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!

     

Adam Rank: Panthers Will Win Nfc South


SgtJoo

Recommended Posts

Party for Panthers in NFC South; sorry, Saints and Falcons

There is going to be a changing of guard in the NFC South.

I'm already on record saying the Panthers will get off to a hot start. I might as well take it one step further: The Panthers will win the NFC South, and the Saints and Falcons will both miss the playoffs.

The Bears likely would have made the playoffs last year if Jay Cutler had stayed healthy, and they are postseason-bound in 2012. In fact, the two wild-card teams will come from the NFC North.

lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe. I think we can take it if the Falcons have the same kind of playoff hangover that plagued us in 2009. You know, Jake threw 5 INTs in that playoff game against the Cards and then the next season he was still psyched out/discouraged by it and threw 18 INTs over 11 games. I'm hoping the same deal will happen with the Falcons; they couldn't score save for a safety against the Giants so all next season it gets in their heads and they have recurring problems putting points on the board.

If that's he case, I think we have a shot at winning the South. If not, we're definitely going to be in the hunt for a wildcard spot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam Rank's attempts at humorous articles are always terrible, but when it comes to just stating opinions and analysis he's as good (or bad) as most of the rest of them in my opinion. To me, this is just an example of someone making a bold statement so that if it comes true they look good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also said that the Panthers will win the division.

His opinion doesn't mean any more than mine does. It's somebody's opinion.

Just because he's employed by NFL.com doesn't mean that his opinion carries more weight than mine, and I'm in the US Army.

Nobody is saying it does. Just funny to hear, especially from NFL.com.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the love of god please don't mention this game that never happened. This game that never occurred still hurts very much.

Just remember that that game that never happened was the start of a series of events that led us to..... :cam:

So cheer up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there are going to be some ugly records this season in the NFC south, and that tiebreakers are going to vital.

Much like the NFC East was last season.

I just hope the Saints crumble and don't rally around the "us against the world and everyone is writing us off" crap.

I really think the falcons regress this season, and questions arise about Mike Smith.

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...