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!

     

Do you guys wish...


PiratePanther189

Recommended Posts

We had a risky FO? I mean granted, there are many bad factors that come with a risky FO. Oakland is a good example of a risky front office that has just made themselves look like fuging morons, but what if we were New York Jets-esque (although stay as good as we are in the draft)?

For example, let's say we had a front office that saw a need for a WR2 and said "poo, Brandon Lloyd's on the market, let's go after a playmaker!" Or even if we did something as simple as making easy upgrades to our d-line by signing a worthy veteran starter.

I'm not trying to be a downer on Falcons week..but this Lloyd situation has me thinking, should we pull the trigger on it and just go after him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny how NFL.com posts a "hypothetical" mythical trade about B. Lloyd and suddenly everybody wants him.

You guys all look like morons with this poo.

We dont need B Lloyd or anybody else at WR prior to next years draft.

Take a couple of deep breathes and enjoy the season... Damn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

last I checked, our passing game was one of the best in the league. Our offense overall is stacked. Cam Newton will be the first one to tell you that he has more than enough weapons and would rather get some defensive help. If we need to do anything "risky" it needs to be on the defense side.

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...