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!

     

Stanford and Wilson


Peppers90 NC

Recommended Posts

I'm going to take last weeks game with a grain of salt, but I just want to say I was impressed with our starting corners, for what it was. Maybe the wet field conditions helped, but they both played hard and shut down two very good wr's. Both played physical, and had just enough jam on Nicks on that one play where it appears Eli overthrew him, but could it have been from lack of release?

I know in Philly, the aggressive scheme sometime exposed weak corner play, but last week it may have helped it. I watched the game on the NYC local channel so there wasn't much coverage on our team, but from my eyes, they played pretty decent for 3 and 4 corners. I'm wondering if Burney will even make the team because McClain seemed to do pretty well too. Did I miss anything to make me think otherwise?

Please, anyone help me curb my enthusiasm in thinking we might possibly not be as bad off at corner as we are all assuming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looked to me like CB was not a hole at all considering Stanford and McClain are our #3 and #4 CBs. Excited to see Gamble and Munny start.

I think the Giants also just flat out sucked that night.....saw some guys get beat we just didn't pay for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thats because carolina no longer practices the Bend but dont break philosiphy. In the past, our cb's would allow wr to catch the small stuff but make sure they make the tackle so they dont get a big gain. Now, our cb's have free reign to contend every pass and play the position the way it should be played.

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...