Juror#8

It's fact. It's not based on someone's thought about someone else who seems to be in touch with yet another. It's not based on the latest trend or what one operative may have said to another. It's not pundit speak. It is a fact. My information comes from conversations with people who make it their job to know. I'm not a reporter or anyone who conveys news so I haven't been fed disinformation for one side's political purposes. I'm only mentioning the tone of credible conversations with personal acquaintances who know the logistical ins and outs of the 2012 incumbent candidacy. So - to be believed or disbelieved - the administration does not fear Romney, they fear Huntsman and have a healthy concern about Cain. This is not to say that they consider Romney trivial. They don't. But they feel that he cannot connect, isn't image conscious, fractures his party, and, most importantly, there is tons of material with which to raise questions about the veracity of his political leanings. And, from an insider standpoint, he has changed the tone of his candidacy AT LEAST three times since the CNN debate. The latter is something that a pedestrian will miss, but it indicates equivocation to opponents. We can disagree respectfully, but I guarantee you that I'm right - and not because I care to be. Now, in terms of your "far-left" rant: The FACT is that the previous administration (and administrations prior, to be fair) saw corporate and financial regulation as almost inconsequential. The lack of regulation allowed a laissez faire operational structure which nearly allowed corporate entities to govern themselves...with impunity. I say "govern" euphemistically because there was nothing of the sort happening. The lack of any semblance of regulation allowed for things to be missed. Sub-prime loans that were nearly GUARANTEED to default were being bought and sold with impunity. Wall Street firms were selling mortgage-backed securities without disclosing risks. Oil speculators are buying up reserves, storing, etc which has the affect of articifically designating gas prices. Corporations setting up myriad off-shore entities which allow them to trumpet projected profits, contort financial data, and hide losses (which doesn't suck that bad until the stock price inflates exponentially as a result, and the financial futures of millions become inextricably linked to this smoke and mirrors). You can idolize the rich. Most look up to those who do right. Large multi-national corporations have, in large measure, benefitted fron a very relaxed regulatory scheme. That relaxation has allowed some (NOT ALL) to benefit and become rich at the expense of the many. Those who protest against that are arguably in the right.

Congrats George! He was all over the place for 60 minutes.

Didn't know that about Cowher. It wasn't a "forgetting" thing, it was a matter of never knowing. I just remember hearing that he was waiting for the right situation. If I recall correctly, the talk at the time was that he wanted a place with an established quarterback; where he could have significant personnel imput or the GM title; preferably close to his daughters in Carolina where they were finishing school; 5-7 million per; and ideally a warm weather climate. Back in 2009-2010 the discussion was that if he received those things, he would coach. In fact, I thought that there was strong speculation that had the Houston job opened, it would have been a done deal. I could be mis-remembering though.

Based on what? Your dislike for her personally? Your dislike for Obama? Your dislike for the left? I'm going to guess that you have nothing substantive to back up this claim; you're just throwing ad hominems around like fact. So...when you critically discussed with her the plight of the less fortunate and she told you that she hated the poor and became disgusted at the thought of anyone less fortunate than her, did she say it with a smirk, a laugh, a giggle, a smile, straight-faced, bemused, enthusiastically, quietly...what? Oh that's right, she didn't say that to you. So you would rather assume disingenuousness in everything that she does. That way, you don't have to acknowledge that she may be caring and sincere, which allows you to continue to hate her unjustifiably. If she didn't do anything, make any appearances, speak at all, appear at engagements, have a cause that she championed...you'd call her lazy, disconnected, and out-of-touch (you may do that anyway). You'd probably juxtapose Michelle with other First Ladys. We'd hear you wax [un]poetically about how Laura Bush went to schools and read, and Nancy Reagan was a regular at YMCAs. But you can't do that now. Michelle is active and engaging in the community. So you're left with one play....the play that allows you to discount her. You just say she's "insincere." Gotcha.

Herman Cain is an anomoly. WH doesn't know how to approach his potential candidacy. For that reason, and somewhat ironically, he has tremendous political strength. A Herman Cain and Mitch Daniels or Marco Rubio or Duncan Ross or Sam Brownback ticket would be formiddable.

Trust me, they fear Jon Huntsman more than anyone. This is not conjecture. It's fact. Be that as it may, Jon Huntsman won't win the nomination. He is too practical, to center-right, and too practical for the burgeoning extremist movement that is transforming the republican base. The opp research on Mitt Romney has yielded so much fodder for great ads that if I showed you, you'd think the picture was photoshopped based on the enormity. Our numbers show that he can be kept at sub-40% with ease which is going to completely quell enthusiasm and dramatically affect turnout. They don't fear Romney. They fear Huntsman. They have a healthy concern about Cain.

Sounds like a great interview. Wish I could have heard it. On the topic of no one else wanting to fill the coaching vacancy though - I find myself loathing Jon Gruden, Bill Cowher, Ron Rivera, Brian Shottenheimer, Jim Harbaugh, and Mike Shanahan. It seemed as if they detested the idea of coaching in Buffalo. For whatever reason, I felt personally offended by that.

Bills 38 - Giants 24

Yea, cause it's obvious that this was a government-mandated initiative. Probably a rider to the stimulus package or part of some other democrat-led omnibus bill. Biden probably personally signed the production and requirements contract with Jintao and Clinton was appointed to oversee processing of the requisitions.

I watched that play again; you're absolutely right. It was a free release which gave him a full head of steam to beat the coverage. Incidentally, a friend of mine reminded me that Randy Moss made a career of destroying cover-twos, free-release notwithstanding. Exactly. And, I happen to agree with everything else you wrote as well (despite the truncated quote).

I'm seeing 13-3 as well. One or maybe both losses will be to rest starters after locking up the AFC and a first-round bye.

Not sure where you're going with this. Am I the "they," in your statement, and the only thing that they see is AJ Green making catches whereas Dareus has only one sack. If that is what you're saying (and please note the conditional "if"), then you're wrong. Firstly, I think Marcell is better. Secondly, I realize that his impact can never be truly or fully appreciated by looking at the statistical sheet. Dareus' near-sack of Michael Vick, myriad other QB pressures, and run-disrupting capability highlights that proposition quite well. Understood and I appreciated your response. I was just interested in knowing if anyone felt that there was a better fit now that we're into the season and the rooks have had a chance to play on Sundays a bit. I guess that I should have entitled this "Knowing what you know now, would Dareus still have been your first choice."

See: my post back to Gugny in reply to your "+1" gem. Secondly, since by my count NO ONE yet has suggested that Buddy should have taken AJ Green over Dareus, I guess the only "ridiculous," thing is someone who would assert otherwise.

I may be in the minority, but if given the choice, I would take Calvin Johnson over Suh if both were in the same draft. Both are monsters and you can't go wrong with either. But I just feel that Johnson impacts a game single-handedly more so than does Suh. In my opinion, impact is impact. However, defense relies more on unit-cohesiveness than does offense. Arguably one great player on defense can be neutralized more so than one great wide receiver on offense. Just ask Andre Johnson. The above hypothetical notwithstanding, I WOULD STILL CHOOSE DAREUS OVER GREEN - all things considered. Not sure where you're going with this. Am I the "they," in your statement, and the only thing that they see is AJ Green making catches whereas Dareus has only one sack. If that is what you're saying (and please note the conditional "if"), then you're wrong. Firstly, I think Marcell is better. Secondly, I realize that his impact can never be truly or fully appreciated by looking at the statistical sheet. Dareus' near-sack of Michael Vick, myriad other QB pressures, and run-disrupting capability highlights that proposition quite well.

Prediction - Fairly will enjoy JaMarcus Russell money and JaMarcus Russell production...translated to DT play of course. No, not "hindsight bs," as you put it; but we are having some fun with revisionist history -that is, if you'll oblige?

Yea...because your comment best summarizes my post.

Really...you feel this way even though both look to be studs. It's not like I'm declaring either a bust after 5 games. Both have been proficient enough and flashed enough situational brillance that we can begin to understand their skill set and it's application to their respective teams. Around draft time, there was a hardy contingent of folks here advocating for Green. Many felt that he was the best player in the draft. I think its interesting to ponder, given how the team has filled out and what Chan's game-day philosophy is, the question: what if we had had went for Green? We're winning by out-scoring opponents and relying on opportunistic take-aways. We're not winning by grinding out games and hoping that the opponent has less yards then us and that that lack of yards translates favorably into lack of scoring opportunities and lack of opponent points. Who best integrates into that style of play?

We're 31% (or 26% percent depending on how ambitious you're feeling) of the way into the season. It's a good time to reflect on first round draft pick performance. Not to be too revisionist here, but does anyone wish (even a teeny weeny bit) that we would have drafted AJ Green? I mean, at a minimum, wouldn't it be a wash - in that he would have had an equal offensive impact as Mr. Dareus has had defensively? With that said, how often do truly stud, impactful, game-changing Wide Receivers surface? Once every 3-4 years I'd guess. What about DTs, similarly described? Once a year, me thinks. Watching Calvin Johnson outrun a cover-two last night makes one salivate at the possibility of a big, strong, fast, receiver (he is the only receiver that I have ever seen outrun a cover-two btw). He can almost single-handedly impact the ebb and the flow of any one game (assuming someone is throwing to him). Ultimately, I think Sir Dareus was the best choice, the right pick, and the best fit for this team. What say you?

Any thoughts on post #65? Particularly interested in knowing your thoughts on the measurable defensive skill sets and how you differentiate them.

I think that he has 6 sacks this season and he is in the top 5. Not bad for the rook. Still think Dareus is what we needed and the better player though.

Great thoughts! I look forward to reading them weekly. Love Jackson. Watching the game yesterday, it seemed like the crowd was chanting something when Fred had a big play (in this case, after the touchdown run and then after the 49 yard catch and run on the screen). Was hoping that it had something to do with paying/retaining him. Anyone catch that?

And of course the Ravens will likely play at the same time and that will most probably usurp. Hey at least the DC-metro area got the Bills game last weekend on local FOX. :-)

Just interested to know...what do you feel is a satisfactory sample in terms of games played to formulate an opinion on the veracity of the O-Line? Or are you basing it on performance against a specific opponent? Giants maybe? Raiders - Averaging nearly 3 sacks a game and replete with Richard Seymour - 1 sack against Chiefs - Averaging 1 sack a game (pathetic) but replete with Tamba Hali - 0 sacks against Bengals - Averaging 2.7 sacks a game - 1 sack against Eagles - Averaging 3+ sacks a game - and replete with Justin Babin and Cullen Jenkins - 1 sack against Patriots - Averaging less than 2 sacks a game - 0 sacks against Just interested in knowing your idea of qualitative metrics...

I'll argue the logic...cause it's Monday and why not? Your argument presupposes that there is no reproduceable individual effort at play during the course of any one game. You're effectively saying that any effort to interfere (and accomplish changing possession) with the opposing team's offensive progress is fortuitous and it can't be duplicated in similar (though not exact) instances. Turnovers (changing possessions) relies on body placement, defensive positioning, hand-eye coordination, athleticism, spacial recognition, timing, coaching, training, focus, etc. You feel that the above are not "reproduceable" (which I'm using as a synonym for "sustainable.")? SO then....is a statistically good defense (e.g., surrending few yards) "sustainable"? Interestingly enough, they rely on the same exact principles....however arguably more consistently applied throughout the course of the game. That notwithstanding, the parallel is nearly exact. But just for Hunter S. Thompson giggles, lets just say that facilitating turnovers is not "sustainable." How do you know that we wouldn't have won anyway? You can't prove a negative and things don't operate in a vacuum. How do you know what adjustments would/would not have been made? What offensive philosophy would have been employed? What would have been the play after the t.v. timeout if we would have gotten a stop on downs instead of the Nick Barnett pick 6? What if a skinny post to SJ would have been the bill of fare? How would that have affected the Eagles morale? Or ours? How would they have adjusted their defensive game-planning if a Fitz-SJ 59 yard td would have been successful? Would they play the pass and let Freddy run as wild in the second half as he did in the first? Wouldn't a fruitful running game facilitate sustained drives? And with the Bills enjoying sustained drives, how would their offense respond? Would they be cold? Would Vick to Maclin or Avant for 10-20 per be as rhythmic? The point is, you don't know; but yet you're enthusiastically trying to prove the negative. To insinuate that we needed turnovers to win and that that approach is unsustainable suggests a remarkable ability to portend that I'm sure you don't posses. Just a little dialectic on this beautiful Monday. The eighth Juror enjoys logic.

Good point...so I guess that 'undisciplined' is the better term because they do take chances. The paradox is that the turnovers may be a result of the chance-taking.