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!

     

CBS Sports: "Cam Newton or Russell Wilson?" [Video]


RelaxImaPro

Recommended Posts

boomer is an ass. i mean that guy was taking this personally in that it had nothing to do with talent. boomer just doesn't like cam as a person. there's no way his opinion can be considered objective. 

 

cowher >>>>>> boomer

shannon sharpe >>>>> boomer

marino>>>>>>>boomer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marino and Cowher's opinions are the only ones that really hold weight with me... and whaddya' know, they both took Newton.  Sharpe as well.

 

They summed it up best:  You have to gameplan for Russell Wilson's offense, not Russell Wilson.  You have to gameplan for Cam Newton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shocked to see RW with more rushing yards.

 

Trying to see it through uninterested observer eyes and right now it is a tough question.  But a good problem to have.

 

Interesting that Cam is back in the equation(s) again..... as recently as 2-3 weeks ago it would have been RW vs. RGme or Luck with no mention of Cam at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marino and Cowher's opinions are the only ones that really hold weight with me... and whaddya' know, they both took Newton.  Sharpe as well.

 

They summed it up best:  You have to gameplan for Russell Wilson's offense, not Russell Wilson.  You have to gameplan for Cam Newton.

 

That is what it boils down to.  I will admit though.  Between Luck, Kaepernick, RGIII and Wilson.  I would take Wilson.  Luck to me is more hype than anything.  

 

Wilson has a way of Jaking it.  How jake used to pull it out his @SS.  Wilson seems to have the knack too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russell Wilson is a stud, I'm not even gonna lie... he's going to be one of the best in the league for a long time... but you can't deny he's got a lot more help on the offensive side of the ball.  Not only that but also have a defense that isn't far behind ours (and in some people's opinions, better than ours).

 

Every Seahawks game I watch for every good Wilson play be it a scramble or what, there's consistent great runs by Lynch and amazing circus catches by his receivers and they get the YAC to go along with it.  Can't say the same for Cam's offensive help... aside from Olsen he has to put the ball right on the numbers every damn time to make a completion, very little margin of error.  I'm guessing that's what Marino, Sharpe, and Cowher are looking at as well.

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...