Tuco

How does Tennessee at 9-7 push 10-6 Baltimore to the 6th seed?

The best thing to come out of the Talkin' Proud song was the T shirts. Remember the ones with the mating buffloes where all you could see was "kin' Proud?" And then there was the drunk T shirts that said, "We're Walkin' Plowed." You don't get that from the Shout song. Great times.

Yes thank you I already admitted in an earlier post that I had my head up my butt. For some reason when I was responding I was thinking if KC won we would be facing them in the tiebreaker. I know better just had a brain fart.

It's also exactly what the Jets did when we flopped against them. Tony Romo pointed it out several times. They made sure the ends kept him in, brought the pressure up the middle, and always had him accounted for whenever he tried play action and rolling out of the pocket.

Yes. What was I thinking? Brain fart.

NOTE: All of the following assumes we beat the Phish twice and go 9-7. If we're going to get in a two team tie then we want KC to win. But if we're getting in a 3 team tie we want San Diego. Head to head doesn't count in 3 way ties unless one team beat the other 2 or lost to them both. So then SD would get eliminated because of their worse conference record. But KC would probably take it with SOV. Yes it is possible to beat the Ravens at 9-7 contrary to popular belief. If the Ravens loss comes to the Colts or the Bengals. That would tie us in conference record and in common opponents. SOV would probably be ours. Tennessee we would beat in common opponents as long as one of their losses comes to the Jags (to make their conference record 7-5). The fact is, at this point we really don't know if we want KC or SD to win. But when it's over we'll have a better idea of what we need.

Sorry but we don't get in under that scenario. If all that happened the 3 teams would be 9-7. Our head to head over KC would be meaningless since head to head only applies if one team beat the other two or lost to the other two. All 3 would be 9-7 in conference games. Common opponents also wouldn't apply since there won't be the minimum of 4 common opponents between all 3 teams. That goes to strength of victory which KC owns. If we're going to get into a 3 way with Tennessee (or Baltimore) it needs to be with San Diego. H2H still doesn't apply but then SD would drop out because of their worse conference record. We would then take Tennessee out with the common opponents (all assuming we beat the Phish X2 and Tenn loses to Jags to get to 9-7) or possibly Baltimore with SOV.

I don't know what it means. What does this mean? - _____________Pt Dif_________Strength Of Victory_________ Buffalo -50------------------------------.407 Baltimore +72-----------------------------.385 Kansas City +40-----------------------------.516 LA Chargers +73-----------------------------.341 Dallas +22-----------------------------.330 Detroit + 9------------------------------.363 Green Bay -17------------------------------.352

I don't have it recorded but I would love to see it again. I thought I remember the contact being made at the goal line. That's 2 yards. Is it possible it only looked like 1 yard because the receivers were lined up off sides (people were off sides all day)? That could have made it look like only 1 yard. And maybe that's why they had to have a discussion before calling it. Just wish I could see it again. Somebody post it, LOL. Also worth mentioning, if the player continued to block beyond 1 yard before the pass it's also illegal even if the contact was made inside the 1 yard.

It's possible because the only way for head to head to count in a 3 way tie is if one team beat the other two or if one team lost to the other two. If those three teams all get to 9-7 it will probably come down to strength of victory, which changes constantly. Three or more teams(Note: If two teams remain tied after the third step or other teams are eliminated, tiebreaker reverts to step 1 of applicable two-team format.)1. Apply division tiebreaker to eliminate all but the highest-ranked team in each division prior to proceeding to step 2. The original seeding within a division upon application of the division tiebreaker remains the same for all subsequent applications of the procedure that are necessary to identify the two wild-card participants.2. Head-to-head sweep. (Applicable only if one team has defeated each of the others or if one team has lost to each of the others.)3. Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the conference.4. Best won-lost-tied percentage in common games, minimum of four.5. Strength of victory.6. Strength of schedule.

But that goes without saying. As CA OC said, if we tie at 9-7 Baltimore must lose 2 AFC games. If Baltimore loses 2 AFC games and finishes 9-7, they will have had to beat Detroit. If they lose to Detroit and go 9-7 then they won't have lost 2 AFC games. To go 9-7 they have to lose 2 games. Saying they must lose 2 AFC games or saying one of their wins must be against Detroit is the same thing.

Well okay but it's really not. Article 5 defines a fumble as any act other than passing (etc.) . . . . which results in a loss of player possession. It doesn't have to say a backward pass that hits the ground is not a fumble. It already clearly defines a fumble, and clearly stipulates that a loss of possession due to "passing" is not a fumble. Of course we're probably wrong and every referee, competition committee member and coach (like Belllycheat) have never thought to bring this up. And yes, it mentions an intentional fumble that causes the ball to go forward being a forward pass (which it is, by definition) which could be illegal. There's lots of reasons a forward pass could be illegal. But it's just as important to note it doesn't say an intentional fumble that causes the ball to go backwards may be illegal. By definition an intentional fumble causing the ball to go backwards is a backwards pass, but there's nothing that makes a backwards pass illegal. It can be done at any time just as the rule states. And it's not a fumble, it's a live ball. There's a difference. As a similar example, stat sheets will show a muffed punt that is recovered by the kicking team as a fumble. But there are defiitely rules distinguishing a muff from a fumble. As in, the recovering team can recover a muff but can't advance it. That's a perfect example of something being called a fumble when it really isn't. Furthermore, it's not fair to say a backwards pass that hits the ground is treated the same as a fumble. It is in many ways, but if that were true, then you wouldn't be allowed to do it inside of 2 minutes. Ha ha ha ha ha. I'll be here all week.

The rules are not ambiguous. Contrary to popular belief, a lateral (technically a backward pass) that touches the ground is not a fumble. It is a live ball and it may show up in the stat sheet as a fumble. But it is not, by definition of the rule book, a fumble just because it hits the ground. It is still considered a backwards pass. SECTION 22 PASS - ARTICLE 1. PASS. A pass is the movement caused by a player intentionally handing, throwing, shoveling (shovel pass), or pushing (push pass) the ball (3-25-2). Such a movement is a pass even if the ball does not leave his hand or hands, provided a teammate takes it (hand-to-hand pass). ARTICLE 5. FUMBLE. - A Fumble is any act, other than passing, handing, or legally kicking the ball, which results in a loss of player possession. The use of the term Fumble always means that the ball was in possession of a player when the act occurred (8-7). Note: An intentional fumble that causes the ball to go forward is a forward pass and may be illegal (8-1-1-Pen. a–c). The above rule clearly states that the act of passing precludes the loose ball from being a fumble. Therefore, saying a backwards pass that touches the ground is a fumble is incorrect. Live ball? Yes. Fumble? No. ARTICLE 5. BACKWARD PASS. It is a Backward Pass if the yard line at which the ball is first touched by a player or the ground is parallel to or behind the yard line at which the ball leaves the passer’s hand. A snap becomes a backward pass when the snapper releases the ball. The above rule demonstrates that it doesn't matter if the ball is caught in the air or hits the ground, it's still a backwards pass and not a fumble. SECTION 7 BACKWARD PASS AND FUMBLE - ARTICLE 1. BACKWARD PASS. A runner may throw a backward pass at any time (3-22-5). Players of either team may advance after catching a backward pass, or recovering a backward pass after it touches the ground. Take particular note here. It still refers to it being a backward pass (not a fumble) even after it touches the ground. ARTICLE 6. - FUMBLE AFTER TWO-MINUTE WARNING. If a fumble by either team occurs after the two-minute warning: (a) The ball may be advanced by any opponent. (b) The player who fumbled is the only player of his team who is permitted to recover and advance the ball. © If the recovery or catch is by a teammate of the player who fumbled, the ball is dead, and the spot of the next snap is the spot of the fumble, or the spot of the recovery if the spot of the recovery is behind the spot of the fumble. The designation between a fumble and a backward pass is important. The reason the play was not illegal is because the balls were backwards passes and not fumbles (even though they hit the ground). Just because everybody says a lateral that hits the ground is a fumble doesn't make it one.

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.