Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pat Traina with her thoughts after studying cap situation - she knows her stuff

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Brown was toasted in coverage plenty of times last year, and Will Hill hasn't played enough to say one way or another.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by ShakeandBake View Post
      Brown was toasted in coverage plenty of times last year, and Will Hill hasn't played enough to say one way or another.
      Well they both make a lot less than Rolle and he gets toasted plenty.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by ShakeandBake View Post
        Brown was toasted in coverage plenty of times last year, and Will Hill hasn't played enough to say one way or another.
        Not even close to as many times as Rolle was. Almost every game AR was getting burned. Hill played very well in coverage at safety.

        Comment


        • #64
          I think the biggest problem we had at safety last year was blowing coverages and just plain being out of position, getting beat is one thing but being in the wrong place for the coverage is unacceptable...

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by JesseJames View Post
            I think the biggest problem we had at safety last year was blowing coverages and just plain being out of position, getting beat is one thing but being in the wrong place for the coverage is unacceptable...
            With the amount that that has happened over the past few years, I tend to lay the blame for that on Fewell. If after 3 years veteran players are still having the same type of communication problems, then I tend to think that it has more to do with the coaching/play design than it being on the players.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Drez View Post
              With the amount that that has happened over the past few years, I tend to lay the blame for that on Fewell. If after 3 years veteran players are still having the same type of communication problems, then I tend to think that it has more to do with the coaching/play design than it being on the players.
              I seem to remember the same thing being said by the players when Tim Lewis was DC here, they said the plays weren't being communicated properly and too many times the guys weren't sure of their coverages and I see this same thing here right now...

              Comment


              • #67
                Right off the bat I can tell you she doesnt know what she is talking about.

                When she makes it sound like the players are being asked to restructure as if they are giving up money. Restructuring turns non-guaranteed base salary into up front guaranteed money. Why would a player not want to do that?

                A restructure is completely and totally in a players favor.



                If she means to ask them to take a pay cut, then say that. But a restructure is not a pay cut, at all, its the opposite.

                Comment


                • #68
                  restructure is a restructure - it can go up or down in player's favor

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by pathas View Post
                    restructure is a restructure - it can go up or down in player's favor
                    Nope, it only goes up in the player's favour. Non-guaranteed money becomes guaranteed.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      a player can defer a portion of his non guaranteed salary to a future year without changing what guaranteed money he has coming from the signing bonus - which is the only thing that's guaranteed, I believe. But maybe I am wrong about this. I think Brady did that last year.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by pathas View Post
                        a player can defer a portion of his non guaranteed salary to a future year without changing what guaranteed money he has coming from the signing bonus - which is the only thing that's guaranteed, I believe. But maybe I am wrong about this. I think Brady did that last year.
                        Huh? A signing bonus is guaranteed money. You mean a player could push off getting the signing bonus for a year? How would that help the team or the player? A signing bonus is distributed through the entire contract regardless.

                        If you mean a player could defer his base salary, then it just makes them a far more likely release candidate in the future.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by slipknottin View Post
                          Huh? A signing bonus is guaranteed money. You mean a player could push off getting the signing bonus for a year? How would that help the team or the player? A signing bonus is distributed through the entire contract regardless.

                          If you mean a player could defer his base salary, then it just makes them a far more likely release candidate in the future.
                          that's what I said - the base is not guaranteed and it can be deferred. So you're right - that would make them a far more likely release candidate in the future. Thus - that would be a restructure not in favor of the player. Flip Empty said restructures are ALWAYS in the favor of the player and I don't think I agree with that - but then I can't site any specific examples. So again - maybe I am wrong - but I think I'm right - and that's what matters.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by ShakeandBake View Post
                            Brown was toasted in coverage plenty of times last year, and Will Hill hasn't played enough to say one way or another.

                            +1
                            “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” MB Rule # 1

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by pathas View Post
                              that's what I said - the base is not guaranteed and it can be deferred. So you're right - that would make them a far more likely release candidate in the future. Thus - that would be a restructure not in favor of the player. Flip Empty said restructures are ALWAYS in the favor of the player and I don't think I agree with that - but then I can't site any specific examples. So again - maybe I am wrong - but I think I'm right - and that's what matters.
                              Restructure always do benefit the player. It turns non-guaranteed money into guaranateed money. Slip was just saying that if a player could defer base salary, then it would make them more likely to be released (as a cap casualty) before that money is due to them.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Drez View Post
                                Restructure always do benefit the player. It turns non-guaranteed money into guaranateed money. Slip was just saying that if a player could defer base salary, then it would make them more likely to be released (as a cap casualty) before that money is due to them.
                                so what you are saying is that a player has NEVER deferred a part of his base salary??? I don't believe it. But maybe that's true.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X