Popular Content

Showing most liked content on 02/16/2016 in all areas

  1. 29 likes
    The Falcons 2016 salary cap situation in Total: 2016 Estimated Base Salary-Cap Total per team $150,000,000 (NFL guidance is between $147 million to $155 million. Spotrac uses $150 million) 2016 Existing Falcons Contracts scheduled cap-hits $121,683,573 (per Spotrac) Falcons 2016 Existing Dead Money + $10,854,046 (Primarily remaining portion of Sam Baker's contract $6.4 million and Jon Asamoah's contract $3.9 million per Spotrac) Subtotal Existing 2016 Cap Commitments $132,537,619 ($121,683,573 2016 existing contracts + $10,854,046 2016 existing dead money) = Estimated remaining Salary-Cap before 2015 unused Roll-Over $17,462,381 ($150,000,000 cap per team - $132,537,619 commitments) + Estimated 2015 unused Roll-Over $10,359,832 (Per Spotrac) = Estimated 2016 Remaining Falcons Salary-Cap $27,822,213 Of course, more cap-money could be freed-up by cutting/releasing some players who are currently under contract for 2016. I'm certainly NOT advocating the release of all the following vets under contract for 2016. I'm just showing the cap savings for informational purposes, if the Falcons did release/cut certain contracted vets, assuming no one is designated as a June 1 cut. The cap savings is calculated by subtracting a player's 2016 scheduled cap-hit from any remaining dead money on the player's contract based upon info from Spotrac. Falcons 2016 Salary-Cap Savings from cutting certain veterans: William Moore $3,193,750 ($6,493,750 scheduled 2016 Cap Hit - $3,300,000 remaining dead-money) Devin Hester $3,000,000 ($3,833,334 cap-hit [CH] - $833,334 dead money [DM]) Paul Soliai $2,700,000 ($6,900,000 CH - $4,200,000 DM) Justin Durant $2,583,332 ($3,416,666 CH - $833,334 DM) Matt Bryant $2,516,666 ($3,183,333 CH - $666,667 DM) Roddy White $2,362,500 ($6,137,500 CH - $3,775,000 DM) Jonathon Babineux $2,000,000 ($2,666,668 CH - $666,668 DM) Jacob Tamme $1,600,000 ($1,800,000 CH - $200,000 DM) Tyson Jackson $1,550,000 ($6,350,000 CH - $4,800,000 DM) Andy Levitre $1,250,000 ($5,375,000 CH - $4,125,000 DM) Matt Bosher $1,200,000 ($2,700,000 CH - $1,500,000 DM) Eric Weems $935,000 ($1,147,500 CH -$212,500 DM) Michael Person $833,332 ($1,166,666 CH - $333,334 DM) Some might advocate cutting Brooks Reed. However, the cap savings would be a negative $320,000 ($3,440,000 CH - $3,760,000 DM). In other words, it would cost more cap-wise to cut him than it would to keep him. A part of the Falcons 2016 available cap-space will be used to sign some of its own Free Agents. The following is a list of the Falcons 2016 Unrestricted Free Agents (UFA) and their cap-hit for 2015 according to Spotrac for informational purposes: Chris Chester $2,800,000 (2015 cap-hit) Adrian Clayborn $2,062,500 (2015 cap-hit according to one place in Spotrac, but $2,862,500 at another place in Spotrac, and appears that Clayborn's 2015 contract stated $3 million for 2015) Kroy Biermann $1,925,000 O'Brien Schofield $1,700,000 Gino Gradkowski $1,542,000 Jack Long $1,275,000 Bryce Harris $660,000 Philip Adams $585,000 Tony Moeaki $447,352 Phillip Wheeler $378,529 for a partial year (one year $870,000 contract) Charles Godfrey $344,117 Shayne Graham $206,470 for a partial year (one year $970,000 contract) The following Falcon players are Restricted Free Agents RFA in 2016, or in the case of Ricardo Allen an ERFA, with their 2015 cap-hit: Paul Worrilow $585,668 Ryan Schraeder $585,668 Nate Stupar $585,000 Ricardo Allen $435,000 http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/atlanta-falcons/cap/
  2. 6 likes
  3. 5 likes
  4. 5 likes
    A drunk gets up from the bar and heads for the bathroom. A few minutes, a loud, blood curdling scream is heard. A few minutes after that, another loud scream reverberates through the bar. The bartender goes to investigate why the drunk is screaming. "What's all the screaming about in there?" he yells. "You're scaring my customers!" "I'm just sitting here on the toilet," slurs the drunk, "and every time I try to flush, something comes up and squeezes the **** out of my balls." With that, the bartender looks in and says, "You idiot! You're sitting on the mop bucket!"
  5. 5 likes
  6. 4 likes
  7. 4 likes
  8. 3 likes
  9. 3 likes
    Perhaps, but I have little doubt that if George W. Bush were in his last year, that Democrats would use the same justification that Republicans are using now.
  10. 3 likes
  11. 3 likes
  12. 2 likes
    Dang I was on my meds when I wrote that! LOL It was supposed to read "J, that kicks azz bro! I can't wait to see you fire it up! BF, that burger just might kill me if I ate it, take off the green snot and I'd give it a try though :P " As for it being Guac, lord I hope so, lol. I don't do guac though, I am not a fan. I am weird like that I guess. There isn't ENOUGH bacon to kill that snot though. 18 pieces maybe
  13. 2 likes
    J, that kicks azz bro! Can't wait you see you fire it up! BF, that burger just might kill me if I ate it, take of the green snot and I'd give it a try though :P
  14. 2 likes
  15. 2 likes
  16. 2 likes
    Y'all keep saying this is different because it's an election year, and that's what makes the obstructionism unprecedented. But that's like saying "well, the Democrats never did it during a full moon," or "the Democrats never did it prior to the vernal equinox." The question is not whether the Republicans are right that no President should ever nominate a Supreme Court justice during an election year. They don't even believe that. The question is whether the Republicans have the right to obstruct and hinder the President's nomination to replace an ideologically opposite justice. The precedent for that is clear -- Democrats do it. Period. If Democrats do it, then Republicans can do it, or this is all just special pleading. As for why Republicans are doing it this way, I have some theories. One is that Republicans know the President will try to nominate someone that would be politically difficult for them to oppose. Say, a minority. And then paint the Republicans as being against minority candidates, etc. So the Republicans come out and announce they will oppose any nominee, and they can thereby refute that by saying "no, we weren't going to accept anyone he put up." Another is simple voter turnout. They don't just want the next President to nominate Scalia's replacement. They want a Republican to do so. Making this an election issue has the potential to drive Republicans to the polls and consolidate them behind a candidate they might otherwise oppose. That's a risk -- it will almost certainly do the same for Democrats. But that seems reasonable to me that they want to make it an election issue not just for the sake of the Court, but for the sake of the Presidency. And there is NO doubt that this will escalate nomination fights in the future. My simple point is this -- since Bork, we've had not one Democratic nominee blocked by filibuster or otherwise. Not one. We've had several Republican nominees blocked, threatened with filibuster, and otherwise actively opposed by Democrats. Y'all keep making distinctions such as "well, Democrats did it on ideology," as if ideology has nothing to do with their opposition to Scalia's replacement. Are you seriously contending that if another justice had died or retired they'd take the same tack? Or, alternatively, that if Obama nominates an originalist they'll try to block that candidate? It's all about ideology. That's a distinction without a difference.
  17. 2 likes
  18. 2 likes
    It is Sumlin's job as the HC to control the program though. His apparent lack of control is a big factor in it. Kids who cant follow the rules should be removed from the program. They have to know certain behavior will not be tolerated.
  19. 2 likes
    You would think, but sadly no, we don't all agree, as demonstrated by Chuck Schumer in this speech from 2007. This the same Chuck Schumer crying about GOP obstructionism to anyone who would listen regarding this confirmation yesterday. 1:55 for the money shot, but the whole thing in context is just as hypocritical
  20. 2 likes
    My thought after the lake of fire scene was....if they would have done that to the rock quarry, they could have saved themselves a whole season's worth of grief.
  21. 2 likes
  22. 2 likes
    The better half wanted brisket for V-Day dinner. Who am I to deny her?
  23. 1 like
    I was gonna post this on the best of the internet, but it definitely goes here: What's that, about 6 - 8 pieces of bacon? **** that looks good though!
  24. 1 like
    Would be awesome to see! He's always been one of my all time favorites.
  25. 1 like
  26. 1 like
    I got all 3 and I like each. Each gives me separate pleasures. Fanboy types will tell you this and that but I'm here to tell you there isn't much of a difference between ps4 and Xbox one outside of certain exclusive content and games for each system. It mostly depends on which system offers the most exclusive content you think your grandkids will like. On another note. Xbox one is slowly making more Xbox 360 games backwards compatible. Ps4 has a rental and subscription based service called ps now where you can play older games via streaming the games
  27. 1 like
    You beat me to it bro! I was shocked to find this out!
  28. 1 like
    1982, Prince had it going on with his groups and tour, Prince, the Time, and Vanity 6.
  29. 1 like
    RIP to Denise "Vanity" Matthews, Prince protégé and lead singer of Vanity 6 (in middle).
  30. 1 like
  31. 1 like
  32. 1 like
    Off the chain goodness. Even knowing exactly what was going to happen it was still awesome!
  33. 1 like
  34. 1 like
    Who is "they?" Does Obama count? He voted to filibuster Alito. What about Clinton? Kerry? Biden (who, by the way, was instrumental in the Bork Borking)? This notion that blocking appointments is out of bounds because it's an election year is just as arbitrary and ridiculous as Republicans claiming the President shouldn't appoint anyone. It's all gamesmanship, and as ever, it depends on whose ox is being gored. I'm content to have everyone play the game the same way, which means if Republicans FINALLY get around to trying to block a nominee, I'll consider it a sign of balance.
  35. 1 like
    That's a straw man argument. Thomas was accused of sexual assault. That's very different from what Republicans are saying today. Harriett Myers was rejected because she was unqualified...and prominent conservatives said that about her. That's very different from what Republicans are saying today. Republicans are not attacking the president's nominee based on ideology, qualifications, or accusations of wrong-doing. They are flatly rejecting ANY nominee before the president has even named one. Again, show us where Democrats have ever done that, let alone tried to block a Republican president from appointing any SC nominee to the bench during an election year.
  36. 1 like
    what in the ever living *bleep* are you talking about WFW
  37. 1 like
    More like I thought it was strange to say blocking any attempt to nominate a Justice for nearly a year and passing legislation are basically the same thing. But you can keep pulling arguments out of your *** and words in my mouth if you want
  38. 1 like
  39. 1 like
    Democrats are really complaining about a senate majority leader being an obstructionist? Seems Legit
  40. 1 like
  41. 1 like
    Leftover brisket made a good BBQ grilled cheese. Buttered up some Texas Toast, brisket and bbq sauce, colby jack and white american cheeses.
  42. 1 like
  43. 1 like