TD alt

If he has another good season, we're probably not going to get out of it, as that's just the nature of the beast. The salary cap goes up and salaries go up. Maybe we won't have to pay him that high, but it will most certainly be in the neighborhood. As his season goes, so will his salary (provided that the two sides won't come together now (if there's anything even going on). https://catcrave.com/panthers-insider-sets-steep-ikem-ekwonu-extension-price-despite-rocky-nfl-ride

Dean Jones, the resident writer for Cat Crave, thinks that we should consider signing Noah Fant. Jones titles his article: Panthers quietly handed perfect fix for overlooked flaw at just the right time He calls the TE position an "overlooked flaw," and even though I wouldn't necessarily go as far as that, I do believe that the Panthers would instantly buttress the position with a Fant signing. The Panthers just may throw out feelers, and there are connections. "Fant played for Panthers' tight ends coach Pat McPherson for two seasons. He was also in Seattle with head coach Dave Canales and offensive coordinator Brad Idzik in 2022. This also happens to be a position group that is dangerously short of dependable options." I guess it comes down to whether or not the Panthers believe that our guys can be the real deal, or at least fill the need that Canales and company have for this offense. I have been skeptical of the lack of TE involvement in the regular flow of the offense since Canales has taken over, but it may be because of the lack of legit and/or experienced personnel. Fant hasn't been spectacular. He is an apt move-TE though. He is a so-so middle of the pack-ish pass blocker. His run blocking grades leave a lot to be desired (save for one year). I guess that I could see it, but I just don't know if Fant moves the needle enough to spend the extra money on him. For a first rounder, he's been kind of a bust in my opinion. He's still NFL-worthy, and he's still in the prime of his career. But, I think I'm more in disagreement with Jones about thinking Fant is the "perfect fix." He just may be a more expensive, albeit more experienced, option than we already have. https://catcrave.com/panthers-quietly-handed-perfect-fix-for-overlooked-flaw-just-right-time

And if it's in fact true, then he might as well sign. Either that or give up the dream of playing in the NFL. That should be a no-brainer.

Yeah, the first thing I thought about is why argue about "conduct detrimental to the team?" Just don't do anything stupid and you should be OK. Top and even mid tier professional athletes get a lot more leeway than regular Joes out here bustin' the pavement, and we know that if we end up on the news for negativity that we've done our there in society, our ass is gonna get canned.

Yeah, but...they rank us 30th of 32 teams, so the WR-is-a-strength sentiment is built on hollowed ground (yes, "hollowed," not hallowed). When you're perceived as ranking 30th, there's an argument that all strengths are really perceived as weaknesses. I mean, basically I wouldn't get carried away with any strength arguments based upon that ranking. The truth will begin to reveal itself come early September.

Well, it seems a little confusing, but I guess not: I guess they're thinking that we're going to the way that our receivers go. Barnwell just ranked us 31 at the (so-called) offensive skill positions. ESPN just doesn't think that much of the Panthers. I wonder if it was the O-line that bumped us up one spot, because they obviously don't think that much of our safety position, or our pass-rush. In any event, there should be ample enough bulletin board material here for the team.

Ward was cheap in the grand scheme of things. Bryce Young? Not so much. Just food for thought when contemplating Cam Ward.

Chris Simms says Ward would have been the #3 QB (just behind Caleb Williams and Jayden Daniels) if you had combined 2024 & 2025 together. Not saying his mouth is a prayer book, but another GM said he'd have been QB5 had he been in the 2024 class. He may not be "#1 overall quality," but it's still very much in the air if he was worth that draft pick. Very much in the air...

ChatGPT and Google AI are saying this: Length: 4 years Total Value: $8,806,818 Signing Bonus: $2,899,504 Annual Average Value: Approximately $2.2 million per year

Bryce has no excuses. His O-line may not be perfect, but they're a legitimate, seasoned unit. As for the O-line, as well as all the acquired skill positions since Dan and Dave have taken over, The FO has done good by him. Yeah, I said it. He's a top (expensive) pick who was been coddled and catered to, and who has had the benefit of the prerequisite amount of patience by the current FO. It's now time for Bryce to succeed.

Ahh, I see why this thread has more lives than Elvis: Still going on about Thielen, after we drafted Nalo and X and Lil Jimmy and acquired a promising UDFA in Jalen Coker, and topped it all off with a good vereran receiver hunting a career resurgence after an unfortunate sickness in Hunter Renfrow. Well, there is the period of June and July where we have to manufacture nothing-burgers to fill that football void in our hungry stomachs.

Probably around 80 percent of the contract guaranteed. That's the going rate apparently.

77.98 percent. We'll see how it goes.

I agree, but I've already said that the players will definitely take more money up front because it's more security. But they want more guaranteed money and NFL FOs don't want to do that for several and various reasons, and that's what's at issue. https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-second-round-rookies-finally-starting-to-sign-what-took-so-long-and-what-it-means-for-future-contracts/ It's a tug of war between teams and players, and, sure, paying a player a signing bonus may satisfy them, especially if--and sometimes "only if"--it ultimately leads to a guarantee of more of their contract, but the teams are on the hook for all of those guarantees when cap time comes, so if they guarantee more money, they're ultimately losing the contract game.

Hell, my wife has picked up walking students on the way to school, uh-oh... I've given kids waters and Kleenexes, well damnit I'm a criminal.

That's basically what I said... If the guarantees are smaller, and/or the system is designed in such a way that balances the difference between rookies and vets, then the hit on the cap is mitigated. Yes, I realize that's what they were trying to do with the rookie wage scale, but obviously too many loopholes have evolved. It's time to modify the agreement (which probably won't happen), or we're just going to be in this position for the next half dozen years. I guess that I take a harder line. In my world, once you get drafted, you get drafted and play by the current rules. If you don't want to play by the rules then you'd just sit out until you do. You couldn't escape the situation by sitting out another year, you'd just have to play by the rules as they are, and not how you think that they should be. If gray areas arise, then the NFL and NFLPA would have to come to overarching solutions.

People only want to make a stink about it when it pertains to athletics. There are probably reasons for that, but that discussion is indeed a rabbit hole. I think that all students should be held to at least minimum standards academically so that they don't fall through the cracks, because most just aren't going to make it to (or even stay in) the pros. I've seen cases where kids are allowed to skate, slip and ultimately bust their heads because they thought that they were more "special" than they really were.

Not fully understanding. I don't get why there has to be no cap for my point to be valid. In a perfect world, they can have a cap and have guaranteed rookie contracts. The two aren't mutually exclusive. It's just a matter of finding the sweet spot that makes most satisfied.

Yep, like I said, I don't mind guaranteeing them money, but make the contracts smaller amounts in order to minimize cap implications. I don't know about "half," the actual amounts, whether more or less than half, would have to be determined by the NFL and NFLPA (which will probably be highly contentious, if not "impossible"). I'm just for whatever leads to the best product on the field while also unaffecting my wallet. As an aside, the NFL owners are greedy bastards in my estimation. They're trying to keep a larger portion of the pie, but players' agents are greedy as well, and they've sewn seeds of greed among the players. It's not all their fault; we all know what our society has evolved into, but the NFL wants a bigger piece of our smaller pocketbooks and refuses to "negotiate" with us (that's why we don't have cheaper and more reasonable à la carte options to view games that they're gradually trying to migrate to paid TV), so fu<k 'em. And then on top of that we have guys trying to water down the product even more by feeding greed. Change the way things are done so that we can at least see players prove themselves on the field without throwing wrenches into the engine that pays guys that have proven they can play on a pro level.

OK, I didn't realize this was about high school, but...if I'm spending my personal money trying to help some kids out, then no one is going to tell me how to spend my money. I get enough of the government spending my money--allocating my tax dollars--to children who don't really need anything, and now they're trying to tell me how to spend my personal money? Sure, there are many other issues to consider and rabbit holes that we could go down due to ethical concerns because it concerns kids, and the need for transparency is extremely important, but maybe as opposed to trying to stop kids from benefitting in darkness, we need to open up the blinds (and blinders) a little bit so that they can benefit in the light. I get where you're coming from, but this is a loaded and layered issue, and I'm just trying to give you some food for thought.

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.

From what I gather, sure it allows you more room in that you can manipulate the cap more due to smaller prorated amounts to fit salaries in, but for cap purposes, you're still on the hook for the money at the end of the day. "ChatGPT You said: What are the advantages for NFL teams to sign larger signing bonuses? ChatGPT said: NFL teams often use large signing bonuses as a strategic tool in contracts. While they cost real cash up front, they offer several advantages, especially when it comes to salary cap management, player retention, and negotiation leverage. Here's a breakdown of the benefits: 1. Salary Cap Flexibility Signing bonuses are prorated over the life of the contract (up to 5 years) for salary cap purposes. This allows teams to spread out the cap hit, even if the player receives the money immediately. Example: A $20M signing bonus on a 4-year deal counts only $5M/year against the cap. 2. Attracting Top Talent Players love signing bonuses because they're guaranteed money paid up front. Offering a bigger signing bonus can sweeten the deal without inflating yearly salaries. 3. Front-Loading Real Cash, Not Cap Teams with strong cash flow can pay big bonuses now while minimizing the immediate cap hit. Useful for teams trying to build around rookie QB contracts or with flexible cash budgets. 4. Locking in Key Players Larger bonuses make it harder for a player to be released early due to dead cap consequences. This can create more job security for the player and roster continuity for the team. 5. Leverage in Restructures Big signing bonuses create future cap hits via proration. Teams can later restructure deals (e.g., convert salary to bonus) to create even more cap space. 6. Competitive Edge In free agency, a team offering more guaranteed cash up front often wins the bidding war, even if the total contract value is lower than another team's. Key Caveat: Large signing bonuses increase dead cap risk if the player is cut or traded early." I think that roster bonuses can be a useful tool if you're trying to keep players in by manipulating numbers and spreading the hit over time, but I don't think that it's something that you want to use unless it's "necessary." I don't know that you want to get into signing rookies on roster bonuses, as the bust rate is relatively high.

I'm not cap expert, but I asked Google if a larger signing bonus affect an NFL cap, and here is the answer: Yes, a larger signing bonus affects the NFL cap, but its impact is spread out. While the player receives the full bonus upfront, the team prorates it evenly over the life of the contract, up to a maximum of five years, for salary cap accounting purposes. This helps teams manage their cap space in the present by pushing some of the cap hit into future years. I said "larger," but any size bonus can be applied. A player gets their money up front indeed, but the team still has to pay for it over time.

You're still hamstringing the cap at the end of the day.