eSJayDee

You can look at the Morse situation 2 ways. 1st, I'll mention that I was hoping that we could/would extend him so as to lower his cap hit. That said, I think we saved like $8m releasing him, even after the dead cap hit & he signed for like what, $5m/yr? That means that he wasn't worth his cap hit, so although losing him was unfortunate, keeping him would have been (too) costly. I'm in general happy how things have gone so far. Once I saw how much Trubisky cost, I was less pleased w/ that signing. Is he worth that? Yeah, but Kyle Allen is just as capable of taking a knee &/or handing it off when a game is out of reach & at less than 1/2 the cap hit. We've only re-signed our own guys, & the 2 we've lost have been for more than I'd want to pay for them. Further, I'd like to say I think it was more important to retain Epenesa than Floyd & I assume he comes at a (substantially) lower cost.

So far we've signed no one & lost 2 players (Floyd, Davis) who signed pretty decent contracts. Trubisky & Morse don't count either way as they were released.

Didn't the Browns or someone essentially did that when they traded for a player. Basically, the Browns got a player, like a 2nd round pick in exchange for a box of tape. As for your original question, think of (potential) dead cap space as a debt. Like you, I'm not familiar w/ all the specifics, but basically if you've already paid for the performance of a player & that cost is amortized & kicked down the road, you still need to pay for that previously used asset. i.e. You sign a player worth $6m/yr for a 2 yr, $12m contract. 1st yr they get a $1m salary & a $5m signing bonus. The cap hit that 1st yr is only $3.5m (& it'll be $8.5m the 2nd); if you cut them, you've essentially gotta pay for the benefit that you've already received but not paid for ($2.5m) but you save the pending $6m salary.

Yes, went to XXV (Bills 1st SB). Had to do it as it seemed like I was waiting forever to them finally making it (I discovered the NFL in '72 & became a Bills fan in '73). I also wanted to go to XXVII (very confident we were going to win ) but couldn't get out of work.

It seemed to me that the 1st part of the season Kincaid caught everything near him; not a single drop. At some point, he started to drop a few, but I still wouldn't call it a problem. Diggs, 1st part of the season very few drops but at some point, started dropping quite a few. Also, it seemed that Cook was thrown to later in the season more & had a few critical drops. I don't know if these issues corresponded to the switch in coordinators, just seemed like a marked difference between early & late season. (Perhaps weather came into play? Harder to catch a ball in cold/wet than in warm/dry conditions.)

No. This year we just got beat. Even if we make that FG, I think the odds of us winning are <50%. (KC had plenty of time to score in regulation & if it reached OT, it's a toss up.) Making things worse, we demonstrated little ability in stopping them. As for 13 seconds - we lost cuz we crapped the bed. We gave the game away, which really hurts.

Do you even call him a FB? There's nobody on the roster ahead of him; as I recall he's been healthy all year & he's played what, prolly (well) under 100 offensive snaps. Meanwhile, he plays most ST snaps & has prolly played 300+ there. No, he's not a top 5 FB & he's arguably not even a FB. For that matter, as someone mentioned above, how many true FBs are there these days?

Well, they're gonna be w/o Spector. Also, Dodson is perhaps one good shot on the shoulder from being sidelined again. Klein also plays ST.

If you hit it near perfect. A slightly deflated ball will result in more consistency.

I've thought about that, too. You'd think that the team would want to get some sort of ROI. It's possible, in fact, once I think about it, probably probable, that the wording on the contract is that it's for the position of "head coach" & as such, no demotion is possible.

Not much of a Dylan fan, but...

Both from an eyeball test (which, admittedly could be biased) & from a statistical standpoint, Jonathan has outperformed him (in noticeably less snaps, too). Additionally, Miller doesn't play ST, so unless we suffer multiple injuries mid-week on the DL, then no, shouldn't be active.

I would think that would be a VERY easy item to "smuggle" in,. if ya know what I mean.

Certainly having a proven, capable backup is desirable. However, given our dire cap situation, & the desire to retain some quality FAs, I think it's a luxury we can't afford. Or at least we need to put our resources to player(s) that are definitely going to contribute rather than likely sitting on the bench.

Somewhat related - Didn't Reggie Bush set a record for futility rushing the one year he played for us? Like the most # of carries w/ negative net yards? I think Kyle has him beat. Doesn't he have like 10 or 12 -1 yard runs by now?

I can see both sides of the argument - Hamlin is playing & contributing at about the same way he was previously, which is to say he's a bottom of the roster contributor. But he LITERALLY came back from the dead to be the player he previously was. Although Flacco went from couch potato to starting caliber QB that has (significantly?) contributed to some wins, he's still not anywhere near the level he previously was. So...is backup to nothing to decent starter better than backup to dead & back to backup?

Just saw the highlights & you are correct - Groot & Miller.

I was annoyed when the announcers mentioned that we only had 2 DL on the last play & we were using our best in Floyd & Miller. Really? I'd take Rousseau &/or Oliver over Miller any day of the week.

Thanks. That guy (Michael Smith?) was/is a good interviewer. Don't think I've seen him before.

Actually, in '75 (the 1 yr in his tenure that we had a good/great, balanced attack) OJ caught 7 TDs & averaged like 16 yds/catch!

You might be right, I don't think I've ever timed a pass, or at the very least, it's not something I'm familiar w/. I'm basing that estimate on punts, which I am quite familiar w/, both my own & pros. Though it's contrary to the typical intent, I'd think it difficult to punt a ball 50 yds in the air & have it arrive in < ~3 seconds. Thinking about it further, consider someone running under a "bomb". Considering they're already at speed, they'd easily cover 30+ yds once a ball is airborne. I don't think QBs have to lead them that much so I guess that makes this strategy more viable.

An added potential bonus of attempting this strategy is that it's more likely to draw a DPI penalty. DPI isn't usually called on the melee that is typically a hail mary, but it might be (much) more likely if it's a defender hauling butt to try to defend a single receiver that's all by his lonesome, & further gives the receiver the opportunity to try to "induce" it.

If it's a "short" hail mary & you've got a QB w/ a good arm, it might be barely feasible. Although the defenders are bunched, they're still spread out for maybe 8-10 yds, and they're not on the sideline, but rather more toward the middle of the field. So even if you set up "in the corner", you've got at most 30 yds before other sideline. I doubt any QB can throw more than 50 yds in < ~3 seconds. Once that ball is airborne, a DB can run almost 30 yds in ~3 seconds. If you can somehow time a receiver receiver surreptitiously break for the other sideline just as the QB is throwing, it might be viable. But again, I think only for a "short" hail mary.

I did NOT enjoy the 2nd half. On the plus side, yay, our defense didn't crap the bed on the last drive. That might a good thing moving forward.

Butch Rolle? All he does is catch touchdowns!