Tuco

Certain things can be worded, but the CBA can't be overwritten. Marrone's contract isn't bound by the CBA so they can write anything they want in there. But you're somewhat mistaken about Dareus. The CBA clearly states that if a forfeitable breach occurs due to a player's retirement, the team has the option of seeking repayment of the applicable amount of his prorated signing bonus in addition to base salary refunds. This makes sense because, in a case like VD's, the Bills have every right to expect repayment. You don't give a guy $1.5 million on top of a nice salary just so he can quit on you halfway through the second game. But it's not a mandatory repayment because, say a long time player was in the 4th year of a 5 year contract when the team says hey we no longer need you so we're gonna let you go. Or, if you'd like to retire and fade away gracefully we're not going to demand repayment of the final year's worth of your prorated bonus. That's why the CBA gives teams the choice. I suppose, since repayment due to retirement is a team option, it's possible the Bills contract with VD says he doesn't have to repay his bonus if he retires after 1 1/2 games. But I wouldn't bet on it. Overdorf's contract with Dareus did make waves, but it wasn't for language he included, but rather, for language he didn't include. In this case, many large contracts include language that will void the guarantees on future year's salaries if the player gets suspended at any point. Overdorf didn't include that in MD's contract, and that raised a rukus among fans for a bit. But as for Dareus repaying a portion of his signing bonus, since the suspension was due to substance abuse, the Bills were required by the CBA to request repayment of the applicable portion of prorated bonus along with any other salary (and cap) reimbursements. This is specifically spelled out in the CBA and can't be written out. https://www.sbnation.com/2016/8/16/12505890/bills-dt-marcell-dareus-facing-4-game-suspension . . . . With a base salary of $7.9 million for 2016, Dareus will lose more than $1.85 million for the four weeks he’s on suspension. . . . . With $5 million of his $25 million signing bonus counting against the 2016 cap, he’ll also be required to pay back 4/17th of that amount. That’s another $1.17 million. . . . . Likewise, with a $7 million option bonus earned this year, Dareus will be required to pay back $274,510, per a source with knowledge of the specific calculation. . . . . The Bills are required to seek repayment, even if they don’t want to.

Here's where it's at. Until VD is technically retired he still counts against the cap. And everything from game 2 counts even though he quit halfway through - at least for now. If the Bills want to go after 1/2 a games money they will have to go through an arbitrator. Until then, VD's 2 games count. Before the season VD had a cap charge of an even $5,000,000. This is broken down in the following manner- Base salary - $2,250,000 Signing bonus - $1,500,000 Workout bonus -$250,000 Roster bonus - $250,000 These amounts total $4,250,000 In addition, VD had a weekly roster bonus (it's not that uncommon by the way) of either- $46,875 if on the 46 man roster (X 16 games = $750,000), or- $15,625 if only on the 53 man roster (X 16 games = $250,000). It's one or the other above each week, not both. Before the season the NFL looked at the contract and decided the $46,875 per week was a "Likely To Be Earned" (LTBE) incentive, so they charged that amount ($750,000) against the cap at the start of the year (LTBE incentives that aren't earned get refunded as the season goes on). The $750,000 added to the $4,250,000 is where the total cap charge of $5,000,000 VD had before the season comes from. Now if you look at the Spotrac page, it now shows a cap charge of $4,312,500. The roster bonus that used to show $250,000 now shows $312,500. That's because the roster bonus for week 1 ($15,625) and week 2 ($46,875) have been paid and added to the $250,000 roster bonus figure. That brings the original $4,250,000 up to $4,312,500. Or, more specifically, since the announced retirement, the league (or at least Spotrac) have decided the remaining weekly roster bonuses are no longer LTBE so no longer charged, bringing his current charge down to $4,312,500. Where we are at this point. VD hasn't been officially retired by the league. Technically he could walk back in and say he changed his mind and still wants to play. If so the Bills would have to decide to release him (letting him keep almost all his guaranteed salary and SB), or accept him back, possibly with suspensions and fines for conduct detrimental, etc. Maybe even so far as seeking to have the contract voided by an arbitrator. Either way, If VD changes his mind it would be very ugly. So let's say he stays retired. If VD is deemed officially retired he will get to keep his first 2 game checks plus the per game roster bonuses. Base salary is divided by the 17 weeks of the season, so he keeps the 2/17 ($264,706) of his base salary, plus the $62,500 per game bonuses. Also he keeps the $250,000 original roster bonus and the $250,000 workout bonus, whatever that all adds up to. We'll get to his signing bonus below. Once he becomes officially retired the Bills will get cap relief in the amounts of $687,500 for the no longer LTBE weekly roster bonuses (according to Spotrac they already have, whatev). They will also be refunded $1,985,294 (15/17 of the $2,250,000 base salary) for a total of $2,672,794 towards the cap. Additionally, they have the right via the CBA to request repayment of 15/17 of the $1,500,000 signing bonus. If VD repays it they get credit immediately. If not the Bills will have to go through a system arbitrator who would most likely award them an additional $1,323,529. So all told, the Bills could eventually recieve $3,996,323 in salary cap refunds. Plus, I suppose, they could also go through the system arbitrator for 1/2 of a game's refunds. No telling how that would go. It's never been done before.

Other Tie-Breaking Procedures Only one club advances to the playoffs in any tie-breaking step. Remaining tied clubs revert to the first step of the applicable division or Wild Card tie-breakers. As an example, if two clubs remain tied in any tie-breaker step after all other clubs have been eliminated, the procedure reverts to Step 1 of the two-club format to determine the winner. When one club wins the tiebreaker, all other clubs revert to Step 1 of the applicable two-club or three-club format.

Actually that's what they have to do with him.

Nah. Going to the Super Bowl and losing is still a hell of a lot more fun than sucking for 20 years.

The $200 million G4 loan is a great deal. It's loaned by the league and repaid by certain ticket revenue that would normally go into the revenue sharing pot. It's basically free money from the other owners. The problem is it's tied to the CBA. When the salary cap is set each year by a percentage of "all revenue," it's really all revenue minus these G4 loan amounts. It's agreed in the CBA that new stadiums lead to higher revenue and therefore the NFLPA allows the deduction. But that's the catch currently IMO. The loan only happens if the NFLPA approves the deduction from "all revenue." Since it's too late to be building a new stadium in 2019, the soonest we would be starting is 2020. But 2020 is the final year of the CBA, and whether it's a contentuous negotiation or not, there's no guarantee the G4 program or anything similar will still exist beyond 2020. And no guarantee with labor uncertainty the NFLPA would approve a loan anyway. I would say it's probable that a new or similar program will exist. But billion dollar projects don't like to deal in probable funding. Remember a couple years ago - when there was still time to use the G4 program, the owners were pushing Pegs a little to get a new stadium built. Let's face it, 4-5 new stadiums over the course of 10 years amounts to almost a billion dollars that owners are allowed to invest in stadiums rather than pay out in wages. And most teams have taken "their turn" over the last 20 years. Now we don't hear from the owners so much. I believe it's because now that it's too late for the Bills to use the G4 loan program, the owners are now also on board for them waiting to see what new or extended program will be available. So I think this, more than anything, is the reason for saying the stadium plans are unclear.

As I see it there's two different kinds of accuracy. Drop back 5 or 7 steps with the correct footwork, plant and throw to a spot where the reciever is supposed to be is a type of accuracy that can be improved upon somewhat through repetition and mechanics. Even still some will outperform others. But live game conditions require a different kind of accuracy. Often times the recievers routes get impeded, or there's a defender in the spot the ball is suppose to go to, or there's a 6' 5" lineman right where the QB needs to throw the ball. When this happens the QB has to adjust and it becomes a matter of leading a reciever who's not going to be in a predtermined spot. He also may be running straight away, or across in front of the QB, or crosswise towards the sidelines, or maybe slanting towards or away, and always at a different distance from the QB, who also might be forced to make the throw while moving left or right or off his back foot. These are the kinds of throw Rodgers and Roethlisberger and others excel at. And its why they are so much better than the average guys on game day. When the average QB fails to make one of these throws we say it's because the timing was thrown off by the jam on the reciever, or he didn't have his feet set, etc. But the truth is, these kinds of throws can be made much better by some QBs than others. The QB doesn't have his feet set, or he may be on the move or on his back foot. He has to see the reciever and how far away he is and what angle he's running at and throw the ball where it needs to be without taking the time to think about it. This kind of accuracy can't be taught and doesn't get practiced. Guys can either do it well or they can't. They become the difference makers. They are the guys who can keep the drive alive when it's 3rd and 12 late in the game. And they're not always the same guys who can hit the target 10 out of 10 after a perfect drop and set. Time will tell. Fingers crossed.

I see what you're saying and it sure could be. Still, they could have just given themselves the extra room this year in case of emergency and just roll it over to next year if they didn't use it. Or maybe there's something in the settlement that was reached that didn't get agreed to until the last minute. Time will tell I guess. Either way I don't think it's a big deal.

Right. It would actually be better to push it back to next year. That way it's extra space this year in case of emergency. But if you don't use it it just rolls over and cancels itself out next year. The whole June 1st rule was invented before teams were allowed to roll unused cap over from year to year. It's not really that big of a deal any more.

I think the reports of them taking the whole $10+ million cap hit this year are premature. If they waited until after 4:00 PM to release him it's technically a post June 1st move. If they were going to do it before June 1st they wouldn't have waited until the last minute. Not that it's that important either way.

What other employer gets money from the DOD? But let's reflect. Long before kneeling for the anthem became a thing, standing along the sidelines in a uniform line with helmets under their arms was a standard practice. Never mind the often recited reports about how nobody stood for the anthem before 9/11. That's bull ****. It just wasn't a league wide rule until then. But lots of teams had a team rule that required the players to be on the field and stand in a prescribed manner while the flag was displayed and the anthem played. I attended lots of games before 9/11. Every single one of them had the players out and standing respectfully. And you know what? Never, at any point until Colin Kaepernick decided to refuse to show pride in the flag (his words) did any player ever think of adhering to that team rule as "forced patriotism." What they considered it was part of their job. Their contracts explicitly state that the players will act in a certain manner since they acknowledge the importance of the teams' and the game of football's public image. For all those years team rules requiring players to be on the field and stand respectfully for the flag were considered no more or less "forced" than any other team rule that has nothing to do with the game. Team rules requiring players to wear a suit and tie while travelling to road games were always adhered to. Nobody made a 1st amendment stink about it. Team rules requiring players to take turns signing autographs during camp were adhered to. Team rules requiring grown adults to be in their hotel rooms by 10:00 PM on game nights were adhered to, or consequences suffered. All these and many more (including standing respectfully) were simply considered standard practices agreed to when accepting employment. But okay, somehow standing respectfully has become an issue that now has people comparing this so called "forced patriotism" to Nazi Germany and all sorts of other things. And many like to point to the article stating the league received $5.4 million from the DOD and saying ever since then the players have been "forced" to show their patriotism. How dare the league subject them to something that's actually been going on for decades? But here's the real rub. There's a thing called the collective bargaining agreement. In that agreement, along with numerous references that give the league and teams the ability to impose rules like standing respectfully, there's also a guideline pertaining to what's known as "all revenue." All revenue means just that. The amount of money guaranteed to go to the players in the form of wages is based on a percentage of all revenues received by the league (minus, of course, a certain number of qualifying items that are specified therein). So in case we've lost anybody, this means that (roughly) 47% of that often quoted figure of $5.4 million the league received from the DOD, or, $2.538 million of those DOD dollars, was earmarked and made its way into the players' paychecks. That fact, along with the numerous references in the CBA regarding the players' agreement to certain rules, and the fact that for decades the practice of standing respectfully, if for no other reason than the public image of the league, means the teams and league absolutely have the ability to enforce such rules. And any quibbling over the subject matter of the protests, or the constitutionality of the protests, or the fairly recent practice of referring to standing respectfully as "forced patriotism," are all inconsequential. Thank you. Good night.

If the commish finds the conduct detrimental to the league or professional football, they can enforce it. 2. EMPLOYMENT AND SERVICES. Club employs Player as a skilled football player. Player accepts such employment. He agrees to give his best efforts and loyalty to the Club, and to conduct himself on and off the field with appropriate recognition of the fact that the success of professional football depends largely on public respect for and approval of those associated with the game. 15. INTEGRITY OF GAME. Player recognizes the detriment to the League and professional football that would result from impairment of public confidence in the honest and orderly conduct of NFL games or the integrity and good character of NFL players. Player therefore acknowledges his awareness that if he accepts a bribe or agrees to throw or fix an NFL game; fails to promptly report a bribe offer or an attempt to throw or fix an NFL game; bets on an NFL game; knowingly associates with gamblers or gambling activity; uses or provides other players with stimulants or other drugs for the purpose of attempting to enhance on-field performance; or is guilty of any other form of conduct reasonably judged by the League Commissioner to be detrimental to the League or professional football, the Commissioner will have the right, but only after giving Player the opportunity for a hearing at which he may be represented by counsel of his choice, to fine Player in a reasonable amount; to suspend Player for a period certain or indefinitely; and/or to terminate this contract.

Personally, I can agree with this. But the problem really isn't the injustice they're protesting - although that's what everybody makes it out to be (not that it isn't a problem, just that it's really not the NFL issue at its root). The problem is they are protesting while wearig their company's uniform. Nobody has the right to do that if the company doesn't allow it. Now the fact that their cause is just (in most people's eyes) clouds the issue for many people. When you talk about their right to peaceful protest, yes, we all have that right here in America. But think back to last year when numerous players joined into protesting the week after the president pissed everybody off. There were players saying they were kneeling for Puerto Rico and all sorts of other causes. Still just causes for the most part, but allowing it just because they have the right opens the door to a myriad of problems. For starters, what happens when a handful of players decide they want to exercise their right to protest abortion and start holding up pictures of dead fetuses during the anthem? Or maybe a player pulls a cross out of his jock and burns it during the anthem. The same exact "right" to peaceful protest exists for them as it does for the current racial injustice protesters, just as it would for any protest that falls between those extremes, yet no team would allow it. So where does the league draw the line? Can any player protest anything just because they have the right? Remember, they're on the clock wearing their company's uniform. Does every player have to get permission from the commish to have his cause approved? Does the commish have to publish a list of acceptable protests and non-accpetible protest causes? As others have said, Brady Quinn is full of ****. Maybe it wasn't an NFL rule but teams had their players standing for the anthem long before 911 and long before Colin keapernick was born. And it wasn't "forced patriotism." It was a team rule just like all the rest of them. They weren't forcing players to stand for or against injustice and inequality. It was no more or less a team rule than being in your hotel room by 10:00 on game night. Or making players sign autographs at camp. Or wearing a suit and tie while traveling to road games. The league screwed up by not nipping it in the bud. By remaining silent they allowed the issue to grow. Instead of that they should have done what any other company would have done. They should have issued a reminder that while in the employ of their teams and representing their teams in uniform, players are not allowed to partake in protests of any kind, social or political. Instead they remained silent and allowed it to grow into a singularly didiving issue that now has people ignoring the fact that protests of any kind shouldn't be allowed while on company time. $.02

Right. The $400,000 could actually be $0. We would still save a little over a mil by waiting til June 1st - but "saving" means not adding cap hit this year, not gaining any. Either way, waiting til June 1st keeps us from losing an additional $2.7 mil this year. The most we will gain is $400,000 but that's $250,000 roster and $150,000 workout that's up in the air. So we keep from adding a couple mil this year by waiting, and we might also gain a couple hundred thousand but I doubt it. Regardless, the most we gain from our current number is $400,000 and that's not enough to change a whole lot as far as spending on FAs.

His current cap charge is $8.88 mil. If he retires or goes IR before June 1st it would jump up to $10.64 mil, costing us about $1.77 mil more in cap this year. After June 1st his hit goes to $8.4 mil this year with $2.16 mil pushed off til next year. So when he retires or whatever after June 1st we will gain about $400,000 in cap space this year.

Well that's how I remember it progressing. Although my mind ain't what it used to be. I've always maintained an edge rusher is just another morphism that started with setting the edge. Runners now get to the edge. Receivers are out on the edge, and edge rushers now come off the edge when they used to just be outside rushers. And the link I included was a whole article on players setting the edge, so I know I didn't make it up entirely, LOL. EDIT: I realize the OP was asking about the edge "position," and my response was more a rant on the practice of current commentators overusing the term the edge. But I do believe all those terms, especially edge rusher, all originally stemmed from the practice of "setting the edge." In this video Willie McGinest says "set the edge" 4 times in 2 minutes, finishing with the statement, "It's up to the guys up front to set the edge and make sure they contain and keep their rush lanes. And sometimes we forget that as edge rushers."

It really is a defensive term, where the outside LB, or sometimes the DE, are supposed to "set the edge." It means don't get blocked so the runner can get outside of you. No matter what you have to "set the edge" and make sure the runner gets turned inside where there's more defenders. And that makes him an "edge player." http://www.houstontexans.com/news/article-2/Football-101-Setting-the-edge/aed14416-f069-4615-911c-cc7b7822a72c Unfortunately, as you have said, it's now become an overused term to describe basically anything to the outside. Commentators now say "he's trying to get to the edge" when a RB is heading for the pylon. Or they talk about receivers "out on the edge" any time they're lined up wide. Any more "the edge" really just means "outside."

While going to Houston was a nice bonus for JK, make no mistake, the real reason he didn't sign with Buffalo was money, not the weather. Having not only been given his choice of teams (cities) by the USFL, his 5 year Houston contract contained escalators that guaranteed him to be the highest paid quarterback in professional football each of those years. That's why he dissed Buffalo.

Yes thank you. I wasn't really asking a question, that it was 1983 was a given. Just pointing it out. You wouldn't expect 5 of 6 QBs taken in a draft to all be in the same division.

And as a totally meaningless but possibly interesting bit of trivia, of the 6 QBs taken in '85, 5 of them were drafted by AFC East teams. You're welcome.

So would I. But what if he doesn't? What if he leads us to a non-stellar 8-8 season and still wants to be a free agent at the end of the year? Do we use the franchise tag at $23+ million? Or do we let him walk? In which case I sure hope we didn't give the stated asking price of a 1st and 4th. Sure we could swing and miss with a rookie too. But even if we do we have him for at least 4 years at $3-$5 million to see where it goes. My whole point is if we're going to trade for Foles and let him play the year before we decide to re-sign him, he'd better come a lot cheaper than a 1st and 4th this year.

I agree, but only if the price tag is low enough. If it's a matter of giving their current stated asking price of a 1st and a 4th minimum this year, then I disagree. I can't see giving up that much for a player who could either walk away or force the franchise tag after only one season.

Well the price would have to go way down. If the Eagles hold fast to their 1st round plus price tag, the Bills would be crazy to spend that on a player in his last contract year. They would want to agree to an extended contract with Foles first. And that can't be done without permission, and all that can't be accomplished on draft day. So if they trade on draft day they're most likely trading for Foles and his single remaining year. Expecting to extend Foles after trading for him will be expensive and risky. And he may just have his mind made up not to sign an extension with anyone and head into free agency in '19. So a trade for him on short notice had best be for relatively cheap. Also keep in mind Foles has a $3 million bonus due today which the Eagles are presumably paying. That means trading him later saves them $4 million instead of $7 million. So from the Eagles point of view it's a double edged sword. Do they pay Foles another $4 million and then most likely lose him for nothing (comp pick in 2020 counts I suppose) after the season? Or do they figure at some point Wentz is ready and decide to get something while they can and save $4 million? Not saying it won't happen but they better not overpay for my two cents.

Normally I would agree. But in the post above yours Sal says there were no new years added. You can't amortize if there's no new years added after this one. So that means either 1) he did take a pay cut, or 2) there are years added but they will automatically void at some point after the season, which would help push some cap to next year while technically not "adding" any years. Or maybe there's another scenario but it's lost on me.

I know that. The OP asked if anybody knew where the plane was. I just shared the info in case anybody wants to let their imaginations run wild. Now you went and ruined it for them, LOL.