ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

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.

? !

Oops - - you're right, I should have fact checked.

She's a generation older than you, and I know from your posts that you're pretty good with technology. Even though she has a big-time job it's likely that she relies on others for tech assistance at work. Given what you said about importance of family to her, I bet she might appreciate it if you set up a digital picture frame with a continuous slide show of family pictures. You could get one in the range you are willing to spend - - and other family members would probably be happy to contribute family photos to the effort. Naah - - - just get her a fishing pole, drill or toolbox.

If the base salary cap (before adding any amounts rolled in because they were unspent in a prior year) is say $125M per year, the current floor that each team must spend over the 4 years 2013-1016 would be roughly $125M x 4 x 89% = $445M. By choosing to allocate $7M of Fitz "dead money" into 2013, the Bills reduced the amount they must spend during that 4 year period by less than 2%, to $438M. OK, that's cheap, but not significant enough to make much difference if they spent the remaining $438M wisely. And the $7M is a one-time thing that's already done. Going forward, why should it make the slightest difference whether the Bills are required to (1) spend 89% of $125M = $111.25M each and every year (which totals $445M over 4 years), or (2) time their spending any way they want so long as the 4 year total adds up to at least $445M? Free agents aren't fighting each other to come here, for numerous reasons. If we are required to overpay for free agents compared to NY, NE and Miami, seems to me like we potentially benefit by having the option to load up for a run every few years. How would the reduced flexibility you propose possibly help us (as compared to the current 4 year average floor)?

Hey Dibs - - in an older thread we discussed whether unused cap room could be "re-rolled." The discussion in this thread spurred me to google search the issue again, but I still can't find anything definitive. I did have an additional thought, however. The provision of the 2011 CBA that allows rollover of unused cap room was designed to replace the commonly used gimmick of creating performance-based bonuses that temporarily counted against the cap in year 1, but when not actually earned the unpaid $$ would roll over and be added to the team's salary cap in year 2. Because there was no restriction on the ability to repeat the process with new gimmicky bonuses in year 2 as far as I know, the old system didn't result in any unused cap money from year 1 "evaporating" if it wasn't used in year 2. If the new system was merely designed to simplify things, as seems likely, there shouldn't ever be any "evaporation" of unused year 1 cap money if it isn't spent in year 2 (assuming the team elects to use its option of electing to roll it over). Certainly not definitive, but maybe the history of how the rollover option came to exist in the 2011 CBA gives more hope that unused cap money in year 1 doesn't simply "evaporate" if not spent in year 2.