Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lock is the guy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Tges58 View Post

    The two players that had their salaries illegally deferred were John Elway and Terrell Davis. It was in the article I posted. A little reading comprehension problem there, scooter?

    Obviously you don't know ****.

    Dence? . You're a "dunse" aren't you? .
    So that's a no. You cant show anything. Like weve said.

    Ps. That's a typo!

    (Bring on the next challenger. I'm done with this guy)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by underrated29 View Post

      So that's a no. You cant show anything. Like weve said.

      Ps. That's a typo!

      (Bring on the next challenger. I'm done with this guy)
      Wrong again. rube.. I've posted this a number of times, it's not my fault you aren't smart enough to get it..

      https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...rom-the-1990s/

      You better go on to your next "challenger" because you're getting your ass kicked here.

      Comment


      • Please, I beg you all, stop responding to this a$$.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Johnykbr View Post
          Please, I beg you all, stop responding to this a$$.
          Getting under your skin, skippy?

          Good. That's what I'm going for.

          Comment


          • Man I feel so sorry for you. If anyone is thin skinned lol...hope you find more meaning in life someday.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by RedskinBronco View Post
              Man I feel so sorry for you. If anyone is thin skinned lol...hope you find more meaning in life someday.
              You're a kind man.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Tges58 View Post

                You're a kind man.
                TheCuck58 over here still dropping his knowledge on us peasants.

                Comment


                • Breakdown of some of Lock's last game versus the Raiders. Pretty even handed analysis. Lock does have a tendency to drift left which I think other people have noted on Lock's weaknesses. Granted the RT situation was a mess last year.

                  https://youtu.be/EuWkHVmae2o

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Tges58 View Post

                    Wrong again. rube.. I've posted this a number of times, it's not my fault you aren't smart enough to get it..

                    https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...rom-the-1990s/

                    You better go on to your next "challenger" because you're getting your ass kicked here.
                    Uh no.
                    not even close.


                    I cant even disincline to acquiesce your stupid ass response. You lost. Similar to 30 years of chiefs football. You. Are. Pathetic.

                    Take your bowl of dicks, eat them, and go about your day.


                    You can't hang! You dont get it- or understand. You are beaten and retarded. Anything you say to the contrary further reinforces your stupidity.
                    Leave now and save yourself more embarrassment.

                    Stupid ass chef fan. Remember, your sister should not be your wife. Not saying you wont think it's worth it. Still, dont frick your family.
                    (sick ass perverts)
                    #nomullets

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Tges58 View Post
                      Wrong again. rube.. I've posted this a number of times, it's not my fault you aren't smart enough to get it..

                      https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...rom-the-1990s/

                      Yes, you posted that link a number of times, and it STILL doesn't say what you claim/wish/fantasize it says.That link details a rule violated by an accounting error made when the team failed to deposit two players' deferred salaries into a League trust account. That is NOT a "circumvention of the salary cap."

                      Took me just a couple minutes of research to learn that teams actually CAN'T violate the cap by spending more than the maximum:
                      .
                      "Since it was introduced in 1994, the League has closely monitored team compliance." . . . "Teams CAN'T go over the Salary Cap, it's that simple. Every contract must be reviewed by the NFL League Office before that contract is official. If the deal violates the cap, the NFL will reject it." LINK



                      Even though the League's close monitoring means teams CAN'T spend over the cap, there was an UN-CAPPED season recently - and two teams were penalized for taking advantage of the lack of monitoring that year:
                      .
                      In 2012, the Redskins lost $36 million and the Cowboys $10 million in salary cap space for "front-loading" contracts in 2010 when there was no salary cap in place. The NFL said that by dumping salaries into the uncapped year, both Washington and Dallas would have had more money in upcoming seasons to pay for players. According to the NFL, the two teams "created an unacceptable risk to the competitive balance" LINK



                      Obviously, fines for violations that cause a Risk to the Competitive Balance are much, much higher, and just as obviously, the League is not shy about characterizing a violation as a threat to competitive balance, something it Did Not Do for Denver.

                      Comment


                      • Thank, Buff. But do you really think that a shytehead like Festus is really interetested in truth? He does not know what truth is.

                        But thanks for your info. But I believe we should just ignore the stupid SOB. He is irrelevant.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by jutang View Post
                          Breakdown of some of Lock's last game versus the Raiders. Pretty even handed analysis. Lock does have a tendency to drift left which I think other people have noted on Lock's weaknesses. Granted the RT situation was a mess last year.

                          https://youtu.be/EuWkHVmae2o
                          Interesting. Thanks!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by BroncoBuff View Post


                            Yes, you posted that link a number of times, and it STILL doesn't say what you claim/wish/fantasize it says.That link details a rule violated by an accounting error made when the team failed to deposit two players' deferred salaries into a League trust account. That is NOT a "circumvention of the salary cap."

                            Took me just a couple minutes of research to learn that teams actually CAN'T violate the cap by spending more than the maximum:
                            .
                            "Since it was introduced in 1994, the League has closely monitored team compliance." . . . "Teams CAN'T go over the Salary Cap, it's that simple. Every contract must be reviewed by the NFL League Office before that contract is official. If the deal violates the cap, the NFL will reject it." LINK



                            Even though the League's close monitoring means teams CAN'T spend over the cap, there was an UN-CAPPED season recently - and two teams were penalized for taking advantage of the lack of monitoring that year:
                            .
                            In 2012, the Redskins lost $36 million and the Cowboys $10 million in salary cap space for "front-loading" contracts in 2010 when there was no salary cap in place. The NFL said that by dumping salaries into the uncapped year, both Washington and Dallas would have had more money in upcoming seasons to pay for players. According to the NFL, the two teams "created an unacceptable risk to the competitive balance" LINK



                            Obviously, fines for violations that cause a Risk to the Competitive Balance are much, much higher, and just as obviously, the League is not shy about characterizing a violation as a threat to competitive balance, something it Did Not Do for Denver.
                            Exactly. Quoted just so people see it twice.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by BroncoBuff View Post


                              Yes, you posted that link a number of times, and it STILL doesn't say what you claim/wish/fantasize it says.That link details a rule violated by an accounting error made when the team failed to deposit two players' deferred salaries into a League trust account. That is NOT a "circumvention of the salary cap."

                              Took me just a couple minutes of research to learn that teams actually CAN'T violate the cap by spending more than the maximum:
                              .
                              "Since it was introduced in 1994, the League has closely monitored team compliance." . . . "Teams CAN'T go over the Salary Cap, it's that simple. Every contract must be reviewed by the NFL League Office before that contract is official. If the deal violates the cap, the NFL will reject it." LINK



                              Even though the League's close monitoring means teams CAN'T spend over the cap, there was an UN-CAPPED season recently - and two teams were penalized for taking advantage of the lack of monitoring that year:
                              .
                              In 2012, the Redskins lost $36 million and the Cowboys $10 million in salary cap space for "front-loading" contracts in 2010 when there was no salary cap in place. The NFL said that by dumping salaries into the uncapped year, both Washington and Dallas would have had more money in upcoming seasons to pay for players. According to the NFL, the two teams "created an unacceptable risk to the competitive balance" LINK



                              Obviously, fines for violations that cause a Risk to the Competitive Balance are much, much higher, and just as obviously, the League is not shy about characterizing a violation as a threat to competitive balance, something it Did Not Do for Denver.
                              Hence why I say...the cap is largely fictional.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by BroncoBuff View Post


                                Yes, you posted that link a number of times, and it STILL doesn't say what you claim/wish/fantasize it says.That link details a rule violated by an accounting error made when the team failed to deposit two players' deferred salaries into a League trust account. That is NOT a "circumvention of the salary cap."

                                Took me just a couple minutes of research to learn that teams actually CAN'T violate the cap by spending more than the maximum:
                                .
                                "Since it was introduced in 1994, the League has closely monitored team compliance." . . . "Teams CAN'T go over the Salary Cap, it's that simple. Every contract must be reviewed by the NFL League Office before that contract is official. If the deal violates the cap, the NFL will reject it." LINK





                                Even though the League's close monitoring means teams CAN'T spend over the cap, there was an UN-CAPPED season recently - and two teams were penalized for taking advantage of the lack of monitoring that year:
                                .
                                In 2012, the Redskins lost $36 million and the Cowboys $10 million in salary cap space for "front-loading" contracts in 2010 when there was no salary cap in place. The NFL said that by dumping salaries into the uncapped year, both Washington and Dallas would have had more money in upcoming seasons to pay for players. According to the NFL, the two teams "created an unacceptable risk to the competitive balance" LINK





                                Obviously, fines for violations that cause a Risk to the Competitive Balance are much, much higher, and just as obviously, the League is not shy about characterizing a violation as a threat to competitive balance, something it Did Not Do for Denver.
                                Keep shoveling that ****, Muff.They didn't have enough money to pay their players AND pay for the new stadium so thay deferred payments so they could illegally keep players they wouldn't otherwise be able to keep.


                                . You can pass it off as an "accounting error" all you want they new exactly what they were doing. Not rocket science unless you're a donkey fan.

                                And I can help but notice you avoid the other instances of cheating, like greasing jerseys, rampant PED use, etc.
                                Last edited by Tges58; 07-20-2020, 08:15 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X