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!

     

NFL Coaching / GM News


Mr. Scot

Recommended Posts

See above.

If he gets an interview, it should be only to pat him on the back before sending him back to his old job.

So no, I'm still not taking it seriously.

Exactly.

Look at it this way, if Beane decides to move on, a future employer will look at this & say "Went with the football guy huh? Well, that makes sense." If they didn't give him a interview that could change to "Wow... didn't even give him a second look after he had the job. He must suck."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are people on the Huddle that I'd trust more than Beane to be a GM. If we're throwing personnel experience completely out the window, then what's the difference? There are people here who have actually run a business and managed people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could also argue it would be a mistake to set Cam Newton backwards....

That could be a bigger deal than the importance of bringing in a slightly better "game day manager" than Rivera. Bc X's and O's....Rivera's got that.

Look, Cam is a smart and young guy. Bringing in someone new isn't going to hurt him. If anybody comes in I believe it would be an offensive guy and it would make him that much better. I respect your opinion but Rivera is not the guy who is going to give us back to back winning seasons and lead us to the playoffs.

My gut feeling is if we bring Rivera back he may end up being fired by week 5 and we wasted another season when somebody else could have done better. We have seen all we are going to get from Rivera and that's mediocre at best.

I don't know about you guys but 4 winning season out of 18 is pretty damn bad. Fox got fired because he couldn't put together back to back winning seasons. We have had two losing seasons with Rivera already. What makes you think his third year will be any different? The last team that thought a coach needs a third year was the Bills and that turned out horrible with one of the best defenses and Gailey was fired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't take 3 years for a HC to show he's capable of leading a team into the playoffs and beyond, unless they're an EXTREMELY bad team. We had the pieces to at-least be competing for a wildcard spot and couldn't even do that

Lmao! Competing for a wild card? We was out of contention before Thanksgiving. It's odd that the 2-14 Colts with the horrible offensive line, horrible, secondary, and one good WR in Reggie Wayne has done better then the Panthers.

The Panthers has underachieved big time this season. It spells trouble when we end up with the same record as the no HC Saints and the rookie HC Greg Schiano who swept us this season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, Cam is a smart and young guy. Bringing in someone new isn't going to hurt him. If anybody comes in I believe it would be an offensive guy and it would make him that much better. I respect your opinion but Rivera is not the guy who is going to give us back to back winning seasons and lead us to the playoffs.

My gut feeling is if we bring Rivera back he may end up being fired by week 5 and we wasted another season when somebody else could have done better. We have seen all we are going to get from Rivera and that's mediocre at best.

I don't know about you guys but 4 winning season out of 18 is pretty damn bad. Fox got fired because he couldn't put together back to back winning seasons. We have had two losing seasons with Rivera already. What makes you think his third year will be any different? The last team that thought a coach needs a third year was the Bills and that turned out horrible with one of the best defenses and Gailey was fired.

New offense and new schemes and new coaches....definitely would slow his development. To what extent is a guess.

Cam eventually will/should be good enough that coaching becomes less important. That is the only reason I support stability around Cam vs change. Eventually, you can have a Fox/Manning type scenario. Where the coach isn't much of a factor on offense.....Cam IMO will get there. Coaching changes while he is young I fear slows that aspect

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys might recall multiple sources reporting that Jim Harbaugh was a candidate for our head coaching job too.

Things have a tendency to take on a life of their own once someone from the media puts them out there.

While I have nothing more to go on other than Gantt's comments, I believe we were in fact interested in Harbaugh. I also believe we were summarily told that he had no interest in us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe people are actually using the development of Cam as a defense of Rivera. I sometimes wonder if Rivera is actually trying to ruin Cam. We need to get him a real coach who knows how to develop QBs and ditch this terrible excuse of an offense that Rivera and Chud keep trying to force down his throat. These are some of the most important developmental years of a QBs career and we are wasting them with amateurs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe people are actually using the development of Cam as a defense of Rivera. I sometimes wonder if Rivera is actually trying to ruin Cam. We need to get him a real coach who knows how to develop QBs and ditch this terrible excuse of an offense that Rivera and Chud keep trying to force down his throat. These are some of the most important developmental years of a QBs career and we are wasting them with amateurs.

huh? Shula is an excellent qb coach. Rivera really has little impact.

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...