs in your system at The Combine? :nonod:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charlie Casserly addressed this years before and again this year. NFL personnel aren't stupid, but if you test positive at the combine you are showing every NFL team you are not only stupid as hell, but on one of the most important days of your life, what may be the biggest interview of your life, you can't be clean.

It is about as big a red flag as you can get and many teams dump the prospect right off their boards completely regardless of his talent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suck if it was Peterson, wouldn't it? :(

(he doesn't strike me as the type though, neither does Gabbert)

It'll probably wind up being someone most of us haven't heard of, but if the name doesn't come out you could see a situation like last year where a couple of big name prospects get falsely accused.

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...