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!

     

If Steve Smith was in Pepp's situation right now...


Zod

Recommended Posts

I couldn't really rate a top 3 wide receivers because there are at least 5 wr who just have different play style and thus may affect their stats, but this would be mine in no particular order.

1. Steve

2. Fitz

3. Andre Johns

4. Calvin Johnson

5. Moss or Reggie Wayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I couldn't really rate a top 3 wide receivers because there are at least 5 wr who just have different play style and thus may affect their stats, but this would be mine in no particular order.

1. Steve

2. Fitz

3. Andre Johns

4. Calvin Johnson

5. Moss or Reggie Wayne

The difference is year in and year out Smitty is the man. Reggie Wayne to me is second because of consistancy. Fitz 3 with both Johnsons and finally Moss. Moss is an upgraded T.O.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I am not exactly sure if teams would be lining up or not, if Anquan Boldin and Braylon Edwards are any indication. It would probably depend on the compensation involved. It's not like Smitty's rep is golden around the league either.

Just food for thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of you would probably disagree, but Smitty and Pep fit in with this organization like a hand in a glove. Anywhere else, they would be perceived as being overpaid, but that isn't necessarily the case here. We know what we've got, and the FO is willing to pay for their services (IMHO, as well they should).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smith is the 3rd best receiver in the league. Johnson is the best (I think), and Fitz is second. I don't get why so many people want to call Calvin Johnson one of the best in the league already. He sure has the tools, and could definitely get there...I just haven't seen him prove it yet.

I agree with the thread though. Smith would be a hotter commodity than Pepp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We would have had some picks for Smith just because of his consistence. He is always above 1000 yards even when we are a run first team. Pep on the other hand is a hot and cold player and IDK who defends him he takes plays off and thats why. The dude just dose not have the drive of greatness like Smith and others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smitty's great. Definitely top 5. But there is no doubt Fitzgerald is the best WR in the game today...

Definitely the flavor of the day, but does that actually make him #1, just because he burned us in a playoff game? Not positive on that one, the line is very small...

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...