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!

     

Why the Falcons are pretenders..


PantherTrain84

Recommended Posts

Chiefs

Broncos

Raiders

Chargers

Panthers

Redskins.

Those are the teams they have played. Is it eally a wonder why this team is 6-0? They might literally have the easiest schedule in the league. I know you can say "but no such thing as easy wins in this league." But come on, lets get real. Only played one playoff team from last year. NONE of the teams they have played this year has a winning record. Can we please hold off on the Matt Ryan MVP talk?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They've earned it, but they were losing to the Foreskins until RGIII went down. We and the Raiders had them down with the full field to drive with under two minutes at home.

They're 6-0, but they could very easily be 3-3. That's what good teams do, they win the games they should win. Too bad we can't figure that out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the thing about the Falcons though.... I believe they are Legit... They find ways to win... As opposed to us, we're still trying to figure that whole winning thing out. They have mastered it.

As a caveat, I'll also say that I have no faith in them in the playoffs... Whether it be at home, or on the rd.

Also, we whipped them all over their field... If they're being touted as the best team in the League... Then that says something about our squad as well. I know that everyone here, myself included has damn near given up on us this year... But if we get to .500 at any point this year watch out.

"I'm TCF, and I approved this message"

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...