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!

     

2011 NFL Power Rankings: Week 6


GritsRgreat

Recommended Posts

we stayed at 23 on nfl.com iggles at 21.

Ron Rivera said last week that his team needed to "grow up," after a tough loss to the Bears. Well, it didn't get any easier for the rookie head coach, who had to sit through yet another fail. Panthers fans were tortured by a final Saints drive that chewed 6 minutes of game clock and saw Drew Brees go 8 of 9 for 80 yards. Still, Carolina continues to impress league observers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this had been my power rankings, I would have put us at around 20. Not significantly better, but higher than a few of those teams.

How did we get the "hardest" schedule in the league anyway? Were we not the worst team last year?

The schedule for every year is predetermined years in advance with an exception of two games. We play in a tough division already and it was our year to play the NFC North.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did we get the "hardest" schedule in the league anyway? Were we not the worst team last year?

Schedules are pretty much already written in stone before a prior season finishes. Being the worst team isn't really factored in to your schedule.

You play your division twice and the league rotates other divisions you play against on a set schedule.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yea, I knew that, but i also knew that we are also suppossed to play a few teams that finished at the bottom of they're division as well. I thought we would face four bottom dwellers this season, instead of two.

oh well, thx guys.

We do face the two lowest teams in the NFC North and AFC South (along with all the other teams in their division), and then we get the NFC East and NFC West cellar dwellars (Redskins and Cardinals).

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...