eSJayDee

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.

HELLLLO! McFLY! Have you heard of the salary cap? If we trade/cut JA at this juncture, we'll literally have difficulty fielding a 53 man roster. I think he has like a $99m dead cap. You can't jettison high cost players like Miller, Diggs (prolly Milano) & Knox as although they cost a lot, their dead cap is more. The roster would need to be comprised almost exclusively of minimum wage players.

I believe the "full" youtube experience involves having a "user account", so you can "like, subscribe, comment" on videos, etc. I don't have a "user account", so I'm just a "visitor". When I bring up the main page, at the top right, there's a button to "sign in". Presumably, if you're "signed in" that's how they getcha w/ the ads. I use Firefox w/ a couple Add-on ad blockers & thus far, I'm still immune to the ads, though I'm arguably missing out on some things by being able to comment or take note of favorite content providers. Trying "signing out" & see if the ads persist.

I suspect it's only an issue if you "log in". I use 2, ABU being one of them. & don't have an issue. I've stopped using my tv for Youtube as the commercials are too obtrusive & no means of eliminating them.

The simple problem w/ cutting him or trading him is his cap #. As a 1st round pick, he had a big signing bonus, which would accelerate if jettisoned. According to Sportrac, it'd cost roughly an extra $8m in cap to dump him rather than keep him. Easier/cheaper/more prudent to just keep him on the roster & inactive every week.

Apparently the software on my tv doesn't offer it, or at least I couldn't find it. As for on my PC, it indicated streaming error & I was unable to watch it via Prime at all! But... I managed to watch the game just fine.

I think it's more accurate to say "forced to run around to avoid being sacked" rather than "hold onto the ball". Big difference.

Where'd you get that chart? Almost 20% from 80 yds? For that matter, 30% from 70 when the longest FG in the NFL was only 66????

I was actually kinda disappointed when he basically crawled over the prone defender. Sorta looked like he did it purposely when he might've been able to step around him & keep on running.

I've noticed that on passing downs, they'll sometimes have a DE rushing from an interior position. I don't notice who's playing at the time, so it's possible they replace a DT w/ a DE in these cases.

They had plenty of time. They had 3 TOs left & only ~20 yards of field (& like 35 seconds IIRC). 3 TOs allow you to run 3 plays in-bounds. How much more time to you need? Leave as little time on the clock as possible. I think they handled it very well.

Bummer. Celeb deaths I'm usually indifferent about, but this one hurts. I knew he had health issues recently, but he was otherwise touring until the end. He lived one hell of a life & favorably impacted the lives of many millions. Thank you Jimmy & RIP.

I thought you were gonna say body slam a folding table.

I think it was a bar, but I/we were fond of the wings at Rootie's Pump Room, north of the Amherst campus.

I think it depends on how you define "effective". If you're referring to total yards by RBs, then yes, to some extent, a QB who runs takes yards away from them. Also, passing also makes them less effective by this definition (when you're doing something else, a RB isn't accumulating yards). I'll concede there is a limit to this effect, ie if you NEVER pass, the RBs will likely be less productive than if you pass occasionally as the defense will adjust accordingly. If you define effective as production relative to opportunity (largely akin to yds/carry, though I would contend there are some differences, then no, I don't think a running QB lessens the effectiveness of the RBs run game. In fact, I would think that it would benefit it to some extent cuz it's just another thing the defense has to be wary of.

I was there! 1st Bills victory I saw in person (after seeing about 8 losses ). Last game before the strike IIRC.

I think it's a combination of both. Yes, fatigue or "hunger" comes into play, but it's an optimization thing. You've got a great player, who the more they play, the weaker they get. At some point, a mediocre talent playing at 100% is better than a (significantly ) better player playing at 100-x%. If you've got 2 mediocre players, let them split time in the hopes that their increased playing time will improve their abilities. And you don't know which is more likely to improve and of course further, there's diminishing returns on the "experience" factor as well as fatigue/"damage".

I have at least 14 undies. I usually do laundry (often multiple loads) about every 2 weeks.

Well, this yr they're getting a ~$50m QB for minimum wage. As it stands, they're basically pushing the cost of having him play this yr into next yr (sort of like how many teams convert salary to signing bonuses to get under the cap). They're basically deferring most of his cap value to next yr. They can make next yrs hit more tolerable by either taking other players future salaries & making them SB this yr, thereby lowering their '24 hits, or by further extending Rodgers. Their question is whether or not he's worth $50m+ for playing next yr. Maybe they just cut him, if not, they're prolly have to extend him to make that hit more tolerable.