Tuco

Okay not too hard but quickly, off the top of your heads, when the AFL and NFL merged in 1970, the AFL had 10 teams while the NFL had 16. Which 3 NFL teams joined the 10 AFL teams to make it a 13-13 balance between the AFC-NFC?

The center only had one hand on the ball like he was snapping a shotgun formation play. I noticed that on the replay, although I admit I didn't compare it with any of their other punts. They pretty much always use two hands for punt snaps.

Yes, it does.

Many many times there would be tons of daylight and he would just run up the back of his blockers. Speed and abiity? Yes. Vision? Not so much. Pretty sure the guy couldn't run through the woods without banging head first into a tree.

No rules have been broken. This is the exact thing that used to happen frequently. And by frequently I mean every team in the league used to do this with players. People always clamor for an IR system where players can come back after a certain period. Years ago that's exactly what the league had. Teams would cut players at the cutdown, then stash players on IR who had made the final 53 (47 back then), then resign the cut players the next day. It was common practice and every team would do it with a half dozen players or more - and no, they weren't always actually injured. It was how they used to stash young players, etc. Once the salary cap rolled around the issue of roster size became important so the league came up with the rule that said any player on injured reserve had to stay there for the season. Then, in order to allow for more flexibility as a 47 man roster with no ability to stash players didn't seem like enough, they increased the roster size to 53 while still allowing 47 to dress on game day. This was meant to effectively be an in season injured reserve with almost unlimited flexibility. But just to make sure they also added practice squads in order to give teams even more flexibility and a place to stash more younger, promising players. Alas, none of this was enough. Teams and fans have been clamoring for a chance to place players on IR and still bring them back. So they tweaked the rules to allow it in limited form. And now we're right back to doing just what we used to do. Yes it's very limited, for now. But it's exactly the same only with fewer players, for now.

On the way back, be here about 11:15. Stopped in KC again. That means Ragland failed his physical and we had to take him back (titty-boom) I'll be here all week.

I didn't say we could swap contracts. That's just the figures for MD's dead money. Taking on Osweiler would add $16 mil this year and $18 mil next year on top of those dead cap figures. That would be a total cap charge of $22.65 mil this year and $32.2 mil next year.

For what it's worth, trade cap hits are listed wrong on the cap sites. They are figured early on as though the player would be traded earlier in the off season, and then aren't updated since there's so many players and so few of them traded at this point. Cap acceleration for prorated bonuses are figured the same way for a trade as they are for a player who's cut. That means the cap acceleration for a trade happening now would be treated just like a post June 1st cut (but without the cap hit for the guaranteed salary). MD currently has $20.6 mil of prorated bonuses remaining. Contrary to popular belief, with the post June 1st transaction that number isn't automatically split evenly between this year and next year. The process for post June 1st acceleration calls for the current season's proration to remain as is, then the remaining years to be accelerated into the following year. That would leave MD's dead cap figures as follows- 2017 - $6.65 mil dead cap ($6.4 mil + $250,000 already paid as workout bonus -- $9.45 mil less than his current cap charge) 2018 - $14.20 million dead cap ($2.08 mil less than his 2018 cap charge) Any team trading for him would inherit - 2017 - $9.75 mil salary (fully guaranteed) 2018 - $9.925 mil salary ($7.35 mil guaranteed) + $250,000 workout bonus 2019 - 2021 - Salaries, roster and workout bonuses stay the same but he can be cut after 2018 with no dead cap. Now you know.

Now that Yates has a concussion, who are we signing?

No, by definition that is not intentional grounding as long as the passer is not attempting to avoid a sack. Yes, technically it is subjective. In this case the official has to make the delicate decision of whether the passer was grounding the ball to avoid a loss of yardage or spiking the ball to stop the clock. They don't usually get it wrong. It's in the rule book. Spiking the ball (as long as it's done immediately after the snap) to stop the clock is not intentional grounding just because there was no receiver in the area. ARTICLE 1. DEFINITION. It is a foul for intentional grounding if a passer, facing an imminent loss of yardage because of pressure from the defense, throws a forward pass without a realistic chance of completion. Furthermore- Item 3. Stopping Clock. A player under center is permitted to stop the game clock legally to save time if, immediately upon receiving the snap, he begins a continuous throwing motion and throws the ball directly into the ground. According to the 2017 Official Playing Rules Of The National Football League, this is the answer to why spiking the ball is not intentional grounding.

Intentional grounding is defined as grounding the ball to avoid a sack. Spiking is just to stop the clock. I guess I'm getting old but I remember the days before you were allowed to spike the ball. The QB would have to take the snap and then fire it over the WRs head. Same result, they just don't have to chase the balls around so much any more.

I think it all depends on how you look at #2. And I think in our current situation #2 isn't about who will fill in if TT goes down for any length of time. Number 2 has to be the guy who dresses on game day and who can come in having taken very few snaps during the practice week. It's not just "knowing the playbook." In a typical week the coaches look at the defense they expect and add a dozen plays they think will work well and add it to the base offense. Then the starter gets almost all the reps during the week practicing against the expected defense, with the understanding that, just as you have said, if he goes down you're probably screwed anyway. But if he does in fact go down, who has the best chance to win off the bench without having practiced the game planned plays with the starters during the week? The rook who hasn't played a down yet? Or the guy who isn't great but has been around? None of this means that if TT goes down for multiple weeks that Yates has to be the starter just because he's listed as #2 right now. You could easily give Peterman 90% of the reps in practice the next week and go into the game with him starting and Yates still #2 just like any other week. Given this scenario it makes sense to keep a Yates as he fills basically an emergency spot you hope you don't need for $815,000. And given this scenario he wouldn't do you any good to call him up on Monday since he's only really being kept around, not to be the starter, but to be the emergency fill in on game day. Monday is too late for that. Meanwhile, if at any point in the season you feel better about Peterman playing at #2 instead (I know you feel that way now but the coaches probably want to see a little more of him at the pro level first), you can still keep Yates around as emergency #3 since he's only here for $815,000 (and actually only costs $655,000 against the cap since signed a qualifying contract). So sure, Kaep and Hoyer, Hill etc. might be a better option than Yates if TT goes down for an extended period. But Peterman being #3 doesn't mean Yates is the starter if TT is out. It just means right now the coaches think he would be better at coming off the bench with almost no practice. Bringing in Kaep or Hoyer for the money they will get would be a bigger sign to me that they don't think Peterman can eventually do the job. It's always a gamble. But they've already seen enough of Peterman to let Cardale go. So it's entirely possible Yates role is not to be the starter if TT goes out, but rather to start the season as the best off the bench behind TT, and also the best off the bench behind Peterman should it come to that. And also maybe finish the season at #3. That's a job for a $815,000 man, not what guys like Kaep and Hoyer will get. My $.02.

Yes. And like Kirby said above, it makes it hard to oversimplify. I know nothing of the NBA but NFL league revenue going to the players is not figured simply by adding everything up and subtracting all the salaries. The 48.5% figure doesn't mean the salary cap is 48.5% of the total revenue. It means 48.5% of revenue goes towards player costs. Players pay (out of their pocket) for almost nothing during the year. The team picks up the tab but those expenses are figured in as player cost. There are many player costs computed (and of course, many more players than in the NBA). Among them are normal benefits like pension contributions, disability payments and group insurance plans. Also worker's comp, unemployment and social security payments fall under the player costs roof. Add in per diem amounts and meal allowances along with travel and boarding expenses for players attending certain off season workouts and training camp (when there are almost twice as many players), team payroll for playoffs, certain travel expenses, and certain expenses for numerous other things. The formula dedicates 48.5% of the total revenue for total player costs. Then it subtracts all of the above and sets the team salary cap by dividing what's left by 32. Then teams are required to spend (on average) at least 95% of that amount.

Maybe he was just drunk and bored and fired off a tweet to see how long he could get the fans to agonize over it. Probably laughing his ass off as we type.

Yes. His only catch in an overtime shootout loss to the Bengals in 1986.

84 yards is correct. Not Reed or Lofton. Nope

Jim Kelly's longest TD pass and to which receiver? No Googly! lol

You're right, most of them weren't cut. Like Ahmad Rashad. LOL

By 1996 four-time Super Bowl starter Glenn Parker had become the whipping boy of fans and media both. He was cut by the Bills in 1997, went on to KC where he started 16 games en route to a 13-3 divisional championship. In 2000 after the Chiefs released him he went to the Giants and started 13 games in a 12-4 season, going on to lose his 5th Super Bowl.

Shouldn't take you long. He was the first one mentioned, in post #3.

Jim Ritcher and Bruce Smith

I'm telling you! . . . . but I wasn't quite sure.

Bill Simpson?

For some reason #60 comes to mind but I'm not sure why. Maybe 'cause they started playing in '60?

Yup