eSJayDee

I don't know this for sure, but I believe this to be the case, too. Although in the example you provided, I would assume Bojo would decline that proposal & instead opt for the 1 yr deal. I would think a multi-year deal amenable to both parties would either include a "significant" signing bonus &/or escalating salaries.

I definitely think an effort should be made to re-sign him, the question is whether or not he's even worth the minimum tender though. That would put him in the top 1/3 of punters salary-wise. If we were flush w/ cap space, then yes. I don't think he's worth the higher tenders (though if someone wants to surrender the pick, then thank you very much), but I don't think his market value is much less than that & I wouldn't want to lose him over a few hundred K. Then again, perhaps a better solution for both parties would be a multi-year deal.

The "cash to cap" was really just a clever marketing slogan so as to justify not spending TO the cap. You're obviously limited by the cap for amortized money, but if you also constrain yourself by "cash to cap" it really means you're gonna spend (well) below the cap. There's a difference between the previous regimes "cash to cap" "strategy" & actually a "pay as you go" (to the extend practical) that we currently seem to employ.

I'll add that WRT Milano's situation, one of the ways I think this regime is fiscally responsible is to not give large bonuses. What some teams do, is give large bonuses w/ small initial yr(s) salaries. This allows you to easier afford signings by pushing fwd the liability. Problem w/ this is if the player doesn't work out, you're left w/ substantial dead cap when you release them. As much as possible, I think we currently pretty much "pay as you go".

I wonder why at this juncture. He's gotta be making close to minimum wage for his experience & he's gotta be replaced by someone else, so the savings are really only (eventually) a few 100k. When he's on the field, he's comparable (or better) than Wallace or Norman. Only thing I can think of, is we intend to re-sign someone & need the cap space while only the top 51 count.

A shoulder could definitely effect a kicking; an elbow maybe. A hand I doubt, though. Just an emergency Covid-type signing. Either that or after going 1-3 in FGs they wanna give the kid some competition. -jk

Roberts is good at fielding punts. Not only does he not muff very many, but also the majority of time he fields them rather than letting them go. The latter is worth several yards (provided you fulfill the 1st part & not muff it). As I recall McKenzie is "dangerous" when fielding punts & not in a good way.

Part of the answer is he fumbles a lot cuz he fumbles a lot. I think once he has a reputation as a fumbler, defenders are much more apt to make an effort to force it out. Part of the problem might be that he's difficult to bring down, so that gives more opportunity to cause a fumble. Unfortunately, I don't think that's entirely the situation as he seems to fumble quite easily under "normal" contact. Someone mentioned his height. That might sort of contribute to the problem, but I think it's more his upright running style. More/easier access to the ball.

I don't feel well. But I would've felt a heck of a lot worse had we lost.

IDK what this stat means but I find it interesting that the separation between #1 & #5 is only ~1.6%. Makes me wonder further what they're measuring.

I'm not familiar w/ La Nova (I went to college in Buffalo) but used to LOVE Bocce's. I haven't had it "in person" in like 30 yrs but I have had it delivered overnight to Albany NY a few times. So it's not a direct comparison but I tend to agree w/ others that it's good, but not as good as fresh/local.

Thanks for putting in the effort (I was too lazy to). So, 6 (or 5 events), IMO isn't too enough data to be too confident in your conclusions. That being said, 2 instances he performed exemplary & a 3rd he probably did his job (57 w/ 40 return) well. 2 were poor efforts (assuming wind wasn't a factor) & on the 6th he blew monkey spunk. Considering how inconsistent he was last yr (& as I recall early this yr) I think that's what we signed up for.

I'll concede his touch punting still has much room for improvement, but I don't buy your above statement. How many punts is that based upon? 10? Probably less. I assume that includes a 12 yarder which is going to lower his gross in those situations 4+ yds. Likewise, you're talking even fewer returns, so you can't place much confidence in the conclusion of those stats. Inside our own 40, I'd take him over just about any punter in the league. On the opponents side of the 50, there's prolly 20+ punters I'd rather have.

He's got a really big leg, & although I think he's otherwise improved, I don't think he's Probowl worthy. Just look at his counterpart (Bailey) last night. Admittedly, he hasn't had much opportunity, but he's not very consistent putting the ball close inside the 20. He's more likely to get a touchback than drop it inside the 10 & you're not even that confident he'll get it inside the 20 at all. I think Bailey's net is only like 2 yds worse than his gross.

Um, I think if we win both & Pit wins both & KC loses both, we all end up 13-3 & we would be the top seed by virtue of a better conference record. Admittedly, very slim but they haven't locked 1st seed yet.

I think the primary reason for that is cuz we went from one of the worst offenses in the league to one of the best. That definitely alters your probabilities & expected utility calculations.

No, if someone hasn't answered it yet, that was Ronnie Harmon.

Problem is the timing of signing them (You think maybe the Broncos would've signed someone off the streets to play QB if they could have). I believe it takes 5 days to get someone on your roster, so unless you're kicker gets sick Monday or Tues, you'd be SOL. As for the thought of stashing a K on PS, the idea has merit, but don't know if it's that important. 1st, I imagine it's much easier to keep your kicker isolated so they're not at risk for being Covid listed due to exposure. 2ndly, you've got 60 plus elite athletes available as a replacement. Unlike say a QB, there's minimal "knowledge" that a kicker (or punter) needs. It's pretty much plug & play. Your expected loss on kickoffs is minimal, perhaps a few yards. As for FGs, yes you're probably dropping you expected make rate from an aggregate of say 90% to maybe 70%. If you think your odds decrease too much for PATs, you always having the option of going for 2 (an aside, IMO I think stats probably bear out that you should go for 2 more often). Depending on who's available, how much more confident would you be of an inexperienced, unproven kicker? It's certainly something to consider, but given the apparent value of having the extra player(s) (I actually think a punter might be at least as important) available, I think NOT stashing a K &/or P is an acceptable calculated risk.

I don't think this has been mentioned yet, but I'd like to point out - After we got the 5 yd penalty on the KO, Bass hit the cross bar & put it through the uprights. From 80 yds out!!!

re: #8, I can only assume the refs got the number wrong. A DB blitzing (White?) hit the QB low, which I believe constitutes roughing the passer. Though technically not a wrong call IMO, it was dubious as the QB was running away as he went low.

Either "Buy Dell soon", or "Maintain your weight".

It certainly seems reasonable that lack of crowd noise contributes to the lack of false starts, illegal shifts etc. Potentially, it could even contribute to less holding calls (D-line doesn't get a jump on O-line as easily so they're not at a disadvantageous position causing a need/desire to hold). Can't think of a reason for DPI to be up, other than less effective pass rush, which is pushing it, or maybe just more passes in general.

I think there's only 3 CBS games next week (all 4:05) & I've gotta think it's likely that they'll broadcast the Bills. Then there's the bye & then there's like 3 prime time games, so you should be pretty good for viewing.

A perfectly thrown pass, you really can't defend. A pass that's off target by a few feet, can be easily defended unless the receiver is significantly physically/athletically superior to the defender(s). If you're not "confident" (there's other words that could be used here - desperate/foolish/etc) that you can place the ball perfectly, you don't throw it. If you've got other options, that's probably the prudent choice.

I saw that they're bringing back the show runner who did the 1st 4(?) seasons. As for your hidden comment, that is what I was hoping for (& alluded to above).