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!

     

Beason..."kuechly Safer Pick Than Both Luck And Griffin"


Recommended Posts

http://profootballta...uck-or-griffin/

Beason states that Luke was a safer pick than both Luck and Griffin because the two young quarterbacks will need pieces around them to succeed. I think all three of these players have excellent careers ahead of them but Luke will see his success much earlier simply because the transition from a college to an NFL LBer is easier than it is for a QB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bwood

I'd say he's about as safe. LB is the QB of the defense.

Gotta love Beast backing his players up like his job title entitles him too though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beason talks too much.

I do not remember him talking this often during previous off-seasons. I believe he is just fed up with all the naysayers and doubters of this franchise. He knows we have the pieces to the puzzle now and once this season gets going the Panthers should get on the map and make some teams realize we are not the Panthers of just a couple years ago. The man has stated its not about being cocky, but about confidence. I do not have a problem with our All-Pro MLB defending this franchise and his teammates and I do not think any Panther fan should either.

My .02c

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not remember him talking this often during previous off-seasons. I believe he is just fed up with all the naysayers and doubters of this franchise. He knows we have the pieces to the puzzle now and once this season gets going the Panthers should get on the map and make some teams realize we are not the Panthers of just a couple years ago. The man has stated its not about being cocky, but about confidence. I do not have a problem with our All-Pro MLB defending this franchise and his teammates and I do not think any Panther fan should either.

My .02c

I personally have no problem with it but if he wants to shut up the doubters the Panthers need to win. Until they do that consistently, all the talk in the world don't mean poo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was asked numerous questions by the Observer and gave his 2 cent on the Kuechly pick so please stfu.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/05/26/3269942/safe-pick-luke-kuechly-pads-carolina.html#storylink=cpy

So when an opposing player is asked questions & gives answers stating his .02 cents & mentions an opposing player everyone bashes him to hell & back saying how dare he. But when a Panther does the exact same thing it's okay because he's confident? Get real. Beason could have praised Luke without mentioning the top 2 picks in the draft by name. He's just stirring poo up.

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...