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!

     

Will 1-5 seal the deal?


PantherTrain84

Recommended Posts

I mean sure, we as fans are already angry as hell and calling for a top/down regime change. But many in the media are still saying "lets wait and see" "lets see how Hurney's master plan works out." But will 1-5 FINALLY be the tipping point where we start hearing things like "Hurney on the hot seat" or "Rivera has lost locker room." Or "Jerry Richardson and Bill Cowher closing in on contract." Oh wait, nvm on that last one, this is Jerry Richardson we are talking about. But seriously, does 1-5 pretty much get us back to square 1 in 2010 where we have a lame duck coaching staff and a huge sea change is on the horizon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean sure, we as fans are already angry as hell and calling for a top/down regime change. But many in the media are still saying "lets wait and see" "lets see how Hurney's master plan works out." But will 1-5 FINALLY be the tipping point where we start hearing things like "Hurney on the hot seat" or "Rivera has lost locker room." Or "Jerry Richardson and Bill Cowher closing in on contract." Oh wait, nvm on that last one, this is Jerry Richardson we are talking about. But seriously, does 1-5 pretty much get us back to square 1 in 2010 where we have a lame duck coaching staff and a huge sea change is on the horizon?

Okay drama queen, how about providing some examples of how many in the media are still saying "lets wait and see" "lets see how Hurney's master plan works out."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt anything changes. We're a young team, it's a process, 3-year plan and stuff....

Jerry doesn't need a winning record to consider this season a success.

Exactly why I hope we go 3-13 and not 7-9. Why? Because 7-9 will not get us in the playoffs, 7-9 will knock us down a great deal in draft position, 7-9 will allow Hurney and the coaching staff to stick around and "give it another shot." I remember using this same argument last year and I got bashed, I heard "no, its more important we finish strong and have momentum carry over the next season then lose out and have a better draft poaition" Well, I bought that line last year but this year? Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. Not buying that load of crap again. 3-13 is the only way these clowns will be forced out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay drama queen, how about providing some examples of how many in the media are still saying "lets wait and see" "lets see how Hurney's master plan works out."

For starters Pat Y on ESPN as said recently that we still need time and I recall hearing a analyst on NFL network recently saying the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

on the season....most likely, barring any miracles.

on the rivera era...nope. it will still have another year or two.

- rayzor

Ok so here is my thinking. Say Rivera stays, fine. But then our offense is ranked 25th (like it is now) and our defense is ranked in the high 20s (like it is now.) Will then both Sean Mcdermott and Chud get the boot? And if they get the boot and not Rivera then that makes no sense seeing as how these are Rivera's guys to begin with. With that said, I just dont see any logic in booting Mcd and Chud but keeping Rivera since he is the one that brought in his coordinators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok so here is my thinking. Say Rivera stays, fine. But then our offense is ranked 25th (like it is now) and our defense is ranked in the high 20s (like it is now.) Will then both Sean Mcdermott and Chud get the boot? And if they get the boot and not Rivera then that makes no sense seeing as how these are Rivera's guys to begin with. With that said, I just dont see any logic in booting Mcd and Chud but keeping Rivera since he is the one that brought in his coordinators.

happens all the time.

re: mcD being rivera's guy, though....heard he was rivera's second choice. rivera's first choice was supposedly steve wilks just because of their familiarity with each other having worked together in chi-town and san diego. it would be rivera's D but wilks implementing it i suppose kind of like you see with a lot of HCs who pretty much run the show on the side of the ball that is their strong suit.

but anyway...teams will usually give an HC another shot with new coordinators unless they are teams that usually has a lot of turnover in their coaching staff (which i really don't want us to be). there will be a coordinator or two replaced, much of the time as a scapegoat. if the HC still can't get the desired results then the HC will probably get the boot. teams have more invested in the HC and know that it usually means another couple years of turmoil and a lot of money going out because you end up having to pay for the fired coach (and probably his staff) as well as for the new coach and staff. they will give the HC a couple chances with different personnel just to see if there's any way it could work.

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...