Tuco

His roster bonus is due 6 days after the start of the new year. There is absolutely no reason his trade can't be consummated before then. In fact, if the whole idea is to get rid of his cap space in time for the start of the league year (which, at this point, is when we need it), the trade can and should be agreed to ahead of time so it goes into effect at 4:00 PM exactly at the start of the new league year. He does have the cap hit for his prorated signing bonus, but that will hit our cap whether we trade, cut or keep him so it's moot.

Oh. . . . never mind.

I'm still stuck on Aunt Suzie's birthday gift. Even though it isn't exactly related to Ticketmaster, it still falls under the same new laws. So Aunt Suzie gives you $1,000 for your birthday. The law says this isn't taxable because the amount is under the taxable threshold for birthday presents from Aunt Suzie. But Aunt Suzie is hip. She's not like grandma. Aunt Suzie is with the times and she uses venmo to send you the same $1,000 gift she's sent you for the last 15 years. Enter the IRS. Now that Aunt Suzie used venmo, there will be a 1099 form generated. You may get this form and throw it out since you know it's not really taxable. Yet when your taxes are filed, the IRS will know you omitted this 1099 form in the amount of $1,000 from your reported income. They won't know it's not taxable, and they won't really care. They will just know that your income listed on your tax form doesn't match theirs. Now in typical IRS fashion, they will presume you guilty of tax evasion. They will send you a bill for the $70 or whatever your tax on $1,000 comes to, plus a generous penalty and late fee, etc. You will now have been judged by an agency of the federal government and found guilty. Fortunately, this is America, and you will be given the opportunity to prove your innocence. This will take a bit of your time and maybe cost you some money, but hey, it's a small price to pay for freedom. Eventually you may prove your innocence and can then claim a small victory against the IRS and their strong arm. Yay. Of course you can avoid all this trouble by listing the $1,000 on your tax return, and going through the trouble of proving it was just a birthday gift from Aunt Suzie ahead of time. Or you can persuade Aunt Suzie to mail you a check like she did for so many years. Although the IRS has already tried, and will most likely eventually succeed in treating that $1,000 bank deposit in the same manner. We didn't really think the IRS was increasing its workforce by 15% to go after GM and Haliburton did we? And none of the above used to happen unless Aunt Suzie's and your other venmo transactions totaled over $20,000, or more than 200 transactions. But starting in 2022 that threshold drops to $600 and a single transaction. Yet somehow there are people who think this is all a good thing because, hey, we need roads to drive and new STADIA (Bills related!), and have to pay our share.

First of all, I agree that the federal government shouldn't be involved in subsidizing any business. While at the same time it should be the state and local privilege to decide where they want their tax dollars to be spent. But that's a much bigger argument than just a handful of stadiums around the country. The fed gives all sorts of tax breaks to all sorts of big businesses all over the place. The taxpayer in New Mexico vs the stadium in NY argument could go on endlessly. Why does a tax payer in NY pay for a new building for Boeing in Seattle, or why does a tax payer in Florida pay for a farm subsidy for all the farm land Bill Gates bought in Montana? This argument is practically endless when talking about ways the fed gives away tax dollars to rich people. Now in many cases these arguments are dealing with immediate taxpayer handouts to these rich people. They take federal tax dollars and give them, directly, to rich people. But what we're talking about here isn't any sort of federal negotiation regarding how much federal tax money will go directly to funding any NFL stadium. What this bill is talking about is eliminating the ability of the NFL to use interest free federal municipal bonds (interest free loans) to fund their stadium. They're basically talking about the portion of money that the NFL matches from the team owner (look up NFL G4 program), both of which are generally financed (and repaid) with these interest free municipal bonds. In effect, the fed isn't paying for the stadium or any portion of it outright. They're not even giving any direct tax subsidy like they do with so many other businesses and rich people. They're just lending the money to the team and the owner - and possibly the state for all we know - and letting them repay it without interest. This, of course, all looks good on paper. The fed helps state and locals build bigger and better by lending out interest free bonds. And it does technically "cost" the federal government money in the form of lost interest. But not nearly as much as an outright tax subsidy where the tax dollars are just given to the businesses. The fed isn't giving the tax dollars to the team and league, they're loaning it to them without interest. Just as they do with thousands of other businesses. Now if we want to eliminate federal tax dollars, subsidies and interest free federal loans to all businesses, I'm all for it. But that isn't what's happening here. Any news story about this bill begins with the fact that some Washington politicians aren't happy with Dan Snyder's Commanders and their behavior and lack of cooperation. In the world of federal tax subsidies to businesses, eliminating interest free federal loans for sports stadiums amounts to a grain of sand on a large beach. And this bill is clearly much more about a political pissing match than it is saving the fed any substantial amount of money. And, as others have said, it probably won't go anywhere. It's just a publicity ploy being used by unhappy politicians against Dan Snyder - and unfortunately - the rest of the league. But of course we'll have to watch it closely as our Bills are one of the few teams currently looking to build new. Thanks Dan Snyder.

They already do get paid for bye weeks in the playoffs. Other than that, great post.

I don't Billieve in this crap. But just in case, during the regular season, on game day, I have breakfast at the local diner around 10:00ish - making sure to drink my coffee left-handed and with only one refill. Then I go shopping at TOPS to stock up on whatever my game day crock pot dish will be. Then, before going from TOPS to Family Dollar, I drive around the block - even though the two stores are right next to each other. When the Bills lose I change directions the next week. I keep up the above tradition through the playoffs. Also, in the Fall of 1990 I said I wasn't going to shave my beard until the Bills win the Super Bowl. Outside of two fund raisers, I have stuck to that promise. Yes I do trim it, so no I don't look like Rip Van Winkle. But like I said, I don't really Billieve in this stuff.

You would think by now Dada could afford 2 TVs.

Two what? Did you say Utes? What is a Ute?

FWIW in the, "Pats* beat Miami/ Bills lose to Jets" scenario we would lose out on common games. Bills would have wins against MIA(2), NO, HOU, NYJ, CAR, ATL, for a total of 7 wins. NE* would have wins against MIA, HOU, NYJ(2), CAR, ATL, TENN, JAX for a total of 8. To the OP, if it becomes a 4 way (it won't, but if it does), it would then be 1 Cincy, 2 Ten, 3 Buf, 4 KC.

Thanks. Should be okay now.

How about one play that sums up our running backs lack of vision - If he bounces this outside instead of turning it in we're talking about how our team put together a great drive into that horrible wind and took the lead. No vision. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94wLZgdbsX8

Boettger was at the 5 and still moving forward when they stopped the feed on the replay. But at that point Josh changed course and it was another 2 seconds where you couldn't see Boettger before Josh threw the ball.

Yeah the only way it could really happen is if a team did it on purpose. And the only reason I can possibly think of to do that would be if the team was in the final game of the season and needed to win with a point differential of more than the 1 or 2 points would give them a playoff tiebreaker. Say the only way the team could make the playoffs was to win by 4 points, and a touchdown puts them up by 1 point. Rather than go for 1 or 2 and win by 2 or 3 they could take the 1 point safety and give the other team 1 point. That would tie the game and send it to overtime, giving the team a chance to win by more than 4. Of course this scenario would be extremely rare anyway since the point differential is so far down the tiebreaker list. The NFL adopted their current tie breaking procedures in 2002, adding SOV, SOS, offensive and defensive rankings all before getting to point differential - and I don't believe they've ever gotten further than SOV in that time. Before that I think there was an instance of point differential being used in the '70s. So I guess it would take a coach looking to add an oddity to his or a player's resume. Like Bellycheat* letting Doug Flutie kick a drop kick for the first time since the '40s. I do remember seeing a high school team use the above scenario with a regular safety to get his team to OT for that very reason, but I don't remember how they fared in the end.

There were 73 games with a 0-0 score between 1920 and that game in 1943. Of course it was a different game back then, LOL. I find it interesting that 4 points was ever only scored once in the whole history of the league, when the Racine Legion defeated the Chicago Cardinals 10-4 in 1923.

Interestingly, there was a 1 point safety in a college game in 2004. Then another one in 2013 that just so happened to be called by the same broadcast announcer.

EDIT to my above- I had some time and played with the scorigami thingy. Prior to the 2-point conversion adopted by the NFL in 1994, 11 points was only scored a total of 11 times. Only 2 of those were the result of 2-pointers in the AFL, once each by Oakland and Buffalo - both in 1961. The other instances of 11 points in all those years came from- 3 FG + safety -- 6 times 1 FG + 1 TD (missed XP) + safety -- 2 times 1 TD + XP + 2 safeties -- 1 time Well yeah.

How could you have a conversion safety without scoring first?

No 2-point conversion until 1994. You would have to try really hard to get to 11 points without a 2-pointer. Then even if you did, 26 isn't exactly a common score either, especially with out a 2-pointer Yes the AFL had the 2 pointer, but considering even with the 2-pointer 26-11 has only happened 3 times in over 7,000 NFL games since 1994, it's not that hard to believe it never happened in 600-700 total AFL games.

No, they are not the same thing. The play isn't dead when the QB starts to dive. It's dead when he dives (or slides) and any part of him that would make him down by contact touches the ground. If the QB were to start a feet first slide at the 1 yard line then slide into the endzone, they don't give him the TD. They spot the ball when he was "down", as in, when his knee or his elbow or his butt touched the ground. Any yardage gained after that is negated. They changed the rule in 2018 to include head first slides. If a QB dives forward and gets the ball into the endzone before any part of him touches the ground, he gets the touchdown. But if he dives head first (or feet first), hits the ground when the ball is at the 1 yard line and then slides over the goal line, the ball goes back to where he was "down" by beginning his slide. In the Bills game Heinicke never touched the ground until after the ball crossed the goal line. In today's game he was clearly "down" when his knee touched the ground, and the ball was clearly still outside the endzone at that point, and that's where it was spotted. That's the difference. And it's something several people on here don't seem to get. The play isn't over at the start of the dive. The play is over when the diving QB hits the ground - negating any sliding yardage that happens after that.

Everything pointed out in this video was made possible because we were able to get decent (not always great, but adequate) pressure and containment using only our front 4 D-linemen. When you can do that and don't have to blitz you can always have extra men in coverage and do the things we did.

Agreed. It's actually annoying when I hear it on TV. Back to the OP. Don't forget the obligatory "Back On The Chain Gang" whenever the sticks come out for a measurement.

https://www.wkbw.com/news/local-news/bills-mafia-steps-up-for-bills-fan-with-dream-to-see-team-in-person

Yes a signing bonus can only be prorated over 5 years, and those guys should know that. To the point, the initial signing bonus is $16.5 million spread from 2021 - 2025. But look further on Spotrac or wherever, and you will see $8.48 million listed under "option bonus" for the years 2022 - 2026. Then look at the notes down below you will see an option bonus due in 2022 for $42.4 million. This is the same bonus - $42.4 million = $8.48 million X5. Many people don't realize "option" doesn't mean the team has the option of whether or not to pay the bonus. Actually, sometimes that's exactly what it means, but in most cases, as well as this one, it's referring to a fully guaranteed bonus that the team has the "option" of either charging the whole amount to the cap in the season it's due, or "opting" to turn it into a signing bonus at that time it's due and spreading out the cap hit for 5 years from that point. Rarely is it the former, and since Spotrac knows the plan is to convert the 2nd year bonus when it's due, they already have it listed as prorated for 5 years starting in 2022 when it's paid. In essence, converting next year's option bonus into a signing bonus hasn't been done yet, but when the time comes next off season it will just be a formality - although no doubt people will try to make a big story out of it. Since both bonuses in 2021 and 2022 are fully guaranteed, this actually amounts to the Bills giving Josh a $58.9 million ($16.5+$42.4) signing bonus, but using the "option" bonus in year 2 as a way to spread the whole $58.9 million over the next 6 years instead of only 5, AND keep the cap charge relatively low in the first year. Teams do this with bigger contracts all the time. I didn't listen to Brown and Tasker, I never do. But this is what they should have known, and the point they may have been trying to make. But any talk of spreading anything out over 8 years shows lack of knowledge. Or possibly just a Freudian slip made when speaking? Either way, it's why I never listen to radio sports shows, I get irritated when the supposed experts don't know what they're talking about. And while you've got me ranting (lol), I often feel the same way when I'm amazed at how often game day announcers on TV don't know the rules. Drives me nuts. Thanks for listening.

Love me some Ti-Cats. They got them killer uniforms.

Sort of. The salary cap is set each year by what the CBA refers to as "AR," or All Revenue. Basically they add up all the money the league takes in and then the players get 49.5% (or something) of that. But the AR figure used to set the cap isn't really every dollar the league takes in. There are deductions made to the AR figure before the players get their percentage. One of the biggest deductions is called the Stadium Credit. What the Stadium Credit boils down to is, any time the NFL gives what's known as a G-4 loan (it's called a loan but it's really free money from the owners to team building the new stadium) to a team building a new stadium or performing upgrades, the league receives a Stadium Credit. The CBA states the Stadium Credit can't be over 1.5% of the AR figure. But looking at league income for 2019 we see overall the league generated $15.26 billion. So while we don't get to see the complete numbers, in a year like 2019, if there were G-4 loans given to teams, the league could have deducted almost $230 million from the AR figure before giving the players their 49.5%. If that was done in 2019 (or any other year but with different numbers), that would mean the players would have collectively given back over $110 million to go towards stadium construction.