Rubes

Well said. So as an example, if we say Dareus got a $25 million signing bonus, Dareus gets all of that bonus right up front when he signs the contract, but the Bills get to spread it out over the life of the contract. I don't recall, but let's say the contract was for 5 years. So the Bills get to average that out and count $5 million of that bonus against the cap for each of the 5 years of the contract. If Dareus is cut or traded before the end of the 5 year contract, all of the bonus money still needs to be accounted for. Dareus already received the whole sum ($25 million) up front, but all of it needs to be accounted for in the cap. Let's say in this instance Dareus is traded after the 3rd year of the 5-year contract. That means the bonus that was supposed to be spread out over years 4 and 5 of the contract ($5 million each year, or $10 million total) automatically get lumped onto the Bills cap for the following year (in this case, year 4, the year after he leaves). So that's considered dead money -- here, $10 million of the Bills cap counting towards someone who is no longer on the roster. On the bright side, we don't have to count his salary against the cap anymore, so there are some overall cap savings over time. (The exact numbers are different, of course, I just don't know the details.)

I think it would be hilarious to see which QB first popped into people's minds when they saw this thread title. I agree with the other poster, I thought for sure it would be Hobert.

getting?

Well that, and knowing that we aren't cheaters.

Ha! Nice try. I will continue to bask in the glory of your loss.

I'll take what I can get...

Awesome perspective.

Of course you can read them. If you don't want to pay a ridiculously low charge for someone's work, then just go to another thread. Just because an article is behind a paywall doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't discuss it here. That's what the board is for. People didn't get nearly this uptight about ESPN Insider article discussions, they just ignored them or moved on.

Moving up is going to be expensive. Supply and demand. There are several teams who need a QB and who may be willing to move up, which changes the math. The typical draft trade values don't necessarily apply in this situation, where teams are bidding against each other to draft for the highest-value position on the field. Teams in the upper half of the draft can almost set whatever price they want...

Sure makes you realize how some individuals underperform for immature reasons, yet can turn things around in ways that aren't always clear to us. Even just a change of scenery can do it (*cough* Dareus).

And the only one I got to see in person. Ugh. I can't believe we actually led that game, 7-0.

He apparently convinced Bucky Gleason of the idea.

Why would the Browns or Colts agree to that now? The longer they hold out, the higher the price gets.

Love seeing everyone come out for these threads...

This place is amazing. So many great people over the years. Thanks Scott for grabbing us by the eyeballs and never letting go. I'm wondering where the craziest, far away places people have logged in from...I remember checking in from Haiti once over 10 years ago on the slowest connection you can imagine...

Wow, that's some serious time. Hard to believe I've wasted spent two decades of my life here. The vast majority of it lamenting bad QB play, bad coaching, and the lack of any playoff football.

Could be a bargaining chip for a draft trade so Beane doesn't have to give up more picks than he wants to move up...

Another thing I noticed (from the highlight reel, of course), is that he seems to do a really nice job when under pressure, always looking for the open receiver and eventually finding him. Doesn't seem to have a quick trigger to run...but when he does, he actually moves reasonably well.

I don't know anything about Rudolph, so I checked out his 2017 highlight reel. Of course it's only highlights, but some of the throws there were really quite good, and I didn't see anything to suggest he doesn't have a strong arm. But that's all I've seen of him.

What if the rule was all defensive holding or PI calls inside the two-minute warning put the time back on the clock? Hell, if they can run 10 seconds off for an offensive penalty, nothing wrong with putting time back on to prevent this kind of thing.

Well, at least you get irony. Well done.

My purpose was to point out that your position had been stated several times already, with plenty of arguments against it. So, just stating the same argument again doesn’t add much to the conversation.

Great, so your response to arguments against your position is just to state your position again? Got it.

Plenty of arguments against this throughout the thread.