eSJayDee

3 I haven't seen mentioned yet - The Fonz Les Nesman Benson (on Soap, not his spinoff)

No flies on you

Interesting stat - we had 9 Pass Defensed according to NFL.com. Houston only had a total of 10 incomplete/Ints!

They might have to pay more for him so they can have more flexibility. Seems to me you're much more likely to lose elite running ability due to injury or just natural deterioration than elite arm talent. W/o his exceptional arm, JA still has the ability to be a good QB. How good would LJ be if he wasn't much of a runner? Can you say $50m+ in dead cap space?

Either you or what you're quoting transposed those #s. I assume he played 61 defensive snaps, or 82%, same as Poyer. They were pulled for the last series or 2, which IMO is a good thing.

8 Captains? Do like the other 45 feel left out (We can assume from the above twit, Mrs Hughes does)?

I seem to recall hearing that one of the reasons Bojo didn't like it here was cuz of it being difficult to kick here due to the weather. Welcome to Green Bay. :DOH:

I've waded through 5 pages before I saw someone alluding to "taking one for the team". Players sacrifice/risk their long-term health for the short term benefit for the team. (Ronnie Lott says "Hi"). Beasley played w/ a broken leg last yr! Further, from what I understand, most of these players take copious amounts of pain killers, anti-inflammatories, etc yet they're reluctant to have a vaccine that like literally BILLIONS are now getting? Seems to me, you're not being a good teammate if you're endangering your teams chance of success by not getting vaccinated.

Considering the depth & strength we have at other positions (as well as planning for next yr) & that we likely won't be a RB/running-centric offense, I see us not carrying too many RBs on the roster. Considering that they're now apparently have Gilliam to be use in an "emergency" situation, I can see it quite possible that we only carry 3 RBs. Singletary (who looks far better than last yr), Moss, & ...? Granted Brieda looks fast, but does he really offer that much else? I think it depends how much he'll contribute on STs.

Actually, I'm impressed that they considered this. In some scenarios, if properly executed, it could save a few seconds. If after a long completion, having the ST assemble on field for the spike might be quicker than having the whole offense run down the field & get set to do so.

When you talk about tenure of coaches, I think it's absolutely amazing that the Steelers have only had 3 coaches since I've been following football - like 50 yrs! (Noll, Cauher (sp?) & Tomlin).

1st, as a philanthropist, I think Ralph was worthy of acclaim & reverence. As an owner, let's just say he was a good business man. I'd further like to point out, that when the AFL was forming, the 1950 census had Buffalo as like the 11th largest city in the country. So, short of predicting New Yorks general economic & population decline, of unoccupied choices, at the time, it seemed like a prudent choice.

What makes it all the more enjoyable is that he doesn't behave like an asshat when he scores. Ahh, the good old days.

In some ways, I think it has helped us though. 1) Beane is very "fiscally responsible" w/ how he structures contracts, so we're not often left w/ large amounts of dead cap space or players we can't afford to cut. 2) We were able to retain almost all of our own FAs, I think in large part cuz there wasn't large amounts of $ elsewhere to attract them. Were it not for that, I think a few of our retained players may well have cost $1m or more each per yr to keep.

I've heard of choking the chicken, but I'm not familiar w/ "tweaking the rooster". :LOL:

Actually, the Law of Supply & Demand would dictate that w/ so many FAs out there, prices should be kept down. Prices go up when there's many bidders & minimal supply.

How old are you? You do know that the Bills made it to the SB 4 yrs in a row? Who was our most successful coach of all time? I'll give you a hint - he started as a ST coach. Granted, this was before the cap era, but the effort & emphasis was definitely there, and this was at a time w/ smaller rosters.

That's like $140m/yr! Over that span, that's around 75% of their total cap. Granted, rookies & young players don't count much cap-wise, but to me that indicates that they retain virtually none of their players after their 1st contract. That's indicative of a) not doing a good job of scouting/acquiring players and b) a recipe for continued suckitude.

I think it's more a matter of him not wanting to sign w/ us. He's a solid contributor here, as a 4th or 5th WR. One can't afford to pay a 5th WR well. Further, I would suspect someone desperate to upgrade their WR position would see his productivity here & think he's got a (good) chance of being a significant contributor for them & of course offer him commensurate pay. As for KR, I think he could be good & therefore worthy more $. I'd be hesitant to let him return punts as I think he'd be a noticeable downgrade relative to Roberts WRT fielding the ball.

Rather surprised that his projected salary is about the same as Williams. I think the consensus is Williams ranks higher among Ts than Feliciano among Gs AND, more importantly, Ts get paid better than Gs.

I don't know this for sure, but I believe this to be the case, too. Although in the example you provided, I would assume Bojo would decline that proposal & instead opt for the 1 yr deal. I would think a multi-year deal amenable to both parties would either include a "significant" signing bonus &/or escalating salaries.

I definitely think an effort should be made to re-sign him, the question is whether or not he's even worth the minimum tender though. That would put him in the top 1/3 of punters salary-wise. If we were flush w/ cap space, then yes. I don't think he's worth the higher tenders (though if someone wants to surrender the pick, then thank you very much), but I don't think his market value is much less than that & I wouldn't want to lose him over a few hundred K. Then again, perhaps a better solution for both parties would be a multi-year deal.

The "cash to cap" was really just a clever marketing slogan so as to justify not spending TO the cap. You're obviously limited by the cap for amortized money, but if you also constrain yourself by "cash to cap" it really means you're gonna spend (well) below the cap. There's a difference between the previous regimes "cash to cap" "strategy" & actually a "pay as you go" (to the extend practical) that we currently seem to employ.

I'll add that WRT Milano's situation, one of the ways I think this regime is fiscally responsible is to not give large bonuses. What some teams do, is give large bonuses w/ small initial yr(s) salaries. This allows you to easier afford signings by pushing fwd the liability. Problem w/ this is if the player doesn't work out, you're left w/ substantial dead cap when you release them. As much as possible, I think we currently pretty much "pay as you go".

I wonder why at this juncture. He's gotta be making close to minimum wage for his experience & he's gotta be replaced by someone else, so the savings are really only (eventually) a few 100k. When he's on the field, he's comparable (or better) than Wallace or Norman. Only thing I can think of, is we intend to re-sign someone & need the cap space while only the top 51 count.