Tuco

Whether anybody thinks there will be a disruption or not, with the amount of money at stake a person would be a fool not to prepare for it.

Section M1 Row 1 Seat 109 About 8 of us went in 2 different vans. Three guys left at the half. A while later two girls were getting cold and miserable and said they were going to wait in the van. We had just scored to make it 35-10. I said, hey we just scored, stick around and see what happens. Of course I had about as much confidence as everybody else, but right about then we recovered the surprise onsides kick, and just a few plays later it was 35-17. The girls were glad they stayed. The guys who left, ha ha ha ha ha . . .

Well I didn't reverse them to illustrate how easily we could have won them. I did it to point out that winning more games tends to make your schedule look easier, while losing them makes it look harder. And to agree with your point - you are what your record says you are. And our record says we generally stink every year. Not because our schedule is hard, but because we don't win our games. And the opposite is true for the good teams. They don't win their games because they're easier, they win them because they're good teams. All the easy schedule/hard schedule stuff appears after the fact.

Well . . . let's say we beat the Colts, Ravens, Chargers, Texans and the Patriots* once. The Ravens and Colts would be out of the playoffs. We would be 11-5, division champs with a 1st round bye. Then the comment would be how do we deserve a 1st round bye when only 3 of our 11 wins came against playoff teams - which is exactly what we could say about the Patriots* this year. Division champs with a bye and they only beat 3 playoff teams. The good teams win their games and the bad teams don't.

No they can't void bonus money. Yes they get refunded for games while he's suspended, and can even demand a refund for the portion of the bonus money attributed to the games missed by suspension. What's voided is his remaining future guarantees, which means his guaranteed salary (2019 - 2020) is no longer guaranteed.

Dede Westbrooke down in Jax. Spent most of last year injured so this was his rookie and a half season. Shows great speed and ability to get open. Started 8 games this year, 63 rec. 707 yds. 5 tds plus a punt return TD.

I don't mind the rule. Maybe it's unfair, but then again, the biggest sin a football player can commit is to fumble the ball. And at least it's a black and white rule, the same for everybody and everybody knows the risks with no need for any "judgement" by the official. But if we have to make a change, let's do a sort of compromise. Let's say any fumble that occurs inside the 5 yard line automatically becomes subject to the overtime/inside 2:00/4th down rules. In these cases any fumble can only be advanced by the player who fumbled it. If another player on his team recovers, or it goes out of bounds, the ball returns to the spot of the fumble. But let's add one caveat - if the ball is fumbled out the side of the endzone, it shall be treated as a ball fumbled out of bounds subject to the overtime/2:00/4th down rules as listed above, and returned to the spot of the fumble. But if the ball is fumbled out the back of the endzone it shall be ruled a touchback. Let's face it, if you're in the middle of the field and you fumble the ball more than 10 yards forward, it's unlikely your team is going to recover it. Maybe a deep reciever could get it, but in this scenario there's no reciever deeper than the back of the endzone, so it ain't happening. I don't see it nearly as unfair to call a touchback if the ball is fumbled more than the 10 yard distance to the back line of the endzone. My $.02.

Yeah I guess that could work. Although they would have to find a way to be fair to the "protected" PS players. Right now PS players can be paid as little as a grand or two a week, but at the same time they are basically unrestricted free agents who can sign with anyone if they look good enough. "Protecting" them would limit their ability to do that. You couldn't get away with paying them the same as an unprotected player who is free to sign with anybody anytime. So if you have to pay them the league minimum in order to protect them so you can shuffle them as needed, then you're basically raising the total roster to 57 while allowing 53 active on game day. Same system with more players. Then the argument goes to who pays for the extra 128 players. Do the owners pay a couple million more each year? Or does the revenue based cap percentage stay the same with the players absorbing the new $60+ million out of their own wage pool? Changing roster size may happen, but it won't be a quick and easy process.

Could be. But rest assured if the whole roster is active, when the time comes that one team has 7 injured players and one team has 2 injured players, there will be griping about one team having an extra 5 healthy, available players than the other team on game day.

It goes back to the days when there were no inactives, just a 46 man roster. Teams would stash their extra players on IR, and back then teams had a certain amount of "free" moves where they could bring a player off IR and activate him. If a team didn't want to use one of their "free" moves they had to expose the player to waivers before they could activate him. This, by the way, is exactly how the Bills claimed Steve Tasker from Houston. Houston wasn't cutting him, they were attempting to activate him from IR without using a "free" move. Once the salary cap was implemented and the rule was changed so any player who goes on IR must stay there for the season, teams all said we need more players available because of short term injuries. So they all said okay we'll go to 53 players. But then they said if one team only has 1 injured player and another team has 5 injured players, this gives the first team a 52 to 48 man advantage on game day. So they said okay, we can keep 53 but still only dress 46 on game day. Then the teams said we still need more players available, so they added an 8 man practice squad. Then the teams said we still need more available players, so they're back to letting 2 of the IR players return each year. Payton may be all for adding players, but I'll bet there are plenty of owners who think they have enough now.

It wouldn't have bothered the Cheats in the least. The whole idea for the stunt was to kill as much clock as they could before giving the ball back to Pitt.

Not a time out, the ref just holds things up for a reasonable amount of time. It's not like the Pats rushed the punt snap to catch them off guard. The Steelers made no attempt to substitute. One of the DBs went deep to field the punt and the Steelers seemed content with that. There really seems to be a lot more being made of this than there should be, starting with the OP calling it an illegal play. ARTICLE 10. DEFENSIVE MATCHUPS FOLLOWING SUBSTITUTIONS. If a substitution is made by the offense, the offense shall not be permitted to snap the ball until the defense has been permitted to respond with its substitutions. While in the process of a substitution (or simulated substitution), the offense is prohibited from rushing quickly to the line of scrimmage and snapping the ball in an obvious attempt to cause a defensive foul (i.e., too many men on the field). If the offense substitutes, the following procedure will apply: (a) The Umpire will stand over the ball until the Referee deems that the defense has had a reasonable time to complete its substitutions. (b) If the offense snaps the ball before the defense has had an opportunity to complete its substitutions, and a defensive foul for too many players on the field results, no penalties will be enforced, except for personal fouls and unsportsmanlike conduct, and the down will be replayed. At this time, the Referee will notify the head coach that any further use of this tactic will result in a penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct. The game clock will be reset to the time remaining when the snap occurred, and the clock will start on the snap. Note: The quick-snap rule does not apply after the two-minute warning of either half, or if there is not a substitution by the offense. (c) On a fourth-down punting situation, the Referee and the Umpire will not allow a quick snap that prevents the defense from having a reasonable time to complete its substitutions. This applies throughout the entire game. (d) If the play clock expires before the defense has completed its substitution, it is delay of game by the offense.

Actually it was very productive. The clock was running down so the Pats* lined up on 4th and short as though they were going to go for it. This convinced Pitt not to use their time out, which they would have if they were sure the Pats were going to punt. But with the Pats* O on the field Pitt didn't want to leave them any more time than they had to if they converted. So the clock continued to run. Then after the Pats* ran a bunch of seconds off the clock they swapped the entire offense for the punt team. By then it was too late for Pitt to gain anything by using their time out. Despite the OP's accusation of cheating, Pitt didn't even attempt to substitute, so there was no issue there. It was a smart play by Belicheat*. On the douchy side, sure. But smart, productive, and effective.

I agree the overall discussion was originally about whether or not he was being screwed over. But if you notice, I bolded the part of KD's post that I was directly referring to. The part that said, "His contract included the right of the other party to retain his services for this year." It was also in reference to a few other comments, but I thought narrowing it down to that one sentence was good enough. But I was actually responding to the following- "Bell has not in fact, completed his contractual obligation to the Steelers. His contract included the right of the other party to retain his services for this year. That's part of his contractual obligation." The CBA gives the team the right to retain exclusive negotiating rights. That's all. It is not part of Bell's contractual obligation. If Bell never plays another down of football, nobody can ever say he didn't fulfill his contractual obligations. That makes the above statement untrue. "It's not a narrative you nitwit, it's called contract law. What do you want to 'agree to disagree' on? That you don't understand the franchise tag is part of his contract?" "No, what you're saying is he has 'completed his contractual obligation' or he has 'finished his contract' which is 100%, flat-out wrong." But it's not flat out wrong. Even under "contractual law." The franchise tag is not part of his contract, it's part of the CBA. Those things are different. So when one is wrong, complaining about someone not understanding, and calling one a nitwit, well, it just seems worthy of a response. This sentence from the CBA clearly points out the player is not bound to accept the tendered offer, and therefore playing for the tag amount is not part of the player's contractual obligation - as was stated by KD, and bolded by me as the exact part of the discussion I was responding to. "If a player subject to a Franchise Player designation accepts the Required Tender, the resulting Player Contract shall be fully guaranteed if the player’s contract is terminated because of lack of comparative skill; as a result of an injury sustained in the performance of his services under his Player Contract; and/or due to a Club’s determination to create Room for Salary Cap purposes." Yes, the CBA ties the player to the team by restricting his negotiating rights. No, it does not give the team the right to retain his services, and Bell never signed anything that says they do. That is not part of his contractual obligation. As for the overall subject. Meh, if $14 mil isn't enough, whatever. It's a personal choice. But the NFLPA represents about 2,200 players every year, and only about 3 of them give a crap about the franchise tag. It might get mentioned at negotiations and hyped in the media, but right or wrong, the players union won't strike over it. So it's probably here to stay. And I'm glad he stayed out because I drafted James Conner in the 6th round. Been in first place all season. Peace.

Mind if I jump in? Well I did. You're wrong. The franchise tag is not, in any way, a contractual agreement unless the player signs it. If the franchise tag was part of his contractual agreement then Bell would be getting fined for every game he misses. When people say he's "forfeiting" $14 million, that's not really true. He's choosing not to work for $14 million. But he is in no way obligated to play for the Steelers in 2018 for $14 million. If the Steelers had the "right to retain his services" for the year for $14 million, there would never be any leverage for the player to negotiate a longer term deal. Yes, contracts do sometimes contain language that gives the team those kinds of rights. The clause that allows teams to add the 5th year onto their 1st round draft pick's contract if they choose to is a perfect example. That language is specifically included into the player's contract. It's a mandatory clause set forth in the CBA and can't be negotiated out, also per the CBA. When the player signs his name to the contract he's agreeing that the team has the unilateral right to add the 5th year if they want. But the franchise tag is not the same thing. Yes, the franchise tag is part of the CBA, so players are bound to it. But no player automatically agrees to play for the tag amount just by signing his regular contract. The franchise tag isn't an automatic option for the team that says the player has specifically agreed to play for the tag amount. And until Bell signs the tag he is not contractually obligated to play for the Steelers. Nor can he be fined for not playing, nor can he be traded. Again, the 5th year option mentioned above is a fully binding agreement on the part of the player that he signs as part of his contract, and if the team exercises the option the yes, the team has the right to retain his services for the year. And the player is obligated, by contract, to do so. The player can be fined for not showing up. And the player can be traded. The franchise tag, however, is not the same. The franchise tag doesn't automatically contractually bind the player to playing for the prescribed amount. And no player agrees to play for the tag amount when he signs his original contract. Simply put, the franchise tag itself is not a contract. Per the CBA, the franchise tag gives the team the right to exclusively negotiate with the player, as long as the team extends a binding minimum offer ($14 mil in Bell's case). But that's all it does. IF the player signs it, then becomes a binding contract. But until he signs it, or a different contract for more than the tag, or a long term deal, the player is under no obligation to play for the team. They have exclusive negotiating rights. They do not have a binding contract. Le'veon Bell has in fact played every bit of football for the Steelers that he agreed to, and was contractually bound to play. He signed a contract, he played it out. The franchise tag doesn't change that. It gives the Steelers exclusive negotiating rights as long as they tender a specific offer. It does not give the Steelers the right to retain his services if Bell chooses not to accept the offer. And if Bell doesn't choose to accept the offer, he is not contractually bound to play.