ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

Thanks. looks like it's pretty clear that we could put 5 smurfs on the interior line, as long as they all reported "ineligible" before the play. The Referee then has to inform the defense, but my guess is at least the first time we did it, the defense still wouldn't be prepared for it. With that kind of inside-the-box thinking, you could be a head coach in the NFL. Well, maybe not for the Eagles.

The smurfs (I prefer to call them runners/ballhandlers) on the line wouldn't be eligible to catch a forward pass, but so what? Everybody's eligible to catch and run with a lateral - - just make sure that the only forward pass goes to an eligible receiver, and let the mayhem commence. Edit: Anybody actually know for sure if a smurf could report as "ineligible" and take one of the 5 interior line spots for the play?

I doubt that the defense would adjust that quickly, but if they did, I'd be a happy camper. I'd train my guys to run some version of a screen pass, and then i'd have 10 effective runners/ball handlers taking on just 5 defenders down field. Tell me that's got a worse chance of scoring than what you usually see on crazy lateral plays.

You've all seen the play I'm talking about - - last play of the game, down by anywhere from 4-8 points, too far away for a Hail Mary pass into the end zone. My question: Can you replace the usual 5 offensive linemen for this play with some combination of backup RBs, your backup QB, and maybe a CB/return man or two at the line of scrimmage? You're not really gonna rely on any kind of blocking scheme anyway, and just hope that the totally random, wild nature of the ball movement gets the defenders out of position. And the defense rarely rushes very many guys at the QB, anyway. So why not get a larger number of effective runners/ball handlers on the field, and maybe even a second thrower that the defense might not expect? Is there some rule that would prevent this kind of personnel package for the play?

From the comments at the Buffalo News website:

My oldest brother Darryl likes her twin sister in the top photo better.

That's a really good point.

Do this without touching the "mark" and it's all in good fun. Bump the "mark" in the process and it's a problem. Most of what's on the video falls in the latter category. Wonder what happens when these jerks pull this stunt on an undercover cop wearing the opposing team's jersey, and bump him in the process?

Why indeed. If I set up a subchapter S corporation or a limited partnership to buy the Bills (so any losses would "flow through" to my personal income tax return and offset some of my taxable income from other sources), I'd be OK with running the franchise at a small, annual taxable loss for 15 years. Emphasis on "taxable." Anybody who buys the Bills today can use the modern version of the roster depreciation allowance (the "RDA") to deduct 1/15th of the entire purchase price every year for 15 years. Let's say that the purchase price is $900 million. That would let the buyer deduct $900M/15 = $60 million each and every year for the next 15 years. Think about that. If I ran the franchise so that I had an annual profit of $60 million per year after considering everything but this particular expense item, my business would have a positive $60 million cash flow every year for 15 years and taxable income of exactly ZERO each of those years. Alternatively, if I ran the franchise so that it merely broke even each year before application of the RDA expense item, the franchise would show a "paper loss" of $60M each and every year for 15 years that I could use to offset my taxable income from other sources (assuming that my ownership structure was set up as a subchapter S corporation or a limited partnership). All while operating the franchise with internally generated cash that required no other financial contribution from me. Given the history of NFL franchise appreciation over the years, I'd take my chances that I could re-sell the team 15 years down the road for a lot more than $900M. But hey, that's just me. If you think the above scenario is unrealistic, read these sources: http://seattletimes....ertaxes05m.html http://deadspin.com/...28-million-loss [author mistakenly assumed that a particular financial expense entry on an NBA team's books was for roster depreciation allowance when it was really for something else, but the description of how the RDA works was accurate] http://econ.la.psu.e...ulson/veeck.pdf [warning - - egghead version written by university professors] The RDA works much like depreciation for rental real estate. It can let the football business be cash flow positive even while generating paper losses for income tax purposes. Ralph's not gettin' any younger. Anybody got about $900 million I can borrow?

If the aliens know that a Canadian is on to them, that could explain why the "extraterrestrial neutrinos" were found in Antarctica, rather than in the Arctic. Might also explain why even with global warming, visiting ships are now getting locked in Antarctic ice, but not in the Arctic: http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2013/12/26/russian-ship-trapped-in-ice/4206329/ It's an inconvenient truth, but if the aliens are among us, we can't just bury our heads in the ice like penguins.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/utah-gun-maker-turns-down-15m-deal-with-pakistan/2014/01/05/921c7fa0-7658-11e3-a647-a19deaf575b3_story.html

http://macomb.patch.com/groups/business-updates/p/philanthropist-ralph-wilson-honors-buffalo-bills-cfo-jeffrey-c-littmann-with--endowed-scholarship-at-walsh-college_fe1bfffc Littman used to work for Ziebart International (best known for rust-proofing)- - make up your own joke - - I'm all out.

? !

Oops - - you're right, I should have fact checked.

She's a generation older than you, and I know from your posts that you're pretty good with technology. Even though she has a big-time job it's likely that she relies on others for tech assistance at work. Given what you said about importance of family to her, I bet she might appreciate it if you set up a digital picture frame with a continuous slide show of family pictures. You could get one in the range you are willing to spend - - and other family members would probably be happy to contribute family photos to the effort. Naah - - - just get her a fishing pole, drill or toolbox.

If the base salary cap (before adding any amounts rolled in because they were unspent in a prior year) is say $125M per year, the current floor that each team must spend over the 4 years 2013-1016 would be roughly $125M x 4 x 89% = $445M. By choosing to allocate $7M of Fitz "dead money" into 2013, the Bills reduced the amount they must spend during that 4 year period by less than 2%, to $438M. OK, that's cheap, but not significant enough to make much difference if they spent the remaining $438M wisely. And the $7M is a one-time thing that's already done. Going forward, why should it make the slightest difference whether the Bills are required to (1) spend 89% of $125M = $111.25M each and every year (which totals $445M over 4 years), or (2) time their spending any way they want so long as the 4 year total adds up to at least $445M? Free agents aren't fighting each other to come here, for numerous reasons. If we are required to overpay for free agents compared to NY, NE and Miami, seems to me like we potentially benefit by having the option to load up for a run every few years. How would the reduced flexibility you propose possibly help us (as compared to the current 4 year average floor)?

Hey Dibs - - in an older thread we discussed whether unused cap room could be "re-rolled." The discussion in this thread spurred me to google search the issue again, but I still can't find anything definitive. I did have an additional thought, however. The provision of the 2011 CBA that allows rollover of unused cap room was designed to replace the commonly used gimmick of creating performance-based bonuses that temporarily counted against the cap in year 1, but when not actually earned the unpaid $$ would roll over and be added to the team's salary cap in year 2. Because there was no restriction on the ability to repeat the process with new gimmicky bonuses in year 2 as far as I know, the old system didn't result in any unused cap money from year 1 "evaporating" if it wasn't used in year 2. If the new system was merely designed to simplify things, as seems likely, there shouldn't ever be any "evaporation" of unused year 1 cap money if it isn't spent in year 2 (assuming the team elects to use its option of electing to roll it over). Certainly not definitive, but maybe the history of how the rollover option came to exist in the 2011 CBA gives more hope that unused cap money in year 1 doesn't simply "evaporate" if not spent in year 2.

Not sure about "how much," but you can get "when" from the hour-by-hour forecast at www.weather.com

Interesting quiz - - my results showed three widely separated cities that sounded the most like me - - one of them was where i went to college - - the other 2 weren't close to where I've ever lived.

Small consolation after missing the playoffs in part because we whupped 'em, but Fish fans can expect new technology in their stadium next season: http://www.forbes.com/sites/darrenheitner/2013/12/30/miami-dolphins-lose-on-field-but-win-with-new-qualcomm-location-driven-partnership/?partner=yahootix Wonder if Brandon speaks "Gimbal beacon?"

The musical content of the remake may not be "stellar," but for uniqueness, I'll go with Canadian astronaut Chris Hadfield's 2013 remake of David Bowie's "Space Oddity" - - guitar, vocal and video actually recorded on the friggin' International Space Station:

Weiner saw flashlights? The imagination runs wild . . .

Son, back in 2013 the NFL had a "blackout rule," and there were fans in every one of these seats.

Maybe: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131218/14533925607/intelligence-task-force-hints-nsa-manipulating-financial-systems-changing-amounts-bank-accounts.shtml