Tuco

I bet we could solve the dilemma by giving each player a big number - much bigger even than the name tag. Just an idea.

June 1st is meaningless when a player is in his final year.

Year Date Player Team Trigger Base Salary Roster Bonus 2019 March 17 Micah Hyde Bills $500,000 roster bonus is due $3,950,000 $500,000 2019 March 17 Jordan Poyer Bills $150,000 roster bonus is due $2,950,000 $150,000 2019 March 17 Stephen Hauschka Bills $250,000 roster bonus is due $2,000,000 $250,000 2019 March 17 Star Lotulelei Bills $5.15 million of base salary becomes guaranteed $7,150,000 $1,000,000 2019 March 17 Star Lotulelei Bills $1M roster bonus due $7,150,000 $1,000,000 2019 March 17 Trent Murphy Bills $2.5M of base salary becomes guaranteed $5,800,000 $500,000 2019 March 17 Trent Murphy Bills $500,000 5th day of league year roster bonus due $5,800,000 $500,000

The 1 point safety can only occur on a try after a touchdown. Therefore it still can't be 1-0. That said, this whole idea sucks, lol.

Meh. The Pats* are good at it, just like they're good at everything. Yes it sucks they're getting 2 third rounders this year, but they let good players walk and they signed big elsewhere. That's how it works. So be it. Since Belly* took over 19 seasons ago the Pats have had 6 third rounders (including the 2 this year). Their first 3rd rounder wasn't until Belly's* 6th season. Then 4 years after that, and 6 more years after that. Some here are acting like they get them every year. In that time they have also had a whopping 3 fourth rounders and 4 fifth rounders. Everything else has been 6ths and 7ths. Yes they get more picks than most teams. So do the Ravens. In fact the Ravens are the kings of comp picks. They have received about 10 more picks than any other team even though they didn't even exist as a franchise for the first 2 years of the system. Yet nobody complains that the rules need changing because of the Ravens. We complain because we have sucked for so long. Because the Pats* have owned us for so long. And because the Pats do comp picks, just like everything else, better than we do. That doesn't mean the rule is unfair. It means we need to quit sucking and letting the Pats* own us in all phases, not just on game day. The rules have to be the same for everybody. We can't just say, well you guys are too good, you don't get the same rules as the other teams. That's just sour grapes. Start pulling up our boot straps and winning. Then the other teams will complain about us.

You don't have levels for EFAs. EFA is actually ERFA. That stands for Exclusive Rights Free Agent. All you have to do is tender them the league minimum for one year and you have exclusive negotiating rights. The only reason you wouldn't do that is if you were certain you didn't want them back.

The Osweiller deal only worked because his salary was guaranteed. Houston has a large cap figure, but it's not guaranteed salary. His cap hit for the Chiefs is $21.1 million this year. If they cut him their cap hit is only $7.1 million - less if they use June 1st designation. If they trade him to us (or anybody), the Chiefs cap hit is still $7.1 million. There would be no reason for them to give us anything.

Is that what you were going for? Your post didn't say anything except we should cut these 5 particular guys in order to gain $6 mil in cap space (which it won't, as mentioned several times here, the guys cut are still replaced on the roster by similarly paid guys). More like $4 mil but whatever. But okay, if your original post had said we should cut these 5 particular guys in order to make the following moves, I probably would have just scrolled on by. Unfortunately I didn't get the feeling from the original post that that's what you were doing. In fact, it looks like your original post is simply looking to gain cap space without adding any real plan. It wasn't until later you added some of your thoughts about who we should sign. None of which still explains why we would need to cut these 5 particular players to make room. Maybe you should have just said we should cut these players because they suck. People might have disagreed, but at least your statement would have made more sense than (according to the original post) vaguely pointing out 5 guys to cut just to give us $80+ mil instead of $70 something mil, and then getting all defensive when people have the audacity to ask why?

Well you go into training camp with 90 guys on the roster. Many of them make the minimum and only the top 51 count - and we only have 52 signed now. That means we're going to be signing about 38 more guys who mostly make minimum salary. So saying we should cut a guy like Cam Phillips in order to make cap room just doesn't make sense. If you cut him just to make room, one of the other minimum salary guys just moves into the same slot. There's nothing gained. Now if you want to cut a guy and replace him with somebody better, I'm all for it. But at this point, with 28 players left to sign just to get to the camp number, talking about cutting a minimum salary guy to save cap space is pointless. You're still going to sign at least 25 more guys before it makes a difference. And even then since he's making minimum it won't make any more of a difference than cutting some other player. Furthermore, even if the cap space is needed, there's no need to cut anybody early. Even if you sign a guy at 9:00 AM that puts you over the cap, you still have until 4:00 PM the same day to make cuts and get under the cap. I just don't see the point of talking about cutting a minimum salary player in February in order to save cap space when we don't need the cap space, and the player's salary will just be replaced by another player's salary anyway. Again, if the player replacing him is better, go for it. Until then it's rather pointless.

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.