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 Packers lose this weekend... (2-4)


TruCatzFan

Recommended Posts

That's right, the Green Bay Packers will be 2-4.... Does this make you feel better about our record? I mean, this is a team everyone expected to own people...

Especially with the way Rodgers performed last year. Don't want to turn this into a race thing, (I'm white) but I think Cam is taking way more grief for his performances than Rodgers is for his.

GB seemingly has the defense and obviously a potent Offense (see last year)

It just dawned on me that they'd be 2-4... Which honestly makes me feel better about where we're at as a franchise with a 2nd year QB and coaching staff.

Just trying to make myself feel better I guess

I'd love to hear y'alls thoughts though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're one regular ref from being 3-2. Most everyone looks bad against SF and Indy just exploded in an emotional win last week. They're a team that has had a really bad break and played a really good team for 2 of their loses. We just suck right now. So no them being 2-4 doesn't make me feel better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're one regular ref from being 3-2. Most everyone looks bad against SF and Indy just exploded in an emotional win last week. They're a team that has had a really bad break and played a really good team for 2 of their loses. We just suck right now. So no them being 2-4 doesn't make me feel better.

They are not one 'regular' ref from being 3-2, if there were regular refs they would be 2-3 still... If you watched the whole game you would see the call that gave GB the only TD to put them ahead. That call was WORSE than the catch in the endzone, that one just happened to be at the end of the game. Seattle outplayed GB all game, and there were horrid calls both ways, if the game was called properly, Seattle would still come out on top. Thats not me being biased either, I admit the call was terrible. But def. not the worst call that game. Those scab refs almost cost the hawks a victory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are not one 'regular' ref from being 3-2, if there were regular refs they would be 2-3 still... If you watched the whole game you would see the call that gave GB the only TD to put them ahead. That call was WORSE than the catch in the endzone, that one just happened to be at the end of the game. Seattle outplayed GB all game, and there were horrid calls both ways, if the game was called properly, Seattle would still come out on top. Thats not me being biased either, I admit the call was terrible. But def. not the worst call that game. Those scab refs almost cost the hawks a victory.

Worst call of the game was the defensive interference call on GB before that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Worst call of the game was the defensive interference call on GB before that.

I don't disagree with you there. But the PI call on Browner was worse than the TD, I mean honestly, it's a crapshoot. But bottom line is Seattle wouldn't have needed a drive if the game was called properly. If you look at the numbers, GB was flat outplayed, officiating made the game into a crapshoot

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...