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!

     

New boss not the same as the old boss.......


Jmac

Recommended Posts

First...I will miss the Beast and he was a warrior for us when he was healthy....I sincerely hope he does well and he will be missed. DG is changing the culture around here and is leaving the old ways far behind. Either you can play or you can't...if you can't he cuts ties.No more buddy system here,doesn't matter who you are.Team comes first and foremost. No more ridiculous contracts to bleed us dry for years.If you earn it you will get paid (at market rates mind you).This is exactly what this franchise needed to be successful. Soon all the crap that was part of the old regime will be history..and the Panthers can move forward in a positive way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meh, he hasn't proven much yet. He has Hurney magic'd a lot of stuff. If Hurney had been retained he would have done some of the same stuff.

Hurney would have traded Beason under these circumstances as well.....I don't see why we would believe he wouldn't have.

Let's see how he handles Hardy and others....he hasn't shown his cards in regards to what really made Hurney a bad GM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest difference is that RR made a roster decision and instead of the GM sitting on a guy eating a ton of cap to attempt to buy time and save face..he decided to trade him and get what he could at the time. Hurney would have tried to convince RR to give Beas another chance so that the contract he signed him to wouldn't look bad. If Hurney was still here we'd have a 75% Beason still out there playing.

I love the new culture. It'll be interesting to see what we do with the RBs. One of them is gone next year. Almost no doubt in my mind. If J Stew comes back and starts tearing it up I wouldn't be surprised if Gettledog tried to trade him for a late round pick as well. He's trying to clear cap room for OL and possibly another WR this offseason IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest difference is that RR made a roster decision and instead of the GM sitting on a guy eating a ton of cap to attempt to buy time and save face..he decided to trade him and get what he could at the time. Hurney would have tried to convince RR to give Beas another chance so that the contract he signed him to wouldn't look bad. If Hurney was still here we'd have a 75% Beason still out there playing.

I love the new culture. It'll be interesting to see what we do with the RBs. One of them is gone next year. Almost no doubt in my mind. If J Stew comes back and starts tearing it up I wouldn't be surprised if Gettledog tried to trade him for a late round pick as well. He's trying to clear cap room for OL and possibly another WR this offseason IMO.

lol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree about DG changing the culture but I also think they are doing Beason a solid here.

I agree, I just think he was worth more. I don't think him for Nicks straight up is that ridiculous of a proposal. Two disgruntled and oft injured players get a fresh start.

I don't know man. Just can't get over this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

beason wants to start.  he isn't unseating luke kuechly, so gettleman traded him off to a team where he will get a chance to start.

 

a real travesty would have been gettleman telling beason to stuff it with his request and that he gets to rot on the bench only to be let go next offseason and left looking for a team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, I just think he was worth more. I don't think him for Nicks straight up is that ridiculous of a proposal. Two disgruntled and oft injured players get a fresh start.

I don't know man. Just can't get over this.

 

GP since 2011 (counting this year):

 

Beason: 7

Nicks:   32

 

Little lopsided there

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, I just think he was worth more. I don't think him for Nicks straight up is that ridiculous of a proposal. Two disgruntled and oft injured players get a fresh start.

I don't know man. Just can't get over this.

 

Beason was/is worth to this team next to nothing.

 

I can't believe that we got something for him at all.

 

Don't get me wrong, I loved him when he was healthy, but that is over.  We got a pick, got rid of some money on the cap, and made sure that we didn't have a locker room issue over a player thinking he is good enough to start.

 

We all did the right thing here, except for maybe the Giants.

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...