eSJayDee

No. This year we just got beat. Even if we make that FG, I think the odds of us winning are <50%. (KC had plenty of time to score in regulation & if it reached OT, it's a toss up.) Making things worse, we demonstrated little ability in stopping them. As for 13 seconds - we lost cuz we crapped the bed. We gave the game away, which really hurts.

Do you even call him a FB? There's nobody on the roster ahead of him; as I recall he's been healthy all year & he's played what, prolly (well) under 100 offensive snaps. Meanwhile, he plays most ST snaps & has prolly played 300+ there. No, he's not a top 5 FB & he's arguably not even a FB. For that matter, as someone mentioned above, how many true FBs are there these days?

Well, they're gonna be w/o Spector. Also, Dodson is perhaps one good shot on the shoulder from being sidelined again. Klein also plays ST.

If you hit it near perfect. A slightly deflated ball will result in more consistency.

I've thought about that, too. You'd think that the team would want to get some sort of ROI. It's possible, in fact, once I think about it, probably probable, that the wording on the contract is that it's for the position of "head coach" & as such, no demotion is possible.

Not much of a Dylan fan, but...

Both from an eyeball test (which, admittedly could be biased) & from a statistical standpoint, Jonathan has outperformed him (in noticeably less snaps, too). Additionally, Miller doesn't play ST, so unless we suffer multiple injuries mid-week on the DL, then no, shouldn't be active.

I would think that would be a VERY easy item to "smuggle" in,. if ya know what I mean.

Certainly having a proven, capable backup is desirable. However, given our dire cap situation, & the desire to retain some quality FAs, I think it's a luxury we can't afford. Or at least we need to put our resources to player(s) that are definitely going to contribute rather than likely sitting on the bench.

Somewhat related - Didn't Reggie Bush set a record for futility rushing the one year he played for us? Like the most # of carries w/ negative net yards? I think Kyle has him beat. Doesn't he have like 10 or 12 -1 yard runs by now?

I can see both sides of the argument - Hamlin is playing & contributing at about the same way he was previously, which is to say he's a bottom of the roster contributor. But he LITERALLY came back from the dead to be the player he previously was. Although Flacco went from couch potato to starting caliber QB that has (significantly?) contributed to some wins, he's still not anywhere near the level he previously was. So...is backup to nothing to decent starter better than backup to dead & back to backup?

Just saw the highlights & you are correct - Groot & Miller.

I was annoyed when the announcers mentioned that we only had 2 DL on the last play & we were using our best in Floyd & Miller. Really? I'd take Rousseau &/or Oliver over Miller any day of the week.

Thanks. That guy (Michael Smith?) was/is a good interviewer. Don't think I've seen him before.

Actually, in '75 (the 1 yr in his tenure that we had a good/great, balanced attack) OJ caught 7 TDs & averaged like 16 yds/catch!

You might be right, I don't think I've ever timed a pass, or at the very least, it's not something I'm familiar w/. I'm basing that estimate on punts, which I am quite familiar w/, both my own & pros. Though it's contrary to the typical intent, I'd think it difficult to punt a ball 50 yds in the air & have it arrive in < ~3 seconds. Thinking about it further, consider someone running under a "bomb". Considering they're already at speed, they'd easily cover 30+ yds once a ball is airborne. I don't think QBs have to lead them that much so I guess that makes this strategy more viable.

An added potential bonus of attempting this strategy is that it's more likely to draw a DPI penalty. DPI isn't usually called on the melee that is typically a hail mary, but it might be (much) more likely if it's a defender hauling butt to try to defend a single receiver that's all by his lonesome, & further gives the receiver the opportunity to try to "induce" it.

If it's a "short" hail mary & you've got a QB w/ a good arm, it might be barely feasible. Although the defenders are bunched, they're still spread out for maybe 8-10 yds, and they're not on the sideline, but rather more toward the middle of the field. So even if you set up "in the corner", you've got at most 30 yds before other sideline. I doubt any QB can throw more than 50 yds in < ~3 seconds. Once that ball is airborne, a DB can run almost 30 yds in ~3 seconds. If you can somehow time a receiver receiver surreptitiously break for the other sideline just as the QB is throwing, it might be viable. But again, I think only for a "short" hail mary.

I did NOT enjoy the 2nd half. On the plus side, yay, our defense didn't crap the bed on the last drive. That might a good thing moving forward.

Butch Rolle? All he does is catch touchdowns!

It's possibly a no-win situation for him. His career as a Jet w/ the current regime is over & most likely regardless of the coaching staff next year. He's not going to look good if he plays & the more bad tape there is of him, the lower his perceived value. If I were him, looking for future prospects, I'd wanna sit, too.

W/ 20 seconds & TOP left, you have the opportunity of 1 play in-bounds before you have to try the FG (If it's really short, you could probably spike the ball.) W/ 2 TOs, that means 2 plays, if each of them are ~20 yds, that puts you in FG range. I seem to recall the Chiefs doing it against someone in only 13 seconds.

The only reason to do it is to make sure you don't F%##% up & have 12 men on the field giving them a potential 2nd try from 5 yds closer. :DOH:

I doubt it. But... that income is not entirely guaranteed. Also, he does still have to work for it. Further, one could argue the $ isn't really "lost", merely delayed, or at least this is partially the case. ie he chooses to work 4 more yrs. Does it really matter if it's '23-'26 or '24 thru '27? As for what I expect the "math" to be like (this is just a hypothetical I'm basically pulling out my butt, IDK real numbers) - imagine you're a "regular" wage earning & you're presented w/ a "tenuous" opportunity to earn $1m/yr for "a few yrs". That $1m is ~$600k after taxes. How anxious would you be to pay $100-$200k (presumably not tax deductible) to insure said income, knowing that a) only a handful of the ~2000 players/yr end up missing out on a similar opportunity due to circumstances you want to insure against and b) collecting said payout in the event it's warranted, will possibly (likely?) involve a (costly) legal battle w/ no actual assurances that you'll indeed collect. Not saying no one insures themselves for such circumstances, but I suspect it's not so dumb (& likely prudent) to actually make a decision NOT to insure.

Probably cuz they're gigantic expensive. I used to work in an industry (Commodity Trading Advisor) where we're potentially liable for substantial amounts of $. We looked into insurance & it was highly imprudent given the probability of a liability. How often does something like this happen? Very seldom. Also, good luck getting a payout. You think insurance companies will just hand out a 6 or 7 figure amount w/o some legal fight to try to weasel out of it. Probably cuz they're gigantic expensive. I used to work in an industry (Commodity Trading Advisor) where we're potentially liable for substantial amounts of $. We looked into insurance & it was highly imprudent given the probability of a liability. How often does something like this happen? Very seldom. Also, good luck getting a payout. You think insurance companies will just hand out a 6 or 7 figure amount w/o some legal fight to try to weasel out of it.