OCinBuffalo

Some day, when some posters realize that it is no longer 1985, they are going to understand that a teams needs 4 starter-level CBs. 3 good CBs, and a backup who's OK, FAILS, because that guy will be targeted all day. Why? Because today's base offense is 3 WR/TE/RB, or, 2WR/TE/2RB(one of which splits out), or, 2WR/2TE/RB(which plays hell with CBs who can't tackle/lack toughness/get schemed into trying to cover a TE who is bigger and taller, see: The Patriots Offense), or what we see more and more of: 4 WR/RB...as the crap college offense's spread package infects the NFL. So, for like the 500th time since 2005: we ALWAYS need CB, and today, there is no doubt that CB is more important than O line. Think! How many times have we had 2 CBs injured...and lost/nearly lost a game because we had backup practice squad/street FA coming in and trying to cover? 50 games at least in the last 10 years. That's 50 Ls. How many times have we been unable to put a team away by "pounding the rock" because, even if that works, on their next possession the other team gets it and throws 7 passes down the field for a TD, putting them right back in the game? That is exactly why CB is more important: you don't get to use your big O line/eat clock/run the ball/whatever....if you are constantly playing from behind/tied because the other team can throw on you all day. Now, you have to throw, just to keep up, thus completely defeating the purpose of building a run-fist team. Without a above-average secondary, you don't even get an opportunity to use your line, no matter how good it is. So, yeah, we always need CBs.

Nope. https://www.thefreedictionary.com/whinging It can be whinging or whining.

Heh! This F is talking to me about writing. It must be late on Friday night. Can't wait until tomorrow, when all the(hopefully funny) jokes start. OK professor, that's it for tonight. When I get done replying to the 5-10 PM's from the old-school posters here, after they read this tomorrow, and laugh, I'll get back to you.

Why the F are Bills fans still arguing about ESPN? I thought we settled this, ages ago. Now I come back and find the same old arguments, on both sides? Let's skip to the end: ESPN is a dying creature. It has been dying ever since the Internet. Back in the day, NFL Primetime, and Sunday Sportscenter was required viewing, because that was where we got to see all the stuff we didn't see. The extended highlights, with Berman's act, was an amazing, unique experience. So was Dan Patrick and Keith Olberman's year-round hilarity. (Interestingly, Dan Patrick still has a job with a national audience, Keith Olbermann was last seen podcasting from GQ's lunchroom. Gee, I wonder why? ) But, now, any of us can see any highlight, or an entire game, any time we chose. And, ESPN broke itself the day the left their standard Sunday night plan, and began broadcasting games instead. They've never had the same ratings. You give Chris Berman et al an hour, just like you give Michaelangelo an entire ceiling. You don't break either up into segments and expect the same results. They would have had a chance if they relied on talent == Berman can crush any Youtuber. Instead: they relied on "branding" . Then, in a last-ditch effort to save itself, ESPN decided to do more "journalism"....which is weird, because it already was doing great sports journalism. No. It decided to do some sort of inane "let's find stories where they are least likely to exist" examining(yellow muckraking?), not journalism at all. "Let's bore the hell out of audience with Social Justice nonsense, virtue signaling, and talking more about what happens off the field, than on it!" That was their grand plan. It failed, as miserably as it failed obviously. Now, they have culled ALL of their journalists, and are back to the 1980s model: "just talk about sports headlines, because we can't afford to do anything else". People! ESPN is dying. Don't concern yourselves with what is now just one of many click-bating sports enterprises.

No. Says my experience. Look: I can drop a book on you in 5 minutes if that's what you require. The posters who've been here as long as I have know I can, and they will cry about it. I'm trying something different...just to see if it works, and, to make fun of them at the same time. Are you daring me to drop a book(write an extremely long post) on you, and the end of which, I will completely prove my point in every facet and detail? (As I said, this is more about F'ing with them, than you.) Or, would you rather just take it from somebody who has coached/managed 100s of young people(for most of my life, as a young person, and managed people older than me), and gotten the most out of them(see: my record of winning)?

Not the point. I don't care what the sport is(because I have coached in 3 sports), if you use your players properly, meaning take the full advantage of their talents, you have a much higher propensity to win. I can go on and on about why, giving personal examples in work and sports, or, you can just accept that I draw on a vast range of experience that proves what I am saying is true.

That may be true, but, I guarantee that misusing talent, by not using it at all, will always lose against using it properly. Yeah, I get the big business/winning aspect. But I am telling you: Knute Rockne kicked the crap out of "the winning way", and any coach who had Rockne's cajones today would smoke the rest of the JV people. In fact, that would be my recruiting pitch: real innovation/real pro offense. I know that there's a coach out there at Unknown State who is contemplating doing that right now. It's too obvious to miss. Somebody is gonna do the Phi Slamma Jamma thing on the rest of FBS. It's just a matter of time.

I have been thinking, and saying, that the root cause of the problems with the plethora of NFL busts, at WR, QB, and OL, and therefore, why it's always better to draft Defensive Backs high is: that college football offense has been regressing since the late 1990s/early 2000s. I have been in many arguments on this board since 2005 about why drafting CBs/Ss is a better plan for this simple reason: a DB can't hide on tape. One can clearly determine who is elite, good, etc. from tape when it comes the secondary positions, because those positions primarily depend on innate talent, and secondarily on brains. Those, and, there's nowhere to hide when you're position means you're all alone most of the time. It's simply a matter of what we can measure vs. what we can't. The problem with college football, for at least 15 years now is: the offensive coaching has made true measurement and comparison exponentially more difficult. This article proves it: https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/04/10/draft-wide-receiver-wr-first-round-busts-kyle-lauletta-jimmy-garoppolo-chad-kanoff-princeton Once again we see that the egos of college football coaches constantly get in the way of improving their players. Once again we see that given the chance, they'd rather be coaching high school JV programs...because JV is where the coach has autocratic power. So, instead of coaching players properly, thus having to do the much harder work of working with the individual player, what he can and can't do/what he sees/allowing him to have some autonomy(or even, knowledge when it comes to reading defenses)? These coaches force the JV system upon players whose bodies and minds have developed far beyond it. As I have said before: college football is now unwatchable for me. It's quite simple. When I see and entire offense huddle, then line up, then stop, and every player except the Gs and Ts(and sometimes it the whole O line), looks over to the sidelines? I am sorry, but that is JV football. Today's college game isn't "innovative" at all. It's regressive. It's regressive in that it is going back to a time when players didn't have the innate, intentionally trained for their entire lives, abilities that they do now. Knute Rockne created the jump pass, and many other downfield throws. That was innovation, in f'ing 1913. Knute Rockne ran the RPO(look at the "Notre Dame Box" at the link...it's the F'ing "wildcat". ). Seriously, WTF are we doing playing 1913 football 100 years later? The answer is simple: ego. College coach ego. They don't even get that if Rockne was alive today, and saw the kind of talent available to him, that he never would have dreamed of back in the early 1900s, the first thing he'd do is kick these egomaniacs in the balls...on sheer principle, then, he'd figure out a way to use the talent. Rockne was able to beat Army, badly,(think: beating the 90s Bulls, or the 70s Canadiens), precisely because he broke from the dogmatic, run-only offense of his time and used "the forward pass"(It's always hilarious to hear that phrase. Try saying out loud, and not snicker. Try watching this movie: with Ronald Reagan, as George "The Gipper" Gipp). The great irony here is that his 100 year-old offense is being used today, and being called "innovative", , when he ran the offense himself ON THE FIELD when he played, and let his players run it themselves when he coached.

How many Packers, Steelers, Chiefs, and San Diego games have you attended? For that matter, how many Cowboys, Eagles, Giants, Jets, Dolfags, or Bears games have you attended? (IF you're not smart enough to see you're being set up here...I'll just tell you: you're being set up.)

Having been to lots of games, lots of places, the single biggest factor that separates teams like the Bills, Packers, Steelers and Chiefs is: family. It's not unusual, in fact it's likely, that entire clans will attend Bills games together, at least once a year. Clan can mean different things. Often it means 100% family. But, in can also mean a mix of family and friends, or just friends, that band together and form some sort of agreement that centers on the game(or season), but just as importantly, the tailgate and transportation. I know a guy who only has to drive a UHaul full of people and stuff, to one Bills game every 2 seasons. He is sober for that 1 game. The other 15 games are like Burning Man for him. You don't see this in NYC, San Diego(or LA either), Philly, Dallas, Chicago, Miami, etc. Big markets tend to have vast numbers of corporate tickets, PSLs, etc. which tend to shift the focus from who is sitting in the seats around you, to your individual seat itself. In fact, I have shocked and awed many non-Bills fans by inviting them: they say the experience is like night/day. When they attend their team's games, they sit in traffic, park and go into the game almost immediately. They rarely speak to anyone around them. They leave, sit in traffic and go home. Then...they come to Buffalo. I throw a Bills hat/jersey on them, and introduce them to my crew. But beyond my crew, it's like they have new, close friends, all around them, for the whole day. At the Big Tree after a game, one of my colleagues asked, after she, another colleague, and I had been speaking with 4 other Bills fans for about 10 minutes, if we knew each other. We all smiled: "Nope!". Mind blown. Thus, given the clans, however defined, the unique game day experience, and the hanging out with total strangers: unbreakable traditions lead to unbreakable bonds, not only with the team, but with the clan, that supports the team and each other. In my case, one side of my extended family has attended a Bills game together, every year, since I was 5. The only acceptable excuses for missing this game are: military service, a child being born within 1 week of it, being literally in the hospital, or death. I have hellishly flown/driven to ensure I attend, many times. So, yeah, I was always going to be a Bills fan. When I was a toddler in Korea, pre-schooler in lots of different posts, having no idea what the Bills even were: I was told I was a Bills fan. For many of us, that's just the way it is. Then the personal experiences and memories begin, and that's the way it stays.

Tautology.

No. There isn't. Again: intent destroys any notion of "causality" or "relationship" or whatever. The fact that each player, once picked, is no longer available after each pick destroys the chances of every other team making that pick. Nothing is proven, except a tautology: drafting QB1s, before others get a chance to draft them, is more likely to happen...the higher you are in the draft. No kidding. Contrapositive: a team is less likely to draft a QB1, the lower they are in the first round. Duh! Why? Because all of the QB1s are already drafted. Teams intend to draft QB high, and that has worked 19/33 times. Then, the crap chart starts adding other stats, that have no causal relationship, or even a correlative one, to the draft statistic, which itself proves nothing more than the obvious. Teams intend to draft RBs, Gs, WRs, and DBs, in the 2nd round. Does drafting those players in those spots, and not in the 1st, 3rd, or 4th cause them to be make the Pro Bowl? How about win the SB?

Same question as Allen thread(s), for same reason: College football is now Live Action Techmo Bowl, but I think I found a way to cut through its BS. How many different receivers does Jackson target per game? (Forget stats, forget defenses, because its all relative, and, because, again, Techmo Bowl. Also, forget completions, because I don't wanna get into coulda/shoulda RE: drops, bad routs, defender fell down, blah) I figure if he targets lots of different guys/game, he must have to see them to target them, and that might tell us if he can do what is required in the NFL.

College football today is Live Action Techmo Bowl, with all the looking over at the sidelines, spread offenses that throw for 3 yards, and the rest of it. The average college offense today does very little to prepare QBs for the NFL, so, we can't talk about stats, and even most film is useless, because again: 5 WR spread, everyone look at the coach for the read, snap, 3 yard pass. Repeat. How am I supposed to figure out if a college QB can read a defense, make an adjustment at the line, progress through 3 reads, delay the Safety/LBs with his eyes, and hit the TE on an 10 yard out rout...based on college...now JV football, RPO offenses? I have found a way I think, so I will ask the same question as I did in the other Allen thread: How many different players does Allen target per game on average? The notion being, you have to be able to see different receivers, to get the ball to them. So, does he move the ball around? IF so, then at least that's something. (EDIT: forget completions, because then we get into the woulda/coulda/shoulda RE: drops, bad routs, defense fell down, etc.)

Ah, I see. I agree that stats in college mean practically nothing. Especially now. What I want to see is: 1. how a guy throws a football 2. his release time 3. all the throws in an NFL rout tree; I don't need 70 yard bombs, when we might see that 1-2 times a game, and 10-20 yard passes most of the time 4. how many different team mates were targeted on average by game, then average that to per game. The first 3 are easy to find. The 4th is harder, but I think it tells us the most about the QBs mental part of the game, which is so hard to see currently. These college offenses today basically do nothing to prepare players for the NFL game. Seeing the whole team huddle, then get into formation, then all stop, and look over to the sideline for 3-4 seconds then look back, and finally snap the ball? That's unwatchable football. It's live action Techmo Bowl, and it sucks. College is regressing back to Pop Warner. "RPOs" are JV football. I don't want to pay $70 to see JV football. and I sure as hell ain't gonna sit through 3 hours of it on TV. Yeah, talent around a QB vs defense played against is all relative, so it's useless as an evaluation tool. So, the only rational way to judge whether a QB can see the field appears to be how many different people get the football thrown their way per game. So, Allen supporters: how many different receivers have you seen him target(not complete pass to, and I say that because I don't want to get into shoulda/coulda RE: drops, bad routes, etc.) on average in a game?

Oh come on. Not only are these silly #s to use as a comparison to today's college #s, especially since the type of offense that these guys ran in college is so different(70/30 run pass, no holding, no 5 WR sets, and QBs didn't look to the sidelines for every play)... ...it's silly to use the other guy's Pro #s in comparison to Brady's. The NFL was a completely different place for Kelly, Montana and Marino. One(1), of the 10-15 hits/game that any of those guys took back then would be a 15 yard penalty/ejection, a fine/suspension, and an endless cry-fest if Brady took it 5 years ago, never mind today. In fact, Brady would have retired 10 years ago if he had to take the punishment that used to be allowed back in the 80s-late 90s. The only reason I don't say 70s and earlier: weightlifting wasn't anywhere near as big a deal until the 80s. Brady wouldn't have anywhere near the #s he does, if they hadn't changed the rules, and nerfed the defense so many time since 1998. The older posters will say: the nerfing began after the 1986 season, was sorta incremental, but really took off in 1998. And, the really old guys will tell you that the ear-hole, ear-drum busting head slap should still be legal, and that any hand outside of your frame is holding. Tom Brady is alive, never mind playing, because his O line has been allowed to close-line, arm bar and flat-out tackle pass rushers his entire career, while if D a guy does anything but wrap him up and gently bring him to the ground, it's a PF. So, please, just stop with all of this. It's like comparing the "live ball" stats in baseball. EDIT Just in case any of you need proof? Here's the unofficial end of Joe Montana's career: https://youtu.be/OlHUNTV13UY?t=4508 Can you name the 3 penalties that would have been called if that hit was on Brady today?

I am sick of seeing this used as an argument. Why? It is statistical garbage. It pretends to prove a causal relationship based on probability, when all it does is prove: intent. If I pick a random place to stand outside once an hour, and change every hour, or, I intentionally stand in the street all day, my "chances" of getting hit by a car go up. Well, no ****, Sherlock! This nonsense pretends that picking a QB in an NFL draft is a random event, when it patently is not. Teams INTEND to pick QBs high, especially if they get a top 5 pick, for the obvious reason that: the best QBs are still available to be picked. It also refuses to control for the fact that teams trade up/down. So, a team trading up to get #1-#5...actually drafts a QB once they get there, not a kicker? Yes, and there's a "chance" that water is wet, too! There is no chance involved when a team 1) has control over the outcome at their spot == pick a QB/another player/trade, 2) foreknowledge of the available players and 3) foreknowledge of the picks before them, but no control over them, other than trading for them, which is, again, INTENTIONAL. 1/1, 10/10, 100/100 times ALL teams would have drafted Andrew Luck as the #1 player in that NFL draft(even if they wanted to trade down, because: no trading partner). But, all 32 teams don't get a chance to draft at #1. Only 1 team does. And, 5 teams don't get to pick Andrew Luck, only 1 team does. Thus, the probability of choosing a "likely to succeed in NFL QB" goes down exponentially as we move from #1-#32 because they get picked. If a draft only has 2 "likely to succeed" QBs, then they WILL be taken in 1-5, and the rest of the QBs will be taken: later. Duh! Thus, these statistics are garbage because all they prove is that a tautology is: tautological. Every team needs the best QB they can get, so, they tend to draft them high, IF they can. Also, teams tend to miss on high drafted QBs, about 1/3 of the time, even though they intentionally draft them in spots 1-5. So, please, enough with this crap. EDIT: An example of real probability: what % chance does Josh Rosen have to 1) make an NFL team, 2) have a winning season in his first 3 years, 3) make/win in the playoffs, 4) make/win the SB. One can do the research and come up with %s for each, but, they be: % chances, hence probabilities. A team sitting in the top 5, that truly needs a QB, has a 100% chance of taking one, a probability of 1.0, a certainty == the obvious. We learn nothing from stating the obvious, to ourselves or others. Thus the gamble is always on the player himself, and never on when he was picked.

I am not forgetting that. You are simply wrong. Using the global market is far too unpredictable. For all we know, we end up hurting Australia or African countries, and not laying a glove on Russia under that plan. And, again, it's too damn slow. What about speed and unpredictability aren't you getting here? This is a blitzkrieg energy attack targeted directly at Russia's energy customers and nowhere else. The last time the Russians were blitzed they lost millions of men in the first week, never mind the next month. Why? Because they rely on overly centralized government, and lazy, corrupt officials throughout the country, who can't act independently. They always have to wait on orders from Moscow, same as last time. Overly centralized government can't move quickly enough to react when we start unloading our tankers in Germany.

No, because: remember the "when the pig is not looking" part? This has to be a quick strike, one they don't see coming. Solar/Wind are too easily observed, because they are moving far too slowly. Most importantly, we can't export solar and wind to Europe (you unmitigated moron). The whole plan hinges on undercutting Russia and getting countries like Poland, Ukraine, Germany, anybody who has a gas pipeline from Russia, to turn it off, and use our gas instead. We need to export energy to Europe, and even the Middle East, and that means natural gas and refined gasoline, ready to go out of the box, for 30% cheaper than the Russian's price. EDIT: If solar and wind were real? Germany wouldn't need Russian natural gas, and England wouldn't be buying wood from us to burn instead of coal. Wood is also much dirtier than coal, but you know, idiot laws are idiot laws. At least this way, England can still save face by saying they aren't using coal. Idiotic but true.

I first decided I was against Russia in all things when I was 6 years old. And, I have read a ton, seen a ton, lived a ton, worked with them on projects(awful), managed them on projects(10x worse), and my entire body of work has only reinforced my decision. However, notice, I didn't up and refuse to work on the projects, nor did I fire the ones that worked for me, without cause. No, not liking somebody doesn't mean you don't have to work with them. And, not liking somebody doesn't give you license to act unprofessionally towards them in public. (Doesn't mean you can't work covertly to stab them in the back.) There's an old saying "Never fight with a pig, because all you get is dirty, and the pig likes it". The pig == the Russians. Thus, we shouldn't play their game. See, there aren't any old sayings about waiting until the pig isn't looking, then nailing them with a cattle prod. Example: what if we decided to double our oil production and exports(EDIT: and also flood Europe with our natural gas sold at 30% below the Russian's price) for 3 months, and destroy Russia's economy(cattle prod straight up ass), all while saying nice things about Putin and Russia? The Russians don't know how to react to that. EDIT: That's what I am for: and that's why I want the Global Warming nonsense to end immediately. We can beat the Russians into total submission, simply by beating them on energy. Forget expelling Diplomats: I want to destroy their country to the point where they have no choice but to come to the rest of the world, on their knees, beg for mercy, and then accept our demands. Clear enough?

...which doesn't mean May didn't have to pay through the nose. You think the Jets overpaid to go from #6 to #3? Multiply that by 50, at least, and you're in the ballpark of what May had to pay.

Are you choosing to make your points based on a complete lack of understanding of how our government works, then screaming those points in every thread, then telling yourself you've proven everybody wrong? If you aren't doing those things, then I have no problem with you. As far as a 2 party system goes: I refer you to Theresa May of the UK, whose only path to forming a government, because of their multi-party system, was through a small party in Northern Ireland. How ironic that a Tory, of all people, has to rely on the Irish just to get started. Do you have any idea what the Irish, who are famously corrupt, must be getting back from her? Is that a good way to run a railroad? Besides, after November, I almost guarantee that the left will split into 2 parties. The "progressives" will not tolerate Trump Clones like Connor Lamb. They just tried to primary Democratic Congressman whose only "sin" is that he's pro-life. None of this will end well for the Democratic party: hence 2 parties soon.

Dude! Just put the scarf down. Unless you are shoveling/snowblowing, or, standing outside of SF airport early in the morning, in the summer, waiting for the idiot rental car situation, or, in Downtown Chicago anytime from OCT-MAY? Put if F'ing down. Great masses of MEN have existed in Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, etc. without the need to resort to scarves. However: I did give you 3 practical examples where scarves, worn by real men, make sense. I accept those examples with no objections. I am sure there are more, and will gladly entertain them all. However 2: The faggotry* associated with college professor-grad student/NYC writer(of God knows what)/Philly copycats(of God knows what) ilk, wearing thin scarves, which are completely impractical...must...end...now. We must stamp out faggotry wherever it exists. (Do you really want more Pajama-boy? How do/will you explain Pajama-boy faggotry to your daughter?) Those scarves ARE for girls. Clark Gable would literally kick the **** out of the Fields Medal professor in Good Will Hunting, on sheer principle, for mere association. *There's nothing wrong with being gay. There is everything wrong with faggotry, the ideology, EDIT, and the agenda.

Horowitz is going to tell on you, and your friends. You're going to need your blanky for days, if not months, just to sleep. Ask yourself: after months off, why have I suddenly been more active here? Answer: because Horowitz telling on you and your friends is literally going to be == to watching a giant batch of 6-year olds get their birthday taken away. I'm going to enjoy your pain, and your weak attempts to play it off...ALMOST...as much as I enjoyed 2010, or, being 100% right about The Surge in Iraq back in 2007. I am not alone in seeing the opportunity here: Psychiatrists and Research Psychologists have a unique opportunity to study people like you, en masse, that Human Civilization simply cannot afford to miss. I mean someday, in Civilization 14, there will be the "Defeat the Mass Media" wonder(which of course must be represented by a massive pile of tweets), or research, and Donald Trump's face will represent it. There already is the "Mass Media" research option in existing Civ games. Why then wouldn't countering it, completely, be a Wonder? The only thing is: it can't take too many turns to build. In Civ context, you should be able to build the "Defeat Mass Media" wonder in what? 1 turn, maybe 2?

Tom, how long is it going to take for you to realize that this entire account, since around 2007, is based on taking a scalpel to ALL condescension on this entire board, cutting it free, and then mocking it, by being even worse? You've proven to be an above average IQ guy, but, given this, I remain unconvinced that you are actually a high IQ guy, like myself. (Now, wait, let that sink in for about 5 seconds...then...see the trap.)