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!

     

Game Grades


stankowalski

Recommended Posts

Offense/OC: A-. Racked up a hell of a lot of yards on the league's best defense in a hostile environment. Chud was a little bit better on his playcalling today.

Defense/DC: A+ for the first three quarters, although it makes me wonder how good Chicago's offense really is. F- for the 4th quarter but not on their bill entirely.

Special Teams: C+. Mixed bag of sorts. Medlock was an A...but the rest of it all was blah. Understand the threat from Hester, but the constant loss of field position was a bit too much. Just shows how bad we are on coverage/etc.

Head Coach: Breaks the scale....Z-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Offense/OC: A-. Racked up a hell of a lot of yards on the league's best defense in a hostile environment. Chud was a little bit better on his playcalling today.

Defense/DC: A+ for the first three quarters, although it makes me wonder how good Chicago's offense really is. F- for the 4th quarter but not on their bill entirely.

Special Teams: C+. Mixed bag of sorts. Medlock was an A...but the rest of it all was blah. Understand the threat from Hester, but the constant loss of field position was a bit too much. Just shows how bad we are on coverage/etc.

Head Coach: Breaks the scale....Z-

How can you give the offense an A-? Who cares how many yards we put up the offense didn't get it done. If it wasn't for Louis Murphys miracle recovery all our points would have been off of Medlocks leg. This team, in particular Cams arm, in the redzone is beyond embarrassing. Only aspect of this team to get a good grade should be the Defense. Everything else is an F.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Offense/OC: A-. Racked up a hell of a lot of yards on the league's best defense in a hostile environment. Chud was a little bit better on his playcalling today.

Defense/DC: A+ for the first three quarters, although it makes me wonder how good Chicago's offense really is. F- for the 4th quarter but not on their bill entirely.

Special Teams: C+. Mixed bag of sorts. Medlock was an A...but the rest of it all was blah. Understand the threat from Hester, but the constant loss of field position was a bit too much. Just shows how bad we are on coverage/etc.

Head Coach: Breaks the scale....Z-

Thank god somebody recognizes this offense did pretty well against a tough bears D at soldier field

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps A- is a bit too gracious, I'll admit. Compared to last season, this offense is pathetic especially in the red zone. But it was refreshing to see progress from the stagnation of the read-option offense and be able to push the ball against the best D in the NFL on the road and in the windy elements. All things considered, I think they did pretty well... albeit, execution was lacking. If this effort was against a defense like the Titans or the Colts, I'd be calling for Chud's head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll save us time.

Carolina Panthers 2012 season:

Incomplete/Fail.

Hah yea, the Panthers are like a student that came to the first class of the semester, stood up in front of the class and proclaimed to everyone that they were getting an A+ for the year. They proceeded to get a 59% on every test, performing well on the first 3 pages of each exam but totally bombing the final questions. 2012 Panthers get a 59% for the year.

Fail, retake the class next year because you were too stupid to pass it the first time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • This 1000%.  Hey who wants to sign with the guy that couldn't even get his client the guaranteed contract of a 3rd round pick?  Lmao
    • I don't think it's any weird or unique clause, it's the offset language, same thing so many contract disputes are over. It just means that including it, if a player is cut and then signed by another team, the original team would be able to subtract how much they're getting paid by the new team from what they still owe him on their guaranteed money. For example, it's why Russell Wilson signed for the minimum last year with the Steelers as that was included in his Denver contract.  So if he signed with the Steelers for $1 million, he'd get $1 million less from the Broncos, if it was $2 million, he'd get $2 million less, basically he couldn't make any more money than he was already going to make, so you sign for the minimum to not take unnecessary cap room from your new team while giving extra cap room to your old one. The problem with trying to include it in rookie deals is that a team trying to include it, it says they think they don't really believe the player will make it 4 years with the team before they cut them.  And this usually comes up with one or two rookies in most seasons, the difference is it's usually handled much more quietly and not as public and ugly as this one. The other difference is that it's happening with the Bengals, which I believe I saw are one of the few (or only?) team that doesn't have protections for rookies in rookie and mini camps to be able to participate even if they haven't signed their contract yet.  The other teams have injury protections that allow them to still play, but the Bengals do not, which is also why this one is so public and ugly, as most the time this happens, the rookie is still participating in the rookie and subsequent mini camps, giving them more time to get the contract done before training camp when they'd then hold out.
    • adamantium? adam? adam thielen super bowl game winning catch ?
×
×
  • Create New...