eSJayDee

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.

For that figure, I'm disappointed we let him go. "Up to $3.75" to me means, "probably $3 or less". Minimum wage is over $1m after a few yrs experience. Yes, he was lacking breakaway speed & he certainly wasn't the "big back" we're clamoring for, but our RBs aren't used that much, & for that amount of cap space, I think he would've been worth retaining. Heck, a 2 yr "Up to $7.5m contract, w/ maybe a $2m SB & "minimum wage" this year & hold onto him this year & see if Cook really is worthy of getting the majority of playing time. I can only hope this means we're bringing in a "big back" to be our #2.

Actually, there was some instance where they needed to calculate something "on the fly". Calculations were done on a computer & the astronaut(s) insisted that they be checked/verifed by a woman w/ a slide rule. Actually, there was some instance where they needed to calculate something "on the fly". Calculations were done on a computer & the astronaut(s) insisted that they be checked/verifed by a woman w/ a slide rule.

Our cap space right now is based on the top 51. You've mentioned 10 players signed, the lowest of which only raises the cap figure ~$400k (I think minimum salary now is ~$700k). Those other non-minimum-ish cap hits bring that total to ballpark $15m in my head.

Yes, it is "just accounting", but sooner or later, you have to pay the piper. Under a rookie contract, a 1st round QB is costing < $10m/yr cap. Assuming he pans out, his next contract is gonna avg $40-$50m. That extra $30m or whatever is PRECISELY the $ you need to sign your other premium/elite players. Yes, the bottom 1/2 of your roster doesn't cost much cap wise (I think he's generous in his estimate, as he seems to be short a few player & you also have to pay all your injury replacements & presumably all your cuts w/ guaranteed contracts) Having that QB on his costly contract means that you can't afford 2 or 3 other costly contracts; in our case that means some combination of Edmunds, Poyer, Singletary &/or some starting quality FAs that we'll be unable to sign)

I'm on the computer typically "all day". If I had to guess, I'd say about 1/2 of that is on the internet, so let's say 5-6 hrs a day. I'm retired & guess I would be classified as "weird loner down the street who kept to himself.."

I don't think restructuring Von Miller is such a good idea. Yes, w/ Allen, due to his dead cap you're married to him for a few more yrs regardless, so adding a millions more potential dead cap & spreading out the cap hit of a few $mill each yr for a few yrs is NBD. He is young & the chance of him not substantially under producing relative to his contract are slim. That's not the case w/ Miller, especially as he's coming off a significant injury surgery. I can see the potential that you might be "stuck" w/ him in the near future if he under performs his contract. That's a bad situation that our current regime has typically managed to avoid after their initial purge. Also, I'm not sure how this works, but I believe since Oliver is playing under his option year, no savings can be made by extending him. His salary is what it is.

I don't think it's so much a game day issue, but rather a team composition issue. Players cost both cap space & "draft capital" (One has the potential to have players on their rookie contract substantially outperform their market value - see 2021 J Allen vs 2023). And it doesn't appear that we get a discount on salary/cap cost for these part time player. Before investing HEAVILY in draft picks (Epenesa, Bashem, Groot) we had the highest cap allocation for D Line. And not corresponding production. Now, although our cap costs are more reasonable (Miller takes a big jump this yr), we also have the cost of 3 premium draft picks. Our defense has 7 players that barring injury, play almost 100%. The offense has 6 & a few others that play 80%. I'm all for having 6 capable D-linemen rotating in, (in large part cuz injuries are inevitable & playing IMO contributes to improved play), but 8 is excessive.