Tuco

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.

And now you know how he came to be the GOAT. https://nypost.com/2014/10/12/they-are-cheaters-spygate-the-nfl-scandal-that-started-it-all/ "And that’s why certain allegations — including that the Pats were using a radio frequency outside the NFL’s purview to ­illegally communicate information to quarterback Tom Brady during the game — were seemingly ignored." But it wasn’t just a matter of filming opposing team’s coaches — it was also how that information was allegedly passed to Brady. As the scandal broke, the NFL was investigating a possible violation into the number of radio frequencies the Patriots were using during the Jets game, sources told ESPN’s Chris Mortensen, who reported at the time that the Pats did not “have a satisfactory explanation when asked about possible irregularities in its communication setup during the game.” Offensive plays would be called based on stolen signals and the information relayed straight to Brady’s helmet, O’Leary theorizes. In this scenario, the extra frequency is critical, as it allows the team to do something in real time with the stolen signals, out of earshot of the NFL monitor, and change its plays accordingly. If there’s an open channel during the play itself, you can also alert the quarterback to open receivers he may not see. O’Leary repeats a rumor that Pats backup quarterback Doug Flutie once said he accidentally picked up Brady’s helmet during the 2005 season. “He was amazed that the coaches kept right on speaking to Brady past the 15-second cutoff, right up until the snap,” ­according to O’Leary. “The voice in Tom Brady’s helmet was explaining the exact defense he was about to face.”

Can't argue with you here. I don't think I've ever said that to you.

Might be a long wait. With Peterman playing we don't usually get past 3rd and long.

I voted yes, but anybody who thinks we're getting a 2nd or even a 3rd, wow.

Hey Shady, we're not benching you but like, could you just lay on the ground for a while real early in the game so, you know, we can preserve you for a draft pick? Thanks.

Play Shady. He's guaranteed to have a big day because my opponent has him.

Well since CBS has the double header they will be showing one of their early games. I imagine it would be the Houston game.

Since it's not competing with the Dallas time slot I would expect it to be on all of Texas and the surrounding area.

It's not how much time he has to throw, it's how much time it takes him to throw. TT led the league last year too. So yeah, it counts the time he's scrambling. Passing Stats Time To Throw (TT) Time to Throw measures the average amount of time elapsed from the time of snap to throw on every pass attempt for a passer (sacks excluded).

Some people here seem to remember Elway as being strong right out of the box. He wasn't. In his first season Elway started 10 games (4-6). He completed 123/259 (47.5%) for 1663 yards (166.3 per), 7 touchdowns and 14 interceptions. Oh, and the fans dogged him big time. Yes it might be a few years til we can see how this year's class compares.

That's a damned good question. The only thing I've been able to find is the Over The Cap site has KR listed as on injured reserve. Spotrac has him as reverve/did not report, and the Bills don't have him listed at all. I have a feeler out to try to find out more, but here's my best guess(es). The fact the Over The Cap site lists Robinson on injured reserve makes me think possibly he was injured. If he was headed to injured reserve he would still be entitled to his salary paid through the season. Of course we all know teams like to reach injury settlements with players on IR they know won't be coming back. It frees the team from having to provide medical care throughout the season and giving the player access to facilities, etc. And it helps tie up loose ends not having the player on their books for anything any more. Now I'm really guessing here, but I do know KR signed what's called a qualifying contract. Briefly, a qualifying contract is a one year deal that vested veterans can sign for the minimum amount while having a slightly lesser amount charged to the cap. If you look on Spotrac it shows KRs bonus plus salary as $835,000, while his cap charge is only $675,000. The idea is it's a way for teams to be able to keep old pros around by paying them the minimum salary for their accrued years while getting charged a little less against the cap. But qualifying contracts are very specific and have numerous limitations. One of those is that it can't be renegotiated during the season. I wonder if reaching a settlement with a player who's being paid all season on IR is still considered a renegotiation. I guess technically that's what it is. So maybe the Bills, knowing KR was headed for IR but wouldn't be coming back in the future, and maybe since KR also realized he wouldn't be coming back, he was allowed to announce retirement while the Bills still agreed to pay him what he would have coming on injured reserve anyway. Seeking reimbursement for salary and cap charges when a player retires is a team discretion. The team is only forced to do it if the player's forfeitable breach was due to substance abuse violation. So possibly since KR would have to be paid on IR, and since maybe they wouldn't be allowed to reach an injury settlement as mentioned above, it may have just been in everybody's best interest to go ahead and let him announce his retirement while agreeing to still pay what he had coming if put on IR. He would still get paid what he had coming for being on IR, but the team wouldn't have to provide any further medical access or be forced to allow access to training facilities, etc. Outside of KR being sent a check each week during the season, the Bills would effectively have him off their books. This is mostly conjecture, fueled by the fact the one site lists him on injured reserve, which makes me think all the above could have happened. And if it all happened at once then that would explain the news reports about retirement but not anything about injury or injured reserve. But I don't really know at this point.

Was bored at work. My boss would be so proud.

Certain things can be worded, but the CBA can't be overwritten. Marrone's contract isn't bound by the CBA so they can write anything they want in there. But you're somewhat mistaken about Dareus. The CBA clearly states that if a forfeitable breach occurs due to a player's retirement, the team has the option of seeking repayment of the applicable amount of his prorated signing bonus in addition to base salary refunds. This makes sense because, in a case like VD's, the Bills have every right to expect repayment. You don't give a guy $1.5 million on top of a nice salary just so he can quit on you halfway through the second game. But it's not a mandatory repayment because, say a long time player was in the 4th year of a 5 year contract when the team says hey we no longer need you so we're gonna let you go. Or, if you'd like to retire and fade away gracefully we're not going to demand repayment of the final year's worth of your prorated bonus. That's why the CBA gives teams the choice. I suppose, since repayment due to retirement is a team option, it's possible the Bills contract with VD says he doesn't have to repay his bonus if he retires after 1 1/2 games. But I wouldn't bet on it. Overdorf's contract with Dareus did make waves, but it wasn't for language he included, but rather, for language he didn't include. In this case, many large contracts include language that will void the guarantees on future year's salaries if the player gets suspended at any point. Overdorf didn't include that in MD's contract, and that raised a rukus among fans for a bit. But as for Dareus repaying a portion of his signing bonus, since the suspension was due to substance abuse, the Bills were required by the CBA to request repayment of the applicable portion of prorated bonus along with any other salary (and cap) reimbursements. This is specifically spelled out in the CBA and can't be written out. https://www.sbnation.com/2016/8/16/12505890/bills-dt-marcell-dareus-facing-4-game-suspension . . . . With a base salary of $7.9 million for 2016, Dareus will lose more than $1.85 million for the four weeks he’s on suspension. . . . . With $5 million of his $25 million signing bonus counting against the 2016 cap, he’ll also be required to pay back 4/17th of that amount. That’s another $1.17 million. . . . . Likewise, with a $7 million option bonus earned this year, Dareus will be required to pay back $274,510, per a source with knowledge of the specific calculation. . . . . The Bills are required to seek repayment, even if they don’t want to.

Here's where it's at. Until VD is technically retired he still counts against the cap. And everything from game 2 counts even though he quit halfway through - at least for now. If the Bills want to go after 1/2 a games money they will have to go through an arbitrator. Until then, VD's 2 games count. Before the season VD had a cap charge of an even $5,000,000. This is broken down in the following manner- Base salary - $2,250,000 Signing bonus - $1,500,000 Workout bonus -$250,000 Roster bonus - $250,000 These amounts total $4,250,000 In addition, VD had a weekly roster bonus (it's not that uncommon by the way) of either- $46,875 if on the 46 man roster (X 16 games = $750,000), or- $15,625 if only on the 53 man roster (X 16 games = $250,000). It's one or the other above each week, not both. Before the season the NFL looked at the contract and decided the $46,875 per week was a "Likely To Be Earned" (LTBE) incentive, so they charged that amount ($750,000) against the cap at the start of the year (LTBE incentives that aren't earned get refunded as the season goes on). The $750,000 added to the $4,250,000 is where the total cap charge of $5,000,000 VD had before the season comes from. Now if you look at the Spotrac page, it now shows a cap charge of $4,312,500. The roster bonus that used to show $250,000 now shows $312,500. That's because the roster bonus for week 1 ($15,625) and week 2 ($46,875) have been paid and added to the $250,000 roster bonus figure. That brings the original $4,250,000 up to $4,312,500. Or, more specifically, since the announced retirement, the league (or at least Spotrac) have decided the remaining weekly roster bonuses are no longer LTBE so no longer charged, bringing his current charge down to $4,312,500. Where we are at this point. VD hasn't been officially retired by the league. Technically he could walk back in and say he changed his mind and still wants to play. If so the Bills would have to decide to release him (letting him keep almost all his guaranteed salary and SB), or accept him back, possibly with suspensions and fines for conduct detrimental, etc. Maybe even so far as seeking to have the contract voided by an arbitrator. Either way, If VD changes his mind it would be very ugly. So let's say he stays retired. If VD is deemed officially retired he will get to keep his first 2 game checks plus the per game roster bonuses. Base salary is divided by the 17 weeks of the season, so he keeps the 2/17 ($264,706) of his base salary, plus the $62,500 per game bonuses. Also he keeps the $250,000 original roster bonus and the $250,000 workout bonus, whatever that all adds up to. We'll get to his signing bonus below. Once he becomes officially retired the Bills will get cap relief in the amounts of $687,500 for the no longer LTBE weekly roster bonuses (according to Spotrac they already have, whatev). They will also be refunded $1,985,294 (15/17 of the $2,250,000 base salary) for a total of $2,672,794 towards the cap. Additionally, they have the right via the CBA to request repayment of 15/17 of the $1,500,000 signing bonus. If VD repays it they get credit immediately. If not the Bills will have to go through a system arbitrator who would most likely award them an additional $1,323,529. So all told, the Bills could eventually recieve $3,996,323 in salary cap refunds. Plus, I suppose, they could also go through the system arbitrator for 1/2 of a game's refunds. No telling how that would go. It's never been done before.

Other Tie-Breaking Procedures Only one club advances to the playoffs in any tie-breaking step. Remaining tied clubs revert to the first step of the applicable division or Wild Card tie-breakers. As an example, if two clubs remain tied in any tie-breaker step after all other clubs have been eliminated, the procedure reverts to Step 1 of the two-club format to determine the winner. When one club wins the tiebreaker, all other clubs revert to Step 1 of the applicable two-club or three-club format.

Actually that's what they have to do with him.

Nah. Going to the Super Bowl and losing is still a hell of a lot more fun than sucking for 20 years.