Tuco

As a restricted free agent they were already going to have to give a 2nd rounder, and because of the poison pill Miami couldn't stop it. But to make it easier all around, or whatever the reason, they threw in a 7th to go with it.

Both Foster and Wallace were waived and re-signed. The fact they were re-signed for similar amounts as their previous contracts is irrelevant. The CBA only considers the first contract a player signs to be their "Rookie Contract." Once they have been subject to waivers, cleared (original contract voided since they weren't claimed) and re-signed, the rule about not being able to renegotiate rookie contracts until after 3 years (2 years for undrafteds) no longer applies.

It was called Big Ben because that's what it was called the first time it was successfully used - by the Atlanta Falcons. Staubach's pass was a true Hail Mary, as it was just a pass launched in hopes his receiver would catch it. But in 1978 the rules were changed so that an offensive player could tip a pass to another offensive player. Before then it was illegal. The Falcons practiced doing this and called the play Big Ben for whatever reason. And the first time they used it it worked - twice actually, except they didn't have replay reviews and the refs blew the second one. The NFL being a copy cat league, naturally everybody started practicing and using the play, and most of them, as well as the announcers, called it Big Ben just because that's what it was originally called. It had nothing to do with Ben Williams. Then over the years it just became fashionable to call it Hail Mary - again.

Food for thought. I know the stadium crew has to keep a log of all the song clips they play during the game. Just like a radio station they have to keep track and pay royalties for every song they use (you know, like playing "Back On The Chain Gang" every time there's a measurement). I don't know how much this adds up to for a season but it is a cost. Meanwhile I'm sure the train horn is free. I have to believe it's the same for using movie clips. The charging buffaloes is from Dances With Wolves, right? So using the clip would require (permission?) a royalty or fee too I would expect. Same with Fred and Barney with the "Go Go Buffalo" chant. I'm curious, would the charges for using video clips be rather insignificant, like it is for the song clips? Or would playing the charging buffaloes on every 3rd down amount to something a lot more? Any insiders with expert knowledge on this?

Lose the train horn. That thing is annoying even if I'm watching on TV. Bring back the charging buffaloes and Fred & Barney. When lining up for kickoffs they should play that echoing base line from the beginning of Pink Floyd's One Of These Days. That would be cool.

I bet we could solve the dilemma by giving each player a big number - much bigger even than the name tag. Just an idea.

June 1st is meaningless when a player is in his final year.

Year Date Player Team Trigger Base Salary Roster Bonus 2019 March 17 Micah Hyde Bills $500,000 roster bonus is due $3,950,000 $500,000 2019 March 17 Jordan Poyer Bills $150,000 roster bonus is due $2,950,000 $150,000 2019 March 17 Stephen Hauschka Bills $250,000 roster bonus is due $2,000,000 $250,000 2019 March 17 Star Lotulelei Bills $5.15 million of base salary becomes guaranteed $7,150,000 $1,000,000 2019 March 17 Star Lotulelei Bills $1M roster bonus due $7,150,000 $1,000,000 2019 March 17 Trent Murphy Bills $2.5M of base salary becomes guaranteed $5,800,000 $500,000 2019 March 17 Trent Murphy Bills $500,000 5th day of league year roster bonus due $5,800,000 $500,000

The 1 point safety can only occur on a try after a touchdown. Therefore it still can't be 1-0. That said, this whole idea sucks, lol.

Meh. The Pats* are good at it, just like they're good at everything. Yes it sucks they're getting 2 third rounders this year, but they let good players walk and they signed big elsewhere. That's how it works. So be it. Since Belly* took over 19 seasons ago the Pats have had 6 third rounders (including the 2 this year). Their first 3rd rounder wasn't until Belly's* 6th season. Then 4 years after that, and 6 more years after that. Some here are acting like they get them every year. In that time they have also had a whopping 3 fourth rounders and 4 fifth rounders. Everything else has been 6ths and 7ths. Yes they get more picks than most teams. So do the Ravens. In fact the Ravens are the kings of comp picks. They have received about 10 more picks than any other team even though they didn't even exist as a franchise for the first 2 years of the system. Yet nobody complains that the rules need changing because of the Ravens. We complain because we have sucked for so long. Because the Pats* have owned us for so long. And because the Pats do comp picks, just like everything else, better than we do. That doesn't mean the rule is unfair. It means we need to quit sucking and letting the Pats* own us in all phases, not just on game day. The rules have to be the same for everybody. We can't just say, well you guys are too good, you don't get the same rules as the other teams. That's just sour grapes. Start pulling up our boot straps and winning. Then the other teams will complain about us.

You don't have levels for EFAs. EFA is actually ERFA. That stands for Exclusive Rights Free Agent. All you have to do is tender them the league minimum for one year and you have exclusive negotiating rights. The only reason you wouldn't do that is if you were certain you didn't want them back.

The Osweiller deal only worked because his salary was guaranteed. Houston has a large cap figure, but it's not guaranteed salary. His cap hit for the Chiefs is $21.1 million this year. If they cut him their cap hit is only $7.1 million - less if they use June 1st designation. If they trade him to us (or anybody), the Chiefs cap hit is still $7.1 million. There would be no reason for them to give us anything.

Is that what you were going for? Your post didn't say anything except we should cut these 5 particular guys in order to gain $6 mil in cap space (which it won't, as mentioned several times here, the guys cut are still replaced on the roster by similarly paid guys). More like $4 mil but whatever. But okay, if your original post had said we should cut these 5 particular guys in order to make the following moves, I probably would have just scrolled on by. Unfortunately I didn't get the feeling from the original post that that's what you were doing. In fact, it looks like your original post is simply looking to gain cap space without adding any real plan. It wasn't until later you added some of your thoughts about who we should sign. None of which still explains why we would need to cut these 5 particular players to make room. Maybe you should have just said we should cut these players because they suck. People might have disagreed, but at least your statement would have made more sense than (according to the original post) vaguely pointing out 5 guys to cut just to give us $80+ mil instead of $70 something mil, and then getting all defensive when people have the audacity to ask why?

Well you go into training camp with 90 guys on the roster. Many of them make the minimum and only the top 51 count - and we only have 52 signed now. That means we're going to be signing about 38 more guys who mostly make minimum salary. So saying we should cut a guy like Cam Phillips in order to make cap room just doesn't make sense. If you cut him just to make room, one of the other minimum salary guys just moves into the same slot. There's nothing gained. Now if you want to cut a guy and replace him with somebody better, I'm all for it. But at this point, with 28 players left to sign just to get to the camp number, talking about cutting a minimum salary guy to save cap space is pointless. You're still going to sign at least 25 more guys before it makes a difference. And even then since he's making minimum it won't make any more of a difference than cutting some other player. Furthermore, even if the cap space is needed, there's no need to cut anybody early. Even if you sign a guy at 9:00 AM that puts you over the cap, you still have until 4:00 PM the same day to make cuts and get under the cap. I just don't see the point of talking about cutting a minimum salary player in February in order to save cap space when we don't need the cap space, and the player's salary will just be replaced by another player's salary anyway. Again, if the player replacing him is better, go for it. Until then it's rather pointless.

Whether anybody thinks there will be a disruption or not, with the amount of money at stake a person would be a fool not to prepare for it.

Section M1 Row 1 Seat 109 About 8 of us went in 2 different vans. Three guys left at the half. A while later two girls were getting cold and miserable and said they were going to wait in the van. We had just scored to make it 35-10. I said, hey we just scored, stick around and see what happens. Of course I had about as much confidence as everybody else, but right about then we recovered the surprise onsides kick, and just a few plays later it was 35-17. The girls were glad they stayed. The guys who left, ha ha ha ha ha . . .

Well I didn't reverse them to illustrate how easily we could have won them. I did it to point out that winning more games tends to make your schedule look easier, while losing them makes it look harder. And to agree with your point - you are what your record says you are. And our record says we generally stink every year. Not because our schedule is hard, but because we don't win our games. And the opposite is true for the good teams. They don't win their games because they're easier, they win them because they're good teams. All the easy schedule/hard schedule stuff appears after the fact.

Well . . . let's say we beat the Colts, Ravens, Chargers, Texans and the Patriots* once. The Ravens and Colts would be out of the playoffs. We would be 11-5, division champs with a 1st round bye. Then the comment would be how do we deserve a 1st round bye when only 3 of our 11 wins came against playoff teams - which is exactly what we could say about the Patriots* this year. Division champs with a bye and they only beat 3 playoff teams. The good teams win their games and the bad teams don't.

No they can't void bonus money. Yes they get refunded for games while he's suspended, and can even demand a refund for the portion of the bonus money attributed to the games missed by suspension. What's voided is his remaining future guarantees, which means his guaranteed salary (2019 - 2020) is no longer guaranteed.

Dede Westbrooke down in Jax. Spent most of last year injured so this was his rookie and a half season. Shows great speed and ability to get open. Started 8 games this year, 63 rec. 707 yds. 5 tds plus a punt return TD.

I don't mind the rule. Maybe it's unfair, but then again, the biggest sin a football player can commit is to fumble the ball. And at least it's a black and white rule, the same for everybody and everybody knows the risks with no need for any "judgement" by the official. But if we have to make a change, let's do a sort of compromise. Let's say any fumble that occurs inside the 5 yard line automatically becomes subject to the overtime/inside 2:00/4th down rules. In these cases any fumble can only be advanced by the player who fumbled it. If another player on his team recovers, or it goes out of bounds, the ball returns to the spot of the fumble. But let's add one caveat - if the ball is fumbled out the side of the endzone, it shall be treated as a ball fumbled out of bounds subject to the overtime/2:00/4th down rules as listed above, and returned to the spot of the fumble. But if the ball is fumbled out the back of the endzone it shall be ruled a touchback. Let's face it, if you're in the middle of the field and you fumble the ball more than 10 yards forward, it's unlikely your team is going to recover it. Maybe a deep reciever could get it, but in this scenario there's no reciever deeper than the back of the endzone, so it ain't happening. I don't see it nearly as unfair to call a touchback if the ball is fumbled more than the 10 yard distance to the back line of the endzone. My $.02.

Yeah I guess that could work. Although they would have to find a way to be fair to the "protected" PS players. Right now PS players can be paid as little as a grand or two a week, but at the same time they are basically unrestricted free agents who can sign with anyone if they look good enough. "Protecting" them would limit their ability to do that. You couldn't get away with paying them the same as an unprotected player who is free to sign with anybody anytime. So if you have to pay them the league minimum in order to protect them so you can shuffle them as needed, then you're basically raising the total roster to 57 while allowing 53 active on game day. Same system with more players. Then the argument goes to who pays for the extra 128 players. Do the owners pay a couple million more each year? Or does the revenue based cap percentage stay the same with the players absorbing the new $60+ million out of their own wage pool? Changing roster size may happen, but it won't be a quick and easy process.

Could be. But rest assured if the whole roster is active, when the time comes that one team has 7 injured players and one team has 2 injured players, there will be griping about one team having an extra 5 healthy, available players than the other team on game day.

It goes back to the days when there were no inactives, just a 46 man roster. Teams would stash their extra players on IR, and back then teams had a certain amount of "free" moves where they could bring a player off IR and activate him. If a team didn't want to use one of their "free" moves they had to expose the player to waivers before they could activate him. This, by the way, is exactly how the Bills claimed Steve Tasker from Houston. Houston wasn't cutting him, they were attempting to activate him from IR without using a "free" move. Once the salary cap was implemented and the rule was changed so any player who goes on IR must stay there for the season, teams all said we need more players available because of short term injuries. So they all said okay we'll go to 53 players. But then they said if one team only has 1 injured player and another team has 5 injured players, this gives the first team a 52 to 48 man advantage on game day. So they said okay, we can keep 53 but still only dress 46 on game day. Then the teams said we still need more players available, so they added an 8 man practice squad. Then the teams said we still need more available players, so they're back to letting 2 of the IR players return each year. Payton may be all for adding players, but I'll bet there are plenty of owners who think they have enough now.

It wouldn't have bothered the Cheats in the least. The whole idea for the stunt was to kill as much clock as they could before giving the ball back to Pitt.