ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

OK, but you're gonna miss the part where Manuel yells "Jauronimo."

OK, I've had some time to think about it. Here's how I see it if I'm Hackett/Crossman: A. I'm in a fairly unique position from a play calling perspective. Normally, I avoid anything that increases the chance of a turnover or a big yardage loss, because the after-effects of those things hurt my team. Here, I don't need to worry about after-effects, because it makes no difference if the play ends with a big yardage loss, a turnover or even a safety. End result is the same as a 69 yard gain - - game ends and my team loses. B. This is actually pretty liberating. I can do absolutely bat s***t crazy stuff with no real downside, 'cause nobody expects me to pull this one out of the fire. Anything that improves my odds of scoring a 1 play TD is a better call than the usual immediate short pass and crazy laterals, even if the odds of a big yardage loss, turnover or even a safety go up by even more. C. Given the defensive personnel and how I expect they've been instructed to play, I like a variation of No Saint's idea upthread. Here's my personnel package. The Bills must already have some form of kick-off return package with 2 deep return men. I use that, but modify it as follows - - if not already in those positions, I insert Spiller and McKelvin as the "2 deep" guys. Then I replace my biggest, slowest, worst-handed blocker with EJ Manuel. This says nothing about where I line 'em up - - just which 11 I'm gonna use. D. OK, now it's game day, and I'm on my own 30, down by 4-8 points, with time for 1 more play. Here's the plan: 1. I call time-out, mainly so I can talk to the referee. I want to give him a heads-up on what's about to happen, 'cause some of it's unusual. Let's assume the tunnel to the Bills' locker room is behind my offense. While I'm talking' to the ref, I have McKelvin fake a limp, take his helmet off, and slowly start walking with trainer assistance down my sideline toward the tunnel. Spiller, McKelvin and Manuel won't be on the interior line when the ball is snapped, and have appropriate jersey numbers, so none of them have to "report" to the referee before the play starts. The rules let me line up my other 8 guys any way I want - - they just may have to report to the referee as eligible or ineligible depending on their jersey number. I let the referee know in advance which guys are gonna report and how, and also tell him to watch for any lateral deep in my own end that absolutely will not be a forward pass - - I don't want them screwin' up that call. 2. As late as possible during the time-out, I have whichever guys need to report do so, and I have 9 (not 10) of them take the field. I intentionally hold one guy back, and McKelvin is still on the sideline, limping with help near my end zone and presumably then the tunnel. 3. Manuel lines up in the shotgun, with Spiller in the backfield but towards the far sideline. Of the remaining 7 guys already on the field, the 3 with the worst hands line up in WR spots. They're gonna be downfield decoys. The other 4 guys on the field take interior line spots. McKelvin is obviously hurt, 'cause he stops walking when he gets near the end zone sideline. 4. Now the fun starts. The intentionally held back guy is standing near me. I grab him by the collar, start screaming in his face, and forcefully yank him onto the field. As he runs to take the 5th interior line spot, I throw my headset, clipboard, whatever to the ground - - things are obviously FUBAR in Bills' land. But as I'm doing this to draw attention to me, McKelvin slips on his helmet, and crawls (yes, crawls) to just inside the numbers at the 1 yard line and lays down (yes, lays down). Most of the defenders are a very long way away. I think the near sideline WR guy at the line of scrimmage might have to be lined up closer to the near sideline than McKelvin for the formation to be legal, but if so, that's easy. 5. I don't need a true center on the field - - I think I'm allowed to have the middle interior line guy hike it sideways back to Manuel like they do on those weird swinging gate 2 point conversion tries. On the snap here's what happens next. 6. My guys playing the interior line positions chip the 3 DL pass rushers. They're special teams guys not regular O linemen, so I can't expect more than a chip anyway. All they're doing is buying Manuel a slight head start. The 3 eligible receiver guys with bad hands sprint to the far right end zone. All but the 3 DL pass rushers either retreat with them or are already back there, 'cause that's what they're trained to do. They've been drilled that nobody gets behind them on this play, at least while Manuel has the ball in his hands. 7. NOW IT GETS WEIRD. Manuel runs straight back to about his own 5 yard line, Spiller runs back to his own goal line on the far side, and McKelvin simply stands up. These 3 guys have one job - - to lure the 3 pass rushing DL as deep into Bills territory as possible. Given that the 3 DL have been instructed to rush Manuel, that shouldn't be hard. I've been showing Manuel videos of killdeer birds with seemingly broken wings all week, and he knows that on this play he's not really a passer - - he's a killdeer. If he has to run toward one sideline or the other to avoid an unexpectedly quick rush, he has either Spiller or McKelvin as an outlet for a lateral behind him. After making their chip blocks, the 5 interior line guys move to the near sideline, just behind the line of scrimmage, and wait. Yeah, they just wait. 8. We've been in hurry-up mode, but now time is on our side. We can play keep-away all day if we have to. A 3 man pass rush can still get to the QB if he's looking downfield for a receiver, but Manuel isn't looking downfield. He's a killdeer. At some point he's forced to pitch it to Spiller. 9. Spiller's tendency to bounce away from defenders and give ground is usually a liability. Here it's an asset. There's no pursuit to swarm and tackle him for a big loss, 'cause 8 of the defenders are about 80 yards away near the opposite end zone. They ain't comin' up, at least not very far, 'cause nobody's thrown a forward pass yet, Manuel is still back there, and they're nervous about letting guys behind them. Spiller has the back 40 yards of Bills territory (including the end zone) from sideline to sideline to run around in, and only 3 relatively slow DL guys chasing him. He's also got McKelvin, and less preferentially Manuel, to receive a lateral if he gets hemmed in. 10. As our 3 guys play keep away, the 2 who don't have the ball at any given time are instructed to watch how deep those 3 DLs get. When all 3 are inside the five yard line and the ball is in Spiller's or McKelvin's hands, Manuel yells "Fire" or "Go" or "Jauronimo" and all 3 of our guys run toward the 5 waiting interior OL guys at the line of scrimmage by the near sideline. I want the 3 DLs stranded really deep, 'cause I don't want any of 'em goin' all Phil Hansen on our a$$ and running the play down from behind. 11. Now it's basically the 2 deep kick-off return team (minus the biggest, slowest blocker with the worst hands) against 8 pass coverage guys. We try to block for Spiller or McKelvin, but if it ain't happening it devolves into the crazy lateral play with 5 interior OL guys that (i) have better hands and ball skills than 5 true OLinemen and (ii) are probably better at blocking agile DBs way down field than the true OL guys anyway. And Manuel stays behind the line of scrimmage as the long "disaster" pitch-back option. OK, this is pretty theatrical, but if you think the deception stuff is silly, just use Spiller and McKelvin in a split backfield from the get-go and do the rest the same. I personally would try to hide McKelvin just to make it look a little more like a weird pass play at the start than a kick return - - might not be worth the effort. The kick return team guys are a lot more useful if you wind up having to do crazy laterals than the 5 true OLinemen - - the play almost always ends when the ball is directed to them. You could make minor variations to personnel to improve the odds that the 8 pass defenders continue to play very deep pass coverage while you lure the 3 DL pass rushers deep into your own territory. It's now Monday after the game - - fire away!

Whoa there big fella - - I haven't told you either the personnel package or the play yet - - I've only just finished watching game film so that I know what I'm scheming against. Somehow, "Jauronimo" seems apt I'll give you a personnel package and an outrageous play call to criticize - - I promise. You and Jerry Sullivan will get plenty of opportunity to criticize my idiotic play call in Monday morning's paper - - but even Hackett gets to run it first.

So I'm looking at 3 D linemen with instructions to get after the passer, and 8 guys hanging back very deep in pass coverage with instructions to let the other team do whatever crazy s**t they want - - just don't be overaggressive and keep the ball out of the end zone? In real life, I can watch film of your team and see what personnel usually take the field and what they do in this situation. And because the crazy lateral play almost never works, I'm likely to get the type of D you've used in the past, with no surprises. Not guaranteed, of course, but likely.

Fair points, but it's not exactly like kick coverage because while you've got a lot of guys back deep near the end zone, presumably you've also got one or more pass rushers who are doing something different than anybody on the kick-off coverage team does. Tell me how many pass rushers you usually see on defense for this type of play, and I'll take a shot at creating a personnel package/play to increase the odds of beating it (as compared to the standard 5 big OL package we usually see). Assume offense has the ball at its own 30 yard line. Deal?

Maybe it's because of how strongly coaches drill ball security into their players' heads. Turnovers are the best predictors of W/L outcome, so in just about every other situation, you don't want guys taking chances by tossing it around. But in this specific situation, a turnover is obviously no worse than simply being tackled. Sometimes there's just nobody behind them to receive the pitch. BTW, I titled this thread "Question #1" because I've got another wrinkle, but it depends on a rule i'm not sure about.

I think the Hail Mary pass is always going to be a better option if you are close enough for the QB to get the ball into the end zone (or to say the 5 yard line for 1 tip to a deeper WR). So I'd only use the "smurf package" if the last play started from inside my own 35 or so, depending on my QB's arm strength. Seems like your kick-off coverage analogy is a good one, at least for the start of the play. I certainly agree that the defense will typically drop most defenders deep in coverage, so i guess one question for me is - - how do the defenders currently react, when they expect that a short pass will result in the "crazy lateral" scramble, and the offense has 5 offensive linemen involved in the scramble? i can't say that I've ever focused on the shape of the defense moving forward after the short pass starts the play - - not sure if that's because of my own focus or because the TV camera man typically zooms in on the ball carrier for closeups of the crazy laterals. It would be interesting to watch "all 22" video to see if the defense really does stay in lanes moving forward. So for the sake of argument, let's assume the defense actually has what amounts to lane assignments, and think about how to attack it. First thing I'd do is try to scramble up the defenders at the start of the play to get them out of their lanes. I'd have Easley, 3 other WR and McKelvin report as ineligible and put them on the interior OL. I'd put the extra smurfs (some combo of my RBs, backup QB, and my most dangerous WR) in eligible receiver positions. Maybe I get lucky and some defender who usually focuses on guys wearing jerseys with a number in the 80's gets confused and continues to focus on an interior line WR, even though that WR can't legally catch a forward pass. Then I'd flood all of the smurf eligible receivers, including my most dangerous real WR, deep to one side of the field. Odds are they are gonna drag most of the defenders with them to that side. To maximize confusion, I also send the 3 interior line WR downfield to the same side of the field as the eligible smurfs. I ain't throwin' a forward pass on this play, but the defenders don't know that, and if they get confused about who's potentially eligible to catch a pass and who's not maybe i can pull a couple more of the defenders to that side of the field. At this point, with luck, all hell has broken out, the other team's special teams coach is screaming like a madman (it would help if the other team has no timeouts left at the start of the play), and I've done my best to scramble up the defenders' lane assignments. Starting QB rolls out to the opposite side of the field from where just about everybody else went, and looks downfield like he wants to pass, even though he can't throw it forward because 3 of his interior line guys are downfield. Easley and McKelvin circle back where they can catch a lateral. QB laterals to preferably McKelvin and mayhem ensues against scrambled lane assignments. If you prefer blocking to causing confusion, substitute the TEs and a FB for the 3 WRs on the interior line, and keep them back to block for McKelvin/Easley when the QB makes the first lateral (and to give the QB time to let the play develop a bit before he pitches it). I guess my overall point is that if your field position is too poor to chuck it to within 5 yards of the end zone, your standard offensive personnel package with 5 big slow OL guys with bad hands isn't the best choice. There are lots of ways you could customize your personnel package for a final play that would be an improvement. At a bare minimum, have McKelvin report as ineligible and put him on the interior line. Seems like a no brainer to get your best open field runner on the field for a scramble play. How many times does the crazy lateral scramble end when somebody laterals the ball to a big, slow OL guy who either drops it or lumbers forward and gets tackled because he doesn't know what to do with it and can't avoid anybody?

Just food for thought - - Let's say you're a gazillionaire planning to bid on some NFL franchise when it comes up for auction. Which situation would make you bid higher: 1. Team spends close to the maximum allowable salary cap figure every year, giving it the best possible mix of players (in the current GM's opinion) and probably a better recent W/L record; or 2. Team spends as close to the salary cap floor as PR considerations allow (and maybe even significantly underspends the cap in the first 2 years just before the auction), simultaneously giving the prospective new owner (i) the obligation to spend more heavily than most other owners in the last 2 years of the 4 year period to meet the 89% floor requirement, and (ii) the ability to let his new GM reshape the roster more quickly to that new owner's and/or new GM's satisfaction by using the wad of cash the team saved in the 2 years before the auction . I can see how various gazillionaires might differ about which approach they would prefer before the auction. We as fans would prefer option #1. Maybe egotistical types like Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder would prefer option #2. Actual policy determined by what Littman thinks future bidders prefer.

This link is almost 3 months old, so I'm not sure it's absolutely current, but "supplemental revenue sharing" is relevant to this discussion: http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2013/10/14/Leagues-and-Governing-Bodies/NFL-revenue.aspx

http://www.oanda.com/currency/historical-rates/

One good thing about the winter weather, if your neighbor has a Canadian gardener he won't be mowing her lawn when you and your sausage show up, so you won't have to share your sausage with him.

My impression has always been that Ralph keeps his net worth pretty private. I have no doubt that he's rich, but how did you come up with "4.5 billion?" The Bills aren't worth that much, and as far as I know, his other investments are privately held without any required public disclosures.

More fundamentally, it's designed to give you a numbers advantage by stranding some defenders "behind" the play. If you have a normal personnel package on the field, you capitalize on the numbers advantage with big guys as blockers, because a "normal" personnel package limits your ability to capitalize on it any other way. Blocking is all the big, strong but slow guys with bad hands are good for. The "smurf linemen" package would let you capitalize on it in a different way. It would also throw in an element of surprise that might confuse the defense, which is exactly what you want on a crazy lateral end of game play. But as I mentioned above, I think it's highly unlikely that the defense rushes 6 at the QB on the play. That's the exact opposite of what they are usually trained to do in the crazy lateral play situation.

Thanks. looks like it's pretty clear that we could put 5 smurfs on the interior line, as long as they all reported "ineligible" before the play. The Referee then has to inform the defense, but my guess is at least the first time we did it, the defense still wouldn't be prepared for it. With that kind of inside-the-box thinking, you could be a head coach in the NFL. Well, maybe not for the Eagles.

The smurfs (I prefer to call them runners/ballhandlers) on the line wouldn't be eligible to catch a forward pass, but so what? Everybody's eligible to catch and run with a lateral - - just make sure that the only forward pass goes to an eligible receiver, and let the mayhem commence. Edit: Anybody actually know for sure if a smurf could report as "ineligible" and take one of the 5 interior line spots for the play?

I doubt that the defense would adjust that quickly, but if they did, I'd be a happy camper. I'd train my guys to run some version of a screen pass, and then i'd have 10 effective runners/ball handlers taking on just 5 defenders down field. Tell me that's got a worse chance of scoring than what you usually see on crazy lateral plays.

You've all seen the play I'm talking about - - last play of the game, down by anywhere from 4-8 points, too far away for a Hail Mary pass into the end zone. My question: Can you replace the usual 5 offensive linemen for this play with some combination of backup RBs, your backup QB, and maybe a CB/return man or two at the line of scrimmage? You're not really gonna rely on any kind of blocking scheme anyway, and just hope that the totally random, wild nature of the ball movement gets the defenders out of position. And the defense rarely rushes very many guys at the QB, anyway. So why not get a larger number of effective runners/ball handlers on the field, and maybe even a second thrower that the defense might not expect? Is there some rule that would prevent this kind of personnel package for the play?

From the comments at the Buffalo News website:

My oldest brother Darryl likes her twin sister in the top photo better.

That's a really good point.

Do this without touching the "mark" and it's all in good fun. Bump the "mark" in the process and it's a problem. Most of what's on the video falls in the latter category. Wonder what happens when these jerks pull this stunt on an undercover cop wearing the opposing team's jersey, and bump him in the process?

Why indeed. If I set up a subchapter S corporation or a limited partnership to buy the Bills (so any losses would "flow through" to my personal income tax return and offset some of my taxable income from other sources), I'd be OK with running the franchise at a small, annual taxable loss for 15 years. Emphasis on "taxable." Anybody who buys the Bills today can use the modern version of the roster depreciation allowance (the "RDA") to deduct 1/15th of the entire purchase price every year for 15 years. Let's say that the purchase price is $900 million. That would let the buyer deduct $900M/15 = $60 million each and every year for the next 15 years. Think about that. If I ran the franchise so that I had an annual profit of $60 million per year after considering everything but this particular expense item, my business would have a positive $60 million cash flow every year for 15 years and taxable income of exactly ZERO each of those years. Alternatively, if I ran the franchise so that it merely broke even each year before application of the RDA expense item, the franchise would show a "paper loss" of $60M each and every year for 15 years that I could use to offset my taxable income from other sources (assuming that my ownership structure was set up as a subchapter S corporation or a limited partnership). All while operating the franchise with internally generated cash that required no other financial contribution from me. Given the history of NFL franchise appreciation over the years, I'd take my chances that I could re-sell the team 15 years down the road for a lot more than $900M. But hey, that's just me. If you think the above scenario is unrealistic, read these sources: http://seattletimes....ertaxes05m.html http://deadspin.com/...28-million-loss [author mistakenly assumed that a particular financial expense entry on an NBA team's books was for roster depreciation allowance when it was really for something else, but the description of how the RDA works was accurate] http://econ.la.psu.e...ulson/veeck.pdf [warning - - egghead version written by university professors] The RDA works much like depreciation for rental real estate. It can let the football business be cash flow positive even while generating paper losses for income tax purposes. Ralph's not gettin' any younger. Anybody got about $900 million I can borrow?

If the aliens know that a Canadian is on to them, that could explain why the "extraterrestrial neutrinos" were found in Antarctica, rather than in the Arctic. Might also explain why even with global warming, visiting ships are now getting locked in Antarctic ice, but not in the Arctic: http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2013/12/26/russian-ship-trapped-in-ice/4206329/ It's an inconvenient truth, but if the aliens are among us, we can't just bury our heads in the ice like penguins.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/utah-gun-maker-turns-down-15m-deal-with-pakistan/2014/01/05/921c7fa0-7658-11e3-a647-a19deaf575b3_story.html

http://macomb.patch.com/groups/business-updates/p/philanthropist-ralph-wilson-honors-buffalo-bills-cfo-jeffrey-c-littmann-with--endowed-scholarship-at-walsh-college_fe1bfffc Littman used to work for Ziebart International (best known for rust-proofing)- - make up your own joke - - I'm all out.