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!

     

DeAndre Hopkins visiting Panthers today


OchoNueve

Recommended Posts

I know it sounds far fetched to most huddlers... but after a first workout with Ricky Proehl a few weeks ago and another visit scheduled for today, I am starting to believe that he is a potential target for the Panthers at #14 and not just in case he slides to us at #44.

He may not have the physical attributes of most elite WR's, but after following Nuke for his entire career at Clemson, I believe he has the work ethic and intangibles to be the heir apparent to Smitty if we do decide to pull the trigger.

Thoughts?..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Hopkins. Not at 14 though. Once again, I think Gettleman's *ideal* scenario is to move down and take a WR. Ideal.

I think this is part of covering the bases for such a move.

Agree.

Here's a highlight video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVWm9pNiXYY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lemme clarify, my comment has nothing to do with "reaching" as that's become a mostly outdated term. It has to do with the fact I wouldn't prefer Hopkins at 14 over an Allen or a Patterson. Id rather pull the trigger on the best receiver prospect we could get at 14 than try to squeeze as much out of the draft as we could, truth be told, and am not sure how I'd feel about the move mentioned above.

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...