OCinBuffalo

You add 2 losses by the Bills(puts us right at 7) + one "aggressive"(read: stupid) owner in Jerra + draft books are already talking about Manziel being top 10, not top 5, and that yields: an outside chance of trading down to Dallas's spot and absolutely raping them, because Manziel just might be on the board still at 7. This would get us at least their #2, and possibly their #3. Definitely their #4. I would be just fine with that, because we could use the picks on O line, the biggest WR we can get, and an extra CB. Or, just go with the best O line available, then CB, the O line again, and if there's a TE laying around...etc. The thing is: we have our skill positions, for once, well covered. I don't get the LB talk at all. Not saying it's wrong, I just don't understand it. In all cases, Jerra and Dan Synder both being desperate in the same year? That means somebody's getting a great pay day. The only problem? Snyder's short on picks. And, the kooky Rams are ahead of us. And, why is all of this possible? Because Tony Romo is an ESPN Big Market contraption. And, far too many people have been duped by the marketing. But, not Jerra. Jerra is precisely the kind of owner who would cut Romo loose, cap hell or not. He's exactly the kind of guy who would trade up to get Maziel, or whoever. Jerra can't stand not being in the spotlight. Same thing with Snyder.

So, in essence, the people who made it, have already been fired. What's left to B word about? You think Brandon had a real say? How about CFO Overdorf? He's just a contract/deal with the agent guy, I don't think he makes "hire/fire" decisions. I dunno. Seems like you are retroactively complaining about a problem that has already been solved. I mean, would firing Buddy Nix from his consulting role do it for you? Seems like we should be yelling and Brandon a lot more about Toronto et al, rather than Levitre.

Yes.

What? I'm just going after the boiler plate 4% vs. 20% argument, that Juan didn't even get right. That argument is predicated on the assumption that you never run into somebody like me. Bad assumption. I now have access to terrabytes of data. All of which says the same thing: The government's administration of Medicare is anything but efficient, and via things like the MDS, I have PROVEN that they in fact hurt quality, or, make it near impossible to assure quality. There's nothing about how Medicare is run that even approaches proper methodolgy. And, what's worse? The times when other industry approaches have been tried? They take what works off the factory floor, and expect it to work in health care. See here: http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-820/Demo4.pdf It's college professors and everything! Woooooo! FAIL! Read the abatract, and the first few paras. Bad problem definition = solution is hopeless. I give them credit(their grade? C-), because they recognize they have to adjust. But, then they fail to see the real problems. And, try handing this paper to a 200 lb CNA/Radiology Tech on her smoke break. These guys have never been on a project in the real world. Same story: "intellectuals" coming from everywhere but real enterprise projects, struggling, because they have no experience in real enterprise project work. Whereas you and I realize instantly that scheduling is irrelevant when creating the core, and... Tell me: how do "varying levels of granularity" standards(I'm sure you have at least one) work at the Navy? hehehe...Suffer! The entire paper is defeated by 2 words: unplanned work. Oh yes, "reschedule"? What if work is done, that was never scheduled to begin with? Simple: lady comes sees doctor and doc realizes she needs a whole other set of treatments, etc. Unplanned work FAIL. This happens all the time, so trying to set up a "patient with P dx/condition needs Q service via R schedule" baseline and, doing your analysis on that, means your going to get 162 unique experiences today, and nothing to work with. The data looks like somebody puked on the screen, is all over the place, and they wonder why they can't do "efficient"? My standard is clear as a bell, and always consistent. F schedule, because my system is not patient-centered . Nor should any health care system be patient-centered. You can't compare patient to patient, so you have no chance of setting efficiency standards using anything to do with them(you just make it up as you go = MDS = gymnastics judges). This is how things like the MDS get invented. This is how costs get out of control, this is how the government makes all of it worse. Show me one patient, and you've seen: 1 patient. There is practically no commonality between one to the next. Legos are indispensible. That's what we have: lots and lots of Legos. These professors are the closest people in the world to where we are at, and they fail miserably(wanna see their analytics results?). This is my "competition". Well, there's these guys, and...Juan Guzman.

Well, there's always carp, right? Enough of this carp. Perhaps the single biggest thing that irks me to this day, is that my damn account froze up when I tried to change by email, and I couldn't be here every day correcting this carp.

here I was warming up to crush each bullet.... but GG/Tom already took care of it. There's not a single piece of data the power point presentation above that isn't massaged. It's the literal equivalent of "cheese food". You guys know where the "Medicare administrative costs are 4%, private insurance are 20%" comes from? The West Wing. Yes, TV show "data". And, it's 4%, not 2%, and there's a reason WHY. Once again: The Formula for all "Interesting" Liberal Tropes(interesting today, holy writ tomorrow): = compare apples to oranges, cherry pick the data, and run to the media, who on cue, goes banannas. Look, this all comes down to entirely different business models. EDIT: and for the CPAs here? A balance sheet comparison ends this argument immediately. Or, 3 words: Chart of Accounts. Pretending any real comparison can be made is patently retarded. Meanwhile, I'm looking at an MDS 2.0 form right now. For the rest of you, go here, and try to say the word: "efficient" to yourself while you read, without laughing. http://www.cms.gov/M...MDSAllforms.pdf There are excatly 134 points of stupidity on that form, and I have already proven every single one of them, in production software(EDIT: well...some of them are dodgy, about 20, but, the rest are solid. The dodgy ones are so because of the kludginess of the MDS. You could interpret things different ways, and try to get over, but only on ~20. Notice: I'm talking about "interpretation" on something that is supposed to be a standard: think gymastics judges, vs. the 1st down chains. How do you want to get paid?). This approach is so flawed, that is it useless as both a quality assurance instrument, AND a reimbursement instrument. Why in the hell we decided to combine two things that have little to do with each other when it comes to business process? Who the F knows? I've never gotten anything approaching a non-trivial, educated answer on this. Now, they are coming up with the 3rd version of this idiocy. http://www.cms.gov/M.../MDS30Draft.pdf Which contains the following gem: Raise your hand if talking to the customer, about the customer's needs, working better than not talking to them, is in any way "surprising" to you. Efficient. And you guys wonder why I get pissed. This is version #3! Do you have any idea how many billions of iterations we've already gone through with v1-2....to find out only NOW, that talking to the customer...."surpisingly" is "time well spent" because it's "faster"? This is why I laugh so hard when tools like Waddle Waddle Guzman attempt to tell me I'm the ideologue. I've got the real facts, as I posted above, and I literally have a hand in physically creating the data, every day, that shows how stupid this is. Now you can see for yourself. I'm not going to give you the answers: that would ruin the fun. Read through this stuff and tell me what you see, and hey...for all I know, one of you may come up with stupidity point #135, which would be even more fun.

One of the ways...to skin a cat. This time, it's a big one!

But, our voices ARE heard. Pretty much every day. Hence, the, I'm sure, 20 minute "explanation" of yesterday, of which I heard the last 5 minutes of. Here's the point: don't like what they are saying? Start a thread here, be specific, put some real effort into your thoughts, and post. No schit? You'll see the conversation veer your way in 30 minutes or less. Like I said: we can easily behaviorally condition them. They are about ratings, and "what everyone is talking about". If everyone is talking about them sucking today/yesterday, because you wrote a killer thread about them sucking, filled with interesting and poignant discourse, then....viola: action taken, outcome affirmed. Look: It's not just S&B. It's all of them: I'm not even pissed at Jeremy White for copying my format of "fancy pics" that I used in the preseason going over the rest of the division's games. His All 22 thing is practically identical, and I don't know/care if it was intentional. The difference: his is professional, and mine was wiseass. Fact-filled, but still: wiseass. He's doing it now, which means? I don't have to. (Did I mention how lazy I am? I am unconscionably lazy.) And, he's doing it the way I want to see it....so, why in the hell would I be pissed? My will is done, and I don't have to do anything but read for 2 minutes to get the same outcome.

No! Not until wawrow responds! Give me wawrow, or give me...another shot of Jameson!

Hold on. Which FO are we talking about? Presumably, you're saying that before last year we should have signed Levitre, right? Or, earlier, if we are to fulfill the condition of "signing him before his contract was up". I don't recall it being anybody's FO...other than Buddy Nix's. This coach, this GM, and this Pro Personnel guy(especially) weren't in place 2 year ago. I mean if the perscribed solution had to have been "extend him way before this even comes up". Sure Whaley was in the office, but, do you know for a fact that this was Whaley's call? That would be a first, since according to Brandon they make "consensus" decisions. So, if that's true, then Whaley wasn't the only voice in this. If it isn't true, and this is Buddy Nix's call, which via your assertion, it would have had to be.... ....then what's with this "the Bills" crap? It isn't the same "the Bills". If you want to say that "Brandon was there", ok, but, was it Brandon's call to let Levitre walk? Most of the people who made the decision, that are still around, at best served as support for, or were on the periphery of, this decision. Why do I, a humble purveyor of truth, logic, and wiseassery, have to explain this to someone of John Wawrow's exalted status? I believe each GM should be given a clean slate, and be judged only on what happens on their watch. Otherwise, he's not really a GM, he's just somebody else's maintenance crew. Alternative example: Does Butler or Polian...as reason Bills made playoffs after 1994? Just like you can't credit Butler for Polian's choices, you can't fault Whaley for Nix's. EDIT: This is like a new, competent manager taking over a failed manager's project: nobody would even entertain the idea that "the Project" is the same old "the Project". It remains to be seen whether Whaley is different, but, his first draft, trade and UFA period went..um just a little bit better than "well". So far we have evidence of good off-season moves translating to good play on the field. No wins yet, but, demonstrably good moves.

Oh yeah. Actually, it was much worse for me: my dad ran one of the hospitals then, and he's an "overplanner" type. I think that was part of it: pointless teenage activity on my part just to enforce my "space", as much as it was being a "tough guy". I pretty much had my own orthopedic surgeon on call, and believe the cumulative stitches I have from him passed 40, long ago, never mind the nurses, PTs, etc. That guy is like my own personal torturer. When he is "fixing" me he's always egging me on to cry. He's a weird dude, a huge wiseass, and he usually tells me to tell my dad to F off, which is hilarious. The first time I got to say that was when I was 12. "Hey, it's not me, Dr. X said...to F off"! But he's fixed me, and "made me better", according to him, for years and years. It was great in HS, because I realized I could get out of school a lot, due to injuries, and I honestly didn't have too much problem with the pain pills. So, eventually I was getting over a lot, sometimes 3 times a week. What sucked was: in college, it's a whole other ball game. You have to see the trainer, at this time, for this time, and then you have to get to class, it becomes a drag/like a job. That's the one and only time I got cortizone. My torturer hit the roof when he found out. And, they try to completely control every aspect of your life, which...is a poor approach in dealing with me. Yep, a true coincidence that the computer always seemed "to go on the fritz" when it was my turn for PT. Look, I just recently I realized what was missing/why I wasn't working out as much as I should: Nobody yelling and swearing at me. So, I hired a personal trainer. You can't spend most of your life with people yelling obscenities at you, and have it taken away, and expect the same results. This guy swears like I do, which...is perfect. It's not the same unless you have somebody willing to cuss you out the whole hour. I'm thinking of hiring a job coach for the same reason: somebody who will cuss me out like my 1st project manager. I don't seem to respond as well, and I certainly drink too much, without somebody around to yell at me. Perhaps I should invest in a wife?

I think he's saying: "I couldn't watch the game, and, instead of being able to rely on these 2 schmoes to give me an accurate picture, I get inaccurate spin." How would Promo know about the running game, good or bad, they didn't say one friggin word about it. I mean, he's sitting here, today, writing a post, completely wrong about the running game, despite seeking information about the game. Whose job it is to inform Promo about the Bills? Vincent Gallo? Christina Ricci?

Hehehehe..... Just as an experiment, I decided to wait until now to turn on the show, and I was only going to listen for 5 mins to see what would happen. Quite literally as I type Bulldog is walking what I posted above about yesterday back. Now? It's "we need to guard against being overly negative, but it's hard when we've been here so many times". Yeah, you've been here with EJ before. EJ = Losman, Trent, Fitz....none of whom could have hit the passes EJ threw, just to Woods, and especially the pass to Gragg, ever. I've had the rewind running on one screen this afternoon. We haven't had a QB who can make those throws since Bledsoe. PERIOD! EDIT2: If I'm gonna be critical, I'm gonna say that EJ underthrew Goodwin on the play where he drew the PI in the 4th qtr. It's debatable whether Goodwin would have gotten there, despite the PI/laser throw, however, the underthrow caused Goodwin to slow down, which made the PI possible. The key was: that was a 40 yard pass....that EJ was trying to put "touch" on. Yeah.....it's the same. Fitz/Trent would have to old time baseball windup to make that throw, and Losman would have just gotten sacked/threw it out of bounds. So, it's not "the same". It's not even close, unless you have an agenda, or, unless the extent your "analysis" of football = looking at the boxscore. It's as I said: you don't like what they say? Post it here, because sure as schit they are reading it. EDIT: And, Schopp? Yes, tell me more about how you have to "deal with the callers, even if it kills you". Unmitigated moron.

I think you mean MgGahee? I dunno. I don't recall this episode of the, "We know less than the average TSW poster", and we call inaccuracy/inanity: "being entertaining", Schopp and the Bulldog show. But, it sounds about right. The formula: "Let's take something obvious, support the opposite, call it "counterintuitive" and therefore "interesting." Then, we will use the power of the hangup button to shout down anybody who disagrees, while at the same time, claim to want discussion." EDIT: The best 2 things about this forum? Accountability, and Nowhere to Run(no hangup button). You say something dumb, you pay for it. And, you don't get to stop other posters from lighting you up, by controlling the format. Ignore is counter-productive. Go ahead and ignore me, and then...not...see what I say about you! I am guessing that the O/U on Mike Schopp posting here is what? 1 hour? We'd all be on ignore by then for sure! Which...is pretty much how it is for him now. How would it be different?

I spent 2 seasons in a row in highschool with a nagging hip pointer. Actually, since summer was basically: camp, it's more like 3. I should have just taken 2 weeks off and let it heal. Instead, I kept playing on it. Finally, I ripped it out completely, including bone flaking off, and then was forced to lose a month. There's something to be said for being "tough" and "playing through injuries". There's also something else called: being an idiot. If he's going to re-injure his knee he needs to sit down. It's simply not worth the risk, for him or the team.

Yep. Like I said, had he just asked what's in bold, and not tried to insert his opinion, he would have had them: cold. Schopp is a clown, and he's already tried to send his surrogates to this board once, to remind us all that he could get a job elsewhere. As it happens, I can quit my job and get a new one, every day this week, including Christmas. So...so what? I promptly chopped them up. (Yeah, it was me, and I don't mind saying it.) I still have the PMs. One clown even wanted to meet me publicly . The bottom line is: they are intellectually inferior. We've had to behaviorally condition them(hence the end of them complaining about callers asking: "how's it going guys?" or "How're ya doin'?" Now? They respectfully say "great" and barely hide their "frustration", as if they're right to be offended by polite conversation, and the colloquialisms of WNY ), and even in spite of that, you know damn well that this board is part of their "show prep": every single day. They are reading this right now, and that makes me

Yesterday was hilarious. A caller tried/failed to properly articulate the following: "They were going to say what they were going to say, regardless of the outcome of the game." He screwed it up by injecting his own opinion, and instead, they accused him of "having a script". Total Fail. But, total projection by Schopp and Bulldog as well. The right way to have asked them: "What exactly are you saying right now, that you would'nt be saying, if they had lost? Conversely, and perhaps more importantly, what aren't you saying now, that you would have been saying after a loss?" Then, there's no door left open to project onto the caller. Frankly, having listened to their entire show, yesterday, I fail to see what comments would have been different. The created a BS standard: EJ throwing for 300 yards, conveniently AFTER the game. The fact is that no matter what EJ did, short of a 110+ QBR, they were going to say the same thing. All he has to do is make 1-5 bad throws, and their "script" automagically "fits".

"they do not want to challenge the ruling class, they want to join it" Yeah, I hear all that, but, the same thing has been said about the "stupid" blue collar white male since the 80s, and it's usually the Democrats. The problem with this argument is as old as time. At some point in pre-history, there were two villages located on the same stream, one up-stream from the next. The up-stream people urinated and defacated in the stream, causing no end of annoyance to the down-stream people. So, they go to war. And, regardless of the outcome, 6 months later, the stream is still being pissed in. Then some guy comes along, from another village, and promises the down-stream people that he will permanently cease the upstream pissing, provided they swear alligance to him. They do it, and now you have "Federal Government". Today, it's toxic chemicals and one state like Maryland down-stream, vs. West VA, PA, whatever. Same problem, same solution. There's always a role for Federal Government, by definition. Unless we want open war between 2 states. If that's the case, I am all for declaring war on New Jersey. We can take them. However, if we don't, then we have to understand that the need for Federal Government will ALWAYS be with us. Our problem is: We haven't done a good enough job defining EXACTLY what the Federal government role is, and, when we have, and they've breeched the agreement, we haven't done a good enough job correcting them, and/or punishing them. That, and we have 20% of our population who wan't to see the Constiution utterly destroyed. Frankly, since we all take oaths to that Constitution, via military service, law enforcement, public office, it's perfectly logical to classify these people as domestic enemies. I didn't say it was practical, I just said: logical.

Again, you call ME stupid? How does something that: 1. sets price for insurance via fixed subsidies 2. sets features for insurance via fixed benefits 3. sets reimburement rates via slave wages Provide ANY chance for efficiency increase? Sure, in the VERY short-term, you may see some lower prices here and there, but that's because they are being government enforced, and not as a result of "better mouse traps". In this model, just like in dopey Canada/England/Germany et al, you have quite literally removed all of the incentives to increase efficiency. Where's the ROI for a doctor who agrees to see Medicaid people? 0. He's going to get paid the exact same for his 200 patients, now and forever. Oh, there might be a COLA increase every few years. Hooray! The only thing this leaves is "cut cost". Which...is why, if I really was a selfish prick, narcissist, whatever, I'd be Obamacare's #1 supporter. Cutting cost is our specialty consulting practice in the health care industry. But, I am none of those things, and, I would like to see the best firms be able to charge premium prices for the best service...you know...like why Mercedes Benz exists? And, "economy" firms charge "economy" prices...like why Honda civics exist. You know, basically how the F markets actually work? Insurance itself is the culprit here. Health insurance, just like Medicare, was a means to an end...and an idea from 60 years ago which is now obsolete. Insurance existed because "don't you know there's a war on?" Cue: Harry Fonda and James Cagney. "Yeah buster, the government's got this new plan to win the war, see? And, where's your fedora, fella?" Obama himself called this "outdated" and/or "organized poorly". That's why we need to go to HSAs, that's why we need to do catastrophic/bankruptcy protection pools, that includes millions(and is sold by Wal Mart) ...and that's why liberals getting involved in things they no nothing about, and being aggressively stupid...is ALWAYS a recipe for chaos.

Well, I didn't see this thread. I looked, but didn't find. Oh well, I will put this here then: As of today, if we win both games: 13/14th (69% chance) 12-14th (87%). The mode is 13th(most likely outcome in the range) If we win 1 game: 10/11th (68%), 9-11th(88%). Mode is 10th. If we win 0 games: 7/8th (68%) 6-8th(83%). Mode 7th. However, the chance of 9th happening(13%) is only 2 pts off of the chance of 6th(15%) happening. So, that's practially a wash. (And, this reflects the "approaching limit" of this data at the lower boundary, hence the conclusions below) When we get above 80% confidence, normally that's says "enough". Summary: No top 5. 15% chance of 6, provided we lose both games. Which means, no Manziel, no Bridgewater, no Mariota. I say again: no Manziel, no Bridgewater, no Mariota. Wish all you want, when you get done? No Manziel, no Bridgewater, no Mariota. I believe I should also clarify something for the confused, especially Mike Schoop, and his clones: there was never a chance of us being in the top 5. Or, the odds of that happening, compared to the the odds of it not happening = no contest. Detail: 5 Teams currently "ahead" of us WILL take QB(HOU, JAX, OAK, CLE, MIN), 2 teams might. (ATL and TAM), and let's never count out the Redskins being "aggressive"(read: stupid). All but the one team(MIN) that isn't a "must" at QB, LOST YESTERDAY! Win or lose, we were never going to stay "ahead", in terms of draft order, or "behind", in terms of record, all 7(will/may draft QB) teams. We were never going to stay "ahead" of 3 of them. That's because: 8 teams have always had a better chance to finish "ahead" of us, than we of them. (Notice, this analysis doesn't feature "trade ups" from below 7 for teams that need QB. Trading up to 6, as opposed to 1-3, is a near certainty if any of the top 3 are on the board. So, technically you can add: Jets, PIT, TEN, and even DAL, ARZ, CHI, to the list of teams that need a QB, and will have the resources and draft position to move up ahead of us, but, I don't need to count them, because my argument still defeats the silliness, regardless). The "we should have lost arugument" is nonense. The math NEVER supported your argument. It didn't support it 3 weeks ago, and it doesn't support it now. This is because as we see above: "the approaching limit" = we had an easier schedule, and, there's only so much we could do with 5-6 games remaining and with teams 1-2 losses "ahead" of us, who are worse teams than us. Us losing doesn't account for them losing. In fact, it solves nothing. Conclusion: As you can plainly see(unless you have an agenda), even if we lose out, we STILL don't get anywhere near(realistically, 7th is as high as we go) where we need to be to pick the player you thought we could get, and nearly ALL the teams in front of us will pick QB. Please abandon the "we should have lost yesterday/I'm happy we lost to ATL/TAM" nonsense. Arguing against math is a waste of the board's time. Thank you.

Ah, so we have a new student. Please sit down over here, and I will educate you in the concept of Odds. You said "we would have". That's 100% chance. That's blatantly ridiculous. The odds of us getting into the top 5, even by losing out the last 5 games, were never above 30%. That's because there were always chances that we wouldn't lose 5 games. 4 games, 3 games, 2, etc., AND, because other teams are worse than us, and losing more, with harder schedules. You aggregate those odds...and yeah, the right answer is: "We almost certainly would not have broken the top 5". Again, if you don't know math, don't argue against it. I am taking ALL possibilities into account. That's how you do this job properly. Until I see a combine list, and until I see players at/not at that combine, you can take your reports, and blow them out your ass.

I couldn't agree more: The entire reason for this post? To dig a hole the depth of the Kola hole, and bury the "let's lose out and draft Manziel/Bridewater" argument at the bottom of it. At 7 I want the 2nd best tackle. At 10 I want the best WR. At 13 I want the best TE. Of course, if there's a steal I'd take that. Also, to underscore your ASSUMPTION. If we aren't taking QB.....then somebody else is. Trading down becomes an very real likelihood. Because this time, like with Austin, there will be ticket-selling names on the board at 7, and perhaps 10. I don't know why anbody would trade up to 13....

Um, are you a WGR listener? How about: have you read any Bills blogs? How about: have you read any threads here lately? You might want to see what's been said here and there.

As of today, if we win both games: 13/14th (69% chance) 12-14th (87%). The mode is 13th(most likely outcome in the range) If we win 1 game: 10/11th (68%), 9-11th(88%). Mode is 10th. If we win 0 games: 7/8th (68%) 6-8th(83%). Mode 7th. However, the chance of 9th happening(13%) is only 2 pts off of the chance of 6th(15%) happening. So, that's practially a wash. (And, this reflects the "approaching limit" of this data at the lower boundary, hence the conclusions below) When we get above 80% confidence, normally that's says "enough". Summary: No top 5. 15% chance of 6, provided we lose both games. Which means, no Manziel, no Bridgewater, no Mariota. I say again: no Manziel, no Bridgewater, no Mariota. Wish all you want, when you get done? No Manziel, no Bridgewater, no Mariota. I believe I should also clarify something for the confused, especially Mike Schoop, and his clones: there was never a chance of us being in the top 5. Or, the odds of that happening, compared to the the odds of it not happening = no contest. Detail: 5 Teams currently "ahead" of us WILL take QB(HOU, JAX, OAK, CLE, MIN), 2 teams might. (ATL and TAM), and let's never count out the Redskins being "aggressive"(read: stupid). All but the one team(MIN) that isn't a "must" at QB, LOST YESTERDAY! Win or lose, we were never going to stay "ahead", in terms of draft order, or "behind", in terms of record, all 7(will/may draft QB) teams. We were never going to stay "ahead" of 3 of them. That's because: 8 teams have always had a better chance to finish "ahead" of us, than we of them. (Notice, this analysis doesn't feature "trade ups" from below 7 for teams that need QB. Trading up to 6, as opposed to 1-3, is a near certainty if any of the top 3 are on the board. So, technically you can add: Jets, PIT, TEN, and even DAL, ARZ, CHI, to the list of teams that need a QB, and will have the resources and draft position to move up ahead of us, but, I don't need to count them, because my argument still defeats the silliness, regardless). The "we should have lost arugument" is nonense. The math NEVER supported your argument. It didn't support it 3 weeks ago, and it doesn't support it now. This is because as we see above: "the approaching limit" = we had an easier schedule, and, there's only so much we could do with 5-6 games remaining and with teams 1-2 losses "ahead" of us, who are worse teams than us. Us losing doesn't account for them losing. In fact, it solves nothing. Conclusion: As you can plainly see(unless you have an agenda), even if we lose out, we STILL don't get anywhere near(realistically, 7th is as high as we go) where we need to be to pick the player you thought we could get, and nearly ALL the teams in front of us will pick QB. Please abandon the "we should have lost yesterday/I'm happy we lost to ATL/TAM" nonsense. Arguing against math is a waste of the board's time. Thank you.

As I have said before: "Just win some F'ing games". *************** The Bills don't have a violence problem. The Bills have a losing problem, which, as many of us quite literally have lived, never mind just know, is the real cause of us turning the game into an "event". If the only thing we focused on was winning, and not partying, seeing our family, eating, etc...."The Bills Game", the institution, would have died for us, years ago. I will say it again: "Brandon: Spare me the song and dance, it's old. Enough with the "rules". Amazing how the old rules were just fine when we were winning some F'ing games. Don't blame anybody else but yourself for this situation. Nothing will change...until you win some F'ing games." Nobody is getting arrested, if there's a chance they might miss EJ throwing for 3 TDs in the 4th quarter. The stadium isn't filled with opposing teams fans, who are all looking for a cheap ticket, and possibly a fight, if it's been filled with Bills fans because we are winning.(Optimistic) However, if Trent Edwards is the QB, and Dick Jauron is the coach? WTF. Why not smoke that cigarette? Why not haul out that flask and drink up? Who the hell cares if they get tossed out of a game when you are down by 10 points in the 4th, it's 3rd and 5, and everyone in the stadium knows they are going to try the same stupid 3 yard pass in the flat play they've done all season, never mind this game. Did we get the 1st down? Of course not. 3 yards. Punt. Remind me: What exactly do I miss if I get tossed out during that? No, think about it: if I'm the "average tailgate partier", then, I've already partied, I've already eaten my food, I've already hung out with my family, I've already made the move on that chick...whatever. 80% of my expected "event experience" has already occurred, and getting tossed only means I go back to the tailgate and start getting dinner ready for everybody, provided I can get there. You want to give me a disorderly conduct? We'll see what my lawyer has to say about that. I can afford a good one, since, obviously I can afford season tickets. So...what do I have to lose, and what do you really acheive by throwing me out? Answer: nothing. Is ANYTHING in that going to change? Nope. Not if there's nothing to miss.(Realistic) EDIT: Also realistic: the tailgate didn't get this way overnight, and, it's therefore doubtful that it will change overnight. But, if we can keep the good, and minimize that bad, then the Bills game is the single best NFL gameday experience in the NFL. Period. All that I think is required is to keep the fans more interested in the outcome of the game, than they are in the other outcomes. When we know the outcome of the game is: lose, often as stupidly as possible, then the other outcomes become more interesting.