YattaOkasan

I'm in agreement with other posters on several things. The punishment seems to out weight the crime. If his tardiness was a consistent thing, why not sit him during the regular season to prove the point? If this was that serious of an infraction, why not inactivate him? If he wanted insurance for a Rowe injury, why not just play him cause Rowe was not good? These are like just surface level questions so I'm assuming there must be something deeper going on. Cause I wouldn't expect BB to make this type of mistake.

Yeah I mentioned that up thread too.

I don't think its too far fetched. I actually sorta think they are going to eat TT roster bonus to make him more trade worthy.

I think the numbers in the OP were all post June 1st designations which is why they were all a bit higher than what’s been floating around the board.

Understood and you’re right. But the reason i was saying is it doesn’t work is that the money isn’t available until after June 1st IIRC and you can only do it twice. So to post the savings for the players in the OP all with a post June 1st designation ended up being a bit misleading

Did you put the post June 1st numbers for everyone? That doesnt really work. The league allows each team to designate up to two players per year as a June 1 cut for cap purposes prior to June 1. https://overthecap.com/explaining-the-june-1st-designation/ Also its just putting the dead money off. Beane said we were better with the cap but we werent there yet (don't have the link from senior bowl IIRC). That makes me think we won't see huge relief by using the June 1st designation like for Taylor.

That was posted Dec 18!!!! You should check his grade after the NC. I think hes at least a B+

Looks pretty good. I would keep Clay as I don't think we get much by cutting him. He gets a ton of targets and is a good blocker. I also think Daboll will want to run a lot of 12 sets (although the 21 set you show is close to a 12 set, just Clay is a better receiver than DiMarco). If Chubb is available in the 3rd then yes please.

I really like their stuff. But I agree it tends to always be optimistic which is probably why I like it. I will say when the good things happen they are usually correct about the how.

Throw to Clay on the run in ATL. That was a dirty throw. I think this actually a very easy decision.

So I think I would call this something a little different than a trap game (I think calling it a trap game is why people are disagreeing). Maybe we can call it a "let down" game which is sounds like you're describing. I can agree with calling this game a potential "let down" game. Would be interested in seeing a similar analysis to the other "trap" game analysis. BTW I also am concerned about this week. Just didn't like the "trap" game part of what you were saying. Sorry if that sounds nit picky just sorta rubbed me weird.

So any game with a big spread is a trap game? Thats a really broad definition and I don't understand. I've seen stats posted on here showing that "trap" games don't exist. I believe the definition in that post was a game against a clearly inferior opponent followed by a game against tough opponent. How often do teams lose the easy game relative to how often they lose the easy game normally (no trap)? Stats were convincing that having a tough opponent after an easy opponent doesn't correlate to losses as you would expect if trap games are a real thing. Since you definition includes opponents "deemed to be easy to defeat" I don't know how you assess that. Is the expected success rate 100% for that definition? I'm going with others that there are no such things as trap games.

I think the kids are saying Dilly Dilly

So I actually read this opposite. You need to catch a backward pass in order to advance. Anyone can recover a backward pass after it touches the the ground, but it seems not advance. There is a note under article 1 about backwards passes that hit the ground but remain live balls (A direct snap from center in the backfield, a muffed hand-to-hand snap, or a snap that is untouched by any player are backward passes, and the ball remains alive.). Based on this and the other comments on laterals being fumbles I don't think it could be advanced.

Whats so wrong with it? He thinks they'll pretty much win out and beat the Pats at least once. I mean it is wrong, but lets just hold on to it. It can be that rare gem we can hold on to.

Part of the reason why TOs are correlated with wins is likely the resulting field position. We have struggled using that field position at times this year. I think it's a fair criticism.

Thanks for the reply. Appreciate the reasoned take

Merely expressing MY opinion that Peterman won't win a competition with TT next year that he might be starting because of injuries specifically to TT. Still do you disagree that there would be trade value with TT? We would definitely want to do explore a trade next season if we are drafting a QB high?

Then would you support picking up his option and then trading him? Cause he would have soooo much value to other teams. BTW I also disagree that Peterman will be starting 2018 Week 1 because he earned it.

This is what I saw too watching the GB game and doing the short cut of the Browns game. In the GB game their offense didnt score a TD for almost the last 3 quarters of the game. The Browns are comically and tragically bad (tears of laughter and despair).

Was Milano supposed to be on the field during that 4th and 1 (heard it was an LB we were missing)? If so thats pretty bad too.

Was there someone off the screen that were missing? Hyde? I see the 4-3 look with two corners and Poyer walking down. We were playing a safety really deep all game. All 22 (or maybe 21) should show this.

Buffalo rumblings has a post about White up (itself a good read) that shows an All 22 with Jerry dropping from last game. I suspect he's dropping to a zone if we're bringing pressure. Think Poyers two sacks or a double A gap blitz.

On the TD someone said it was designed. First read holmes i believe, second run, third clay.

Is it bad luck then that on the play before Tolbert couldn't just catch and walk in. Honestly both plays would be executed a high percentage of the time. Having both plays go sideways seems very flukey