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!

     

Reduced season or no season


Mr. Scot

Recommended Posts

It's not my belief that the lockout will drag out so long that we will actually lose games, but I must admit to the possibility that it could.

In a worst-case-scenario like this, would you be okay with a partial season, or are you an "all or nothing" type?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if we have a 1 game season, I'm still going to watch and be 'ok' with it. I'd like to say that I won't watch to teach the owners a lesson, but they couldn't give sh!t either way. So 1 game or 18, I'm going to check out the action. I actually had fun pulling for Denver to win late last season, and we might have a similar situation next season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it becomes clear that they are going to miss games, the US government should intervene... Charlotte businesses shouldn't have to miss out on 64 million dollars of revenue generated by the 8 NFL home games because these spoiled children can't figure out how to split up 9 billion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it becomes clear that they are going to miss games, the US government should intervene... Charlotte businesses shouldn't have to miss out on 64 million dollars of revenue generated by the 8 NFL home games because these spoiled children can't figure out how to split up 9 billion.

Yes the gubment should intervene in all contractual negotiations!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i would rather win a tainted superbowl than have a lockout.

You'd get poo for it and no respect at all for it. If we are talking 1 or 2 games obviously a huge difference than half the season.

But how prepared are teams really going to be getting into it mid season? Sounds like a disaster and some bullpoo fan wise and even more BS coming from a paying customer viewpoint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'd get poo for it and no respect at all for it. If we are talking 1 or 2 games obviously a huge difference than half the season.

But how prepared are teams really going to be getting into it mid season? Sounds like a disaster and some bullpoo fan wise and even more BS coming from a paying customer viewpoint.

yea, if there aren't any camps this year, the whole season is gonna be a crazy ass clusterf*ck.

which is part of the reason I don't understand drafting a QB this year. You aren't gonna be able to work with him, you aren't gonna be able to start him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not my belief that the lockout will drag out so long that we will actually lose games, but I must admitht to the possibility that it could.

In a worst-case-scenario like this, would you be okay with a partial season, or are you an "all or nothing" type?

This will end by the draft. She will hear arguments on briefs she has already read and mostly made up her mind on based on law. within two weeks of this hearing next week she will rule.

My guess is she will rule the decertification is a sham, which it is, and therefor she will lift the lockout and have the league conduct business under 2010 rules and order both back to the table or else.

A week after the draft Free agency will start say on the 29th.

This season will will get played one way or the other. Too much money at stake and too many jobs and economy's affected outside just the owners and players.

I do expect her to rip some ass on both sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not my belief that the lockout will drag out so long that we will actually lose games, but I must admit to the possibility that it could.

In a worst-case-scenario like this, would you be okay with a partial season, or are you an "all or nothing" type?

No season. Near impossible for a new staff just to be able to walk on field with a new team. Half aszed product at full price. No thanks. The difference in preparation between an Atalnta and San Fran would be night and day. Too many new staffs would know nothing about there team and wouldn't have installed the offense or d

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...