|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Yeah fortunately it rarely comes up That's ok, rap was a fan of a different team too. Then they made some small changes for financial reasons and he bandwagoned some other team because he liked their colors or something. Jokes on him, his old team has already won two Super Bowls.  Edit VVVV Picturing Modell as a wannabe Christian Slater makes the move that much funnier. Chichevache fucked around with this message at 23:48 on Dec 31, 2014 |
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:33 |
|
|
i love my dead gay team
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
How do injury guarantees work under the salary cap? Do you just get to write that expense off the books if the guy can't play? What about contracts that guarantee yearly salary? I'm imagining a guy who signs a $10m extension a year, all unguaranteed, for 5 years. However, at the beginning of every year, that year's salary becomes guaranteed. Would his cap hits if cut mid-season look like this? Year 1: $10m Year 2: $8m + $10m Year 3: $6m + $7.5m + $10m Year 4: $4m + $5m + $6.6m + $10m Year 5: $2m + $2.5m + $3.3m + $5m + $10m IIRC this contract is very similar to Kaep's, which is widely regarded as very team friendly because he can be cut pretty much at any time with almost no downside to the 49'ers--but this contract looks like it puts you in the worst kind of hell very quickly. What gives?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
Injury guarantees just means they get paid if they go on IR and are released and can't just be cut with a medical settlement which teams will often do with lower tier guys (especially in training camp). That's still counted against the salary cap. As for that yearly guaranteed money contract: Depends on how they worded it, but players that have their base salary become guaranteed basically treats the salary cap hit like a roster bonus, and will fully count for that year's salary cap. If you want to spread the cap hit over multiple years, you convert it to a Signing bonus, that would be split. In Kaepernick's case, since it's effectively all roster bonuses, they can just cut him whenever before a season and not pay much of anything. And if he's like the biggest dick ever and you have to cut him mid-season, then you just owe him the rest of that year's salary and that cap hit. So if his money just became guaranteed each year, his deal would have cap hits of: Y1: $10m Y2: $10m Y3: $10m Y4: $10m Y5: $10m If every year you just converted all of it to signing bonuses (minimum base salary scales up to a million, but for ease of discussion here), it would have cap hits of: Y1: $2m Y2: $2m + $2.5m Y3: $2m + $2.5m + $3.33m Y4: $2m + $2.5m + $3.33m + $5m Y5: $2m + $2.5m + $3.33m + $5m + $10m So say, he has that $10m per contract, but a bunch of players are going to hit free agency in years 2 and 3 and you need cap space bad, plus hey, the cap keeps going up up up! Year 1: $10m salary, $10m cap hit Year 2: $10m salary, Convert $9m to signing bonus, $3.25m cap hit Year 3: $10m salary, Convert $9m to signing bonus, $1m base + $2.25m from Y2, +$3m from Y3 = $6.25m cap hit Year 4: $10m salary, $15.25m cap hit $10.5m dead money if cut before season starts Year 5: $10m salary, $15.25m cap hit $5.25m dead money if cut before season starts Kalli fucked around with this message at 03:40 on Jan 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 03:36
|
|
|
This is pages back, but thanks everybody for the discussion of how recruiting in the NCAA matches up with team success. Now, next question! What's a good site for in depth examinations of matchups? I'm thinking of something like the equivalent of the Jack Slack articles, but for Oregon vs. FSU.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 14:36
|
|
|
Grifter posted:This is pages back, but thanks everybody for the discussion of how recruiting in the NCAA matches up with team success. Now, next question! You are probably best off looking for popular blogs of both teams. They are likely the only people who have watched enough of at least one of the teams to know them in-depth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
e: Wrong thread
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
Are all of the athletic facilities and administrative offices generally located within the stadiums, or do they do some of that stuff in nondescript office buildings?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 14:55
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:Are all of the athletic facilities and administrative offices generally located within the stadiums, or do they do some of that stuff in nondescript office buildings? I know for the Redskins they are located in two very different places. FedEx Field is up in Maryland while Redskins Park(where they practice and the admin offices are located) is down in Virginia. And I wouldn't exactly call Redskins Park nondescript, but it isn't a giant stadium.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:Are all of the athletic facilities and administrative offices generally located within the stadiums, or do they do some of that stuff in nondescript office buildings? The Rams' stadium is in downtown St. Louis, while Rams Park is ~20 minutes away in Earth City, MO.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:Are all of the athletic facilities and administrative offices generally located within the stadiums, or do they do some of that stuff in nondescript office buildings? The Lions play in downtown Detroit but their practice field and I presume headquarters are down river in Allen Park.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
The Bengals have their stadium right on the riverfront, team offices and administration located in the stadium, and practice in a strip of grass across the street, under a highway overpass, with shards of broken glass and chunks of concrete littering the field.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
The Seahawks have their stadium downtown, but the headquarters and practice facility is located in Renton, about 5-7 miles south. That's where they hold their training camp after decades of holding it in some random-rear end college town across the mountains.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
You can literally throw poo poo onto the 49ers HQ from the stadium now that they moved to Santa Clara but they're two distinct buildings because the stadium was just built next to the existing buildings. The HQ is adjacent to the practice facility, too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 04:54
|
|
|
Now that I think about it, it makes sense. If I was going to have my team to come in and review film or whatever they do when they aren't playing, It would probably be a pain in the rear end for them to have to come to work in the stadium when Garth Brooks is playing or whatever else they do with the stadiums the rest of the week.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 05:10
|
|
|
If I make a thread where we create food to match football players, would it be wrong?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
Gatts posted:If I make a thread where we create food to match football players, would it be wrong? It's football related and you're trying to have fun so I don't see why not? Worst case scenario the thread doesn't take off. More threads are always good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 06:47
|
|
|
Gatts posted:If I make a thread where we create food to match football players, would it be wrong? What if Mike Vick was a rack of ribs?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 06:49
|
|
|
Gatts posted:If I make a thread where we create food to match football players, would it be wrong? Make it food and drinks so we can enjoy refreshing cocktails such as Marshawn Lynchburg Lemonade and Drew SeaBreeze.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 10:04
|
|
|
FIRST TIME posted:Make it food and drinks so we can enjoy refreshing cocktails such as Marshawn Lynchburg Lemonade and Drew SeaBreeze. A.M.F. (Aldon, mother fucker)
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 11:29
|
|
|
A question about fake punts/FG attempts. If the punter or holder runs or passes the ball instead, or the ball is snapped to someone closer to the line of scrimmage, is he considered to be the quarterback for that play?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
stubblyhead posted:A question about fake punts/FG attempts. If the punter or holder runs or passes the ball instead, or the ball is snapped to someone closer to the line of scrimmage, is he considered to be the quarterback for that play? Can you rephrase this? Like are you asking if it would be roughing the passer should he be hit in the head or after a throw? Because "considered the quarterback for that play" doesn't really mean anything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
I guess what I'm really wondering what the rules are about who can receive the snap. Like if the quarterback is in shotgun, can you snap to a running back right next to him instead?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
Yes. The running back direct snap is a common trick play in college. Anyone behind the center can receive the snap.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
stubblyhead posted:I guess what I'm really wondering what the rules are about who can receive the snap. Like if the quarterback is in shotgun, can you snap to a running back right next to him instead? Yeah, you see it pretty often as far as trick plays go. Also the QB pretends the ball goes over his head at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
stubblyhead posted:I guess what I'm really wondering what the rules are about who can receive the snap. Like if the quarterback is in shotgun, can you snap to a running back right next to him instead? NFL rules (Rule 7) on the subject: quote:Article 3: Restrictions for Snapper.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
Well now I'm curious. If your punter of field goal holder is blatantly attempting to throw the ball on a fake, and you flat out drill the gently caress out of them in a way that would draw a personal foul on a quarterback, what penalty is called? Roughing the passer? I ask because the penalty isn't "roughing the quarterback." Or is it... Makes you think.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Cole posted:If your punter of field goal holder is blatantly attempting to throw the ball on a fake, and you flat out drill the gently caress out of them in a way that would draw a personal foul on a quarterback, what penalty is called? Roughing the passer? Yeah, whoever's throwing a pass is considered defenseless. Same thing if there's a trick play with someone throwing a pass to a QB who gets drilled in the head catching it, he'd be considered a defenseless receiver in that case.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
NFL rules posted:ROUGHING THE PASSER
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
Cole posted:Well now I'm curious. Likewise, can roughing the passer be called on the halfback in a halfback option play? e: answers that question. I guess the same would be true for roughing the kicker on a drop kick?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
KICK BAMA KICK posted:unconscious reasons
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
stubblyhead posted:Likewise, can roughing the passer be called on the halfback in a halfback option play? Roughing the passer and roughing the kicker are slightly different animals. Any passer gets roughing-the-passer protection; the rules and philosophies around it can get long and complex, but the important feature is that it's (mostly) about not hitting the passer after it's become obvious that he has thrown the ball, and a genuine attempt to sack him that arrives slightly too late is not a foul. There's a couple of wrinkles around hitting passers high or low, but that's the basic principle. However, in order to get kicker protection, it must first be obvious that a kick is going to be made, so you need to have something that looks like a kick formation. In exchange for that, the kicker (and the holder of a place-kick) gets protection against any kind of contact after the kick has been made until he recovers himself, regardless of whether or not the defender was making a genuine attempt to block the kick. This is because a kicker who has just kicked the ball is possibly the most defenseless player in all of football. Special teams players are coached to take an angle and dive in front of the kicker, not directly at him, for this reason. (Exceptions are available for players who are blocked into the kicker, and players who succeed in blocking a kick.) The other thing that kickers get because of their vulnerability is running-into protection. Running into the kicker is any contact that "displaces the kicker from his kicking position without being roughed." It's a five-yard penalty with no automatic first down. The canonical example of the difference between running into and roughing is that contact with a kicker's kicking leg is usually running into the kicker, and contact with his plant leg is usually roughing. So, back to the point; Doug Flutie in this play would have kicker protection, but when this punter moves, it's no longer obvious that a kick has been made and he loses kicker protection. (I'd still call unnecessary roughness if someone hit him late enough for it to have been roughing the passer if he were a passer, if that makes sense.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
Explain the "reporting as ineligible" thing in the Patriot/Raven game to me, and why it was so effective, please.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
Rick posted:Explain the "reporting as ineligible" thing in the Patriot/Raven game to me, and why it was so effective, please. Because Shane Vereen does not have an offensive lineman's number, he is normally considered an eligible receiver and free to move downfield. But by declaring to the official that he was ineligible and lining up on the line of scrimmage, he was effectively acting as another lineman. It worked so well because 1) nobody ever does that, so the Ravens were accounting for more receivers then there were and 2) the referee only has to announce when someone with a number between 50-79 is eligible, not when someone else is ineligible (which is why it's an illegal formation when a receiver is "covered" by somebody parallel to him and he still goes downfield). I think. Somebody else can probably explain it better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
Henchman of Santa posted:Because Shane Vereen does not have an offensive lineman's number, he is normally considered an eligible receiver and free to move downfield. But by declaring to the official that he was ineligible and lining up on the line of scrimmage, he was effectively acting as another lineman. It worked so well because 1) nobody ever does that, so the Ravens were accounting for more receivers then there were and 2) the referee only has to announce when someone with a number between 50-79 is eligible, not when someone else is ineligible (which is why it's an illegal formation when a receiver is "covered" by somebody parallel to him and he still goes downfield). Interesting. So, basically they wasted a defender on a guy who couldn't move, and they didn't know he couldn't move. If he had not declared as ineligible would it have been a penalty for him to act as a lineman?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
Rick posted:Interesting. I believe so because of the NFL's numbering rules. Different positions are only allowed to wear certain numbers. I'm sure Trin will be here any second to explain why that's a good thing but it's always pissed me off.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
Here's a solid explanation of what's going on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
So me and a friend made a bet on the Baltimore-New England Game and she took Baltimore 7 points over. Patriots won, 35-31. Do I owe her lunch? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 06:16
|
|
|
She took Baltimore, and she gave you seven points? Or you gave her seven? If you said "Patriots by seven or more" then you owe her, if not then she owes you, either way don't make bets you don't understand imo
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 07:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:33 |
|
|
football fuckerman posted:She took Baltimore, and she gave you seven points? Or you gave her seven? If you said "Patriots by seven or more" then you owe her, if not then she owes you, either way don't make bets you don't understand imo
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 07:20
|
|