WrigleyField 22

Lol bears

I wouldn’t mind so much either, but he was so obviously double covered. There was really no chance at all for a completion. And it should’ve been Clear from the beginning I mean it obviously wasn't good, but I think the play calling has been good for Mitch so far.

Will this be the game that causes McCaskey to get angry enough for a complete overhaul?

Meh, at least throw it 30 yards down field when you throw a pic. Like them going aggressive with Mitch and setting up longer pockets rather than trying to ask him to make quick reads.

How exactly does the cap hit work when trading? Does the players cap hit simply transfer from one team to the next? At one point in time I thought that the pro-rated signing bonus accelerated into the season that the player was acquired. This would make high salary/signing bonus guys impossible to trade, though I guess any trade could have a restructure built into it. The old team immediately takes any dead money hit in the form of prorated signing bonuses, all accelerated. The new teams gets all base salary cap hits, both guaranteed or unguaranteed. So for Stafford: The Lions would take a dead cap hit of 19M for prorated salary. I'm not exactly sure what happens with his roster bonus though. It's due March 17 in 2021 and 2022 ($10M each year) so he might have to be traded before then for the Lions to not pick that up. But with a 33M cap hit the Lions still would end up net positive to trade him in that scenario. So certainly not impossible. And IMO the dead cap part is overblown. It's dead cap for a reason, it's a sunk cost. The savings is the annual salary that you get out of. And you can almost always move around other salaries to offset for the acceleration aspect of that contract. And yea any restructure could happen as part of the trade, though only on unguaranteed portions I believe.

I'm in the only television market in the US that is forced to watch this game, and only this game, in the afternoon. It had better be good. You'll be able to watch the CBS late game: https://506sports.com/nfl.php?yr=2020&wk=12

I kinda wanna watch this.

History of QBs with declined 5th year option Teddy Bridgewater. This was mainly injury influenced. Signed 0.5m/1 year contract Blaine Gabbert. Resigned with SF (who had traded for him) for 2m/2 Jake Locker. Retired. I think he actually would have gotten a small backup deal and this was a legit retirement and not that he couldn't find work. Christian Ponder. 1.5m/1 EJ Manuel. 0.8m/1 The 5th year rookie contract structure is fairly new. For instance Alex Smith had a 6 year contract, and renegotiated the final 2 years of it after his 4th year in the league.

Then Foles can come in as the back up for a guy they draft or sign. If they draft a guy, Foles would serve better as a starter/mentor then a back up I'd rather Mitch lights up the scoreboard, gets a new 1-2 year deal while dropping Foles (despite the cost) and still drafting a high-ceiling qb If you were really set on moving on from Foles, in a trade the trading team would be in for 2/8M with 5 guaranteed. As a backup, teams could do worse. Even if it was like a conditional late round pick in 2022, just giving him away saves 5M there for Chicago. Needless to say I'm not bullish on Mitch having some great 6 game run here that makes me believe he could be a bridge QB for a year or two. Foles as a backup and possible bridge QB in 2021 is the most likely course.

Costs more to lose Foles than to keep him next year. Also, if you believe the rumors it sounds like Pace is pretty safe because the McKaskey family loves him. Are these substantial rumors at all? I thought there were rumors George is "pissed about the offense" or something Just curious how safe is safe? "Extend him and let him hire a new HC" safe or "let him ride out his final contract year before deciding" safe?

i'm a man of big dreams, i'd prefer a 2017 Nick Foles-ish type of run myself then he can disappear Tamayto tamahto

Well it doesn't really matter except that limiting Foles snaps thr rest of the way does help ensure he doesn't hit some incentives. So for that alone, let's hope Mitch plays himself into a decent backup contract with another team and nets a 6th round comp pick.

Athletic freaks are fun. a 23'9" inch shot just isn't that freakish though? Wider court with a longer 3 line. Put back hand checks to give the D a little extra leeway since spacing is going to be spread out more. Shorten the shot clock by a couple seconds to ensure pace stays quick? At the very least the NBA now has a great testing field in the G League to just experiment with stuff like this.

Agree to disagree? Dunks and blocks are awesome. Those at the rim plays are frequently two athletic monsters going directly head to head. That's the best play in basketball. If a play like that is not more exciting than watching some guy stand in the corner until he gets a pass for a 3 pointer, well then I don't know. Spot up 3s are fun, I guess, the 30-40% of the time they go in? They obviously are great for winning if you do it well so that's fun, but from a pure entertainment value it's not exactly thrilling TV IMO. Why must I be deprived of a human avatar of a "HE'S ON FIRE" power up just draining merciless dagger after dagger because you might get bored from one too many assists dished out to a guy on the corner? Plus I'm not even sure why you brought up dunks like a 3-heavy game is depriving us of those? The spray chart up the thread showed that the only thing we're really "deprived" of now are a bunch of mid-range 2's. It's still a damn dunk fest, which is also awesome. We've actually got the "why not both?" meme in play! For sure we're not being deprived of dunks, but just to the "why not raise the rim" hypothetical, I do think they're that much more entertaining than any jump shot. Even the non contested ones can be pretty damn fun at times. The 3s excitement over the midrange 2 is totally predicated on its 50% surplus value. So that's great to have, but it feels a little too easy at this point, and it's pretty one sided, the D can't do too much against it. Its just a little less interesting to me seeing less variety of offensive sets. Maybe they just need a 4 point line. Or a smart court that randomly pops up with bonus shots at different spots of the court!

The issue is that those big stars could accept less if they can get secondary stars, which is kind of what happens now just not to the extent being suggested. Like Giannis could sign for 2 years 200Mil, not win and then agree to get another superstar there and extend for 3 years, 60Mil, because he's already got more money than he'll ever need and no ring. That's certainly possible, but I don't know how you make a counter proposal that doesn't come off as extremely pro-owner. Basketball players (and people) are competitive and greedy. Players are going to want to be the highest paid player in the league. We don't see a whole lot of baseball stars taking $10m/year deals so that ownership has more money to spread around. Its definitely tough to say, but obviously the revenue share verse no revenue share makes a big difference. That's the real "cap" in the league that keeps salaries down. Absent the revenue share, you'd see salaries creep up, but there might be limiting returns since basketball is much more a "buddy" game where it's fun to team up and guys find value. There's nly so much value that Bryce Harper and Kris Bryant can get by teaming up, they don't play directly with each other on the field. On the hardwood your throwing up lobs to each other and fun horsefeathers.

Well...no. Agree to disagree? Dunks and blocks are awesome. Those at the rim plays are frequently two athletic monsters going directly head to head. That's the best play in basketball. If a play like that is not more exciting than watching some guy stand in the corner until he gets a pass for a 3 pointer, well then I don't know. Spot up 3s are fun, I guess, the 30-40% of the time they go in? They obviously are great for winning if you do it well so that's fun, but from a pure entertainment value it's not exactly thrilling TV IMO.

I've never heard of an argument for that. I suppose I could be persuaded, but I can't imagine what that argument could be. That's my point; making something harder simply because too many of the players are good at it seems pretty flimsy. Hell, I'll bet there WERE people arguing to raise the damn rim when everyone started dunking. Oh. Well I would assume that any advances in jumping at the rim had also greatly benefited defenses so as to mostly offset. Plays at the time rim are objectively way more exciting that a spot up 3. Although defensive rim protecting is a rule people have considered changing to be like FIBA. Changing the 3pt stripe is probably be more like baseball fiddling with the mound height.

You don’t have to go to MLB style rules of player control to get to make an impact, it’s ultimately about incentives. For example, let’s say every team has one uncapped roster spot, you now can give Anthony Davis(and Durant before him, etc) before him) a real decision to make. In the current setup there’s precious little difference in options aside from markets and teammates which becomes a self-perpetuating cycle. But part of the problem is how much these guys are making now. A few years ago it might have been the difference between 20 and 30 million. Now it’s the difference between 40 and 50 million. Durant’s last year with the Thunder he made $20M. This year he’ll make $39M. Harden made $15.7M in 15-16 and will get $40M this year. Eventually, that extra money doesn’t matter as much and they’re just going to play where they want to play. I suppose if it was, say, double, some guys would stay. But others would rather win, live where they want to and make $30M than not win, live in a place they don’t like as much and make $60M. I don't think the absolute value matters as much as the relative value. Those max salaries have exploded with an exploding cap, but it's still only 25-35% of the cap space (a soft cap, so even less as a % of actual spending). If the top 10 players were paid what they're worth they'd probably make 50-70% of the cap, double what they make now. Freedom of player movement has created more parity for teams, it's just that the parity moves with the players now. Shorter contracts play a big role here. Guys used to lock into like 8 year deals with regularity. Now most max mength contracts are capped at 4 years, and for the rare 5 year contract those players pretty much always get an option after 4 as a standard term. So no more Scottie Pippen getting locked into severely underpaid contracts for a half decade anymore. Thats good for parity. The really only other area I think they could improve is to try and fiddle more with the tannking incentives. If more teams simply tried it would create a more competitive environment for player acquisition.

Jugs machine is probably most accurate, no? Yea but kinda of locks into that spot.

I've never heard of an argument for that. I suppose I could be persuaded, but I can't imagine what that argument could be.

I think its more comparable to the launch angle, high k/low contact changes. People love dongs, people love 3 pointers, but there seems to be an ongoing frustration with the fact that its shifted so much that the focus of the game is selling out for HRs or 3 pointers. I honestly don't have a strong opinion on this but I can understand the argument to some degree as the new emphasis on jacking up 3s does make the game slightly less appealing to me. I've lost interest in the NBA the last few years but I think its more the Bulls sucking than because players run up and down the court shooting 3 pointers every possession. I'm sure the logic is basically the same for HRs vs. sacrifice bunts, but it's pretty much the John Calipari (I think it was him) school of offense. Why shoot 18 footers and get 2 points for making them, when you can shoot 2 3/4 feet further, at a slightly higher degree of difficulty, and get an extra point for it? And that's fine to an extent, but players have gotten so good at the 3 point shot that trade off has gotten so wide as to eliminate a huge chunk of the floor from consideration. Now it's like, why even take the 12 footer. At the very least if they widened the court they could get rid of the extreme bonus that is the corner 3 and open up the baseline game a little bit more.

Well, bad OL so in theory you want the most mobile guy playing. So,that would make the preferred order: Trubisky Bray Jugs Machine Foles I'm not convinced Trubisky's mobility even matters that much since he's typically been a little slower to process his throws than Foles historically, but it could at least to like a 50 yard fluke TD scamper which is more than Foles did last week.

Foles, Trubisky, Bray, a jugs machine... How much does it really matter?

So nothing but dunks and 3's? Sounds boring Well they're not dunking it from just shy of the FT line.

That's pretty dramatic! The 90s maybe were skewed too far the other way, though growing up watching the Bulls they always had their marksmen where the 3 still seemed like a valuable and not insignificant part of the game.