OCinBuffalo

Read this(Just read it, and don't whine and then quit reading it. The last paragraph is priceless.): http://www.slate.com...to_private.html Then read this commentary about it: http://www.popehat.c...m-a-bad-person/ My favorite part from the second: This guy would fit right in here. Well, I have no kids, so, I am probably a "good person" in the eyes of the dealth cult that is the so-called "progressive" movement. However, once again, the hilarity of their lack of logic is on display. The original writer talks about Liberal guilt? Hey clown: how about you start feeling guilty for 50 years of FAIL forced upon an unsuspecting educational system, that is certainly worse than when you found it? That guilt is much more appropriate. I also like how the commenter describes himself, of course, because that's probably right around where I am, on most things. I do want to see $ attached to kids, not schools, which means that money follows the kid if he changes schools. And, I do want to see mandatory fines/imprisonment/community service for parents who either don't support their child, or, don't send that child to school, prepared to learn, every single day. Prepared to learn = fed, clean, not itching from bed bugs, not wearing unwashed clothes. I also want to see a mandatory program created that says if you are on assistance, and you get pregnant again, out of wedlock? Immediate, life-altering consequences follow. It's time to knock back this LBJ, psedo-feminist, "have as many babies as you want" nonsense once and for all. IF that crosses the line of "liberty" so be it. The only reason this is happening is the phony, government generated-liberty that says "I can have as many kids as I want, and the rest of you have to pay for it". So, if you think about it, all we are really doing is removing artificial liberty, not the real thing, with that policy. It comes down to this: Liberals? I don't want to participate in your failure. Nobody else does either, not even other liberals. The fact that you think you can guilt us into supporting stupid? That tells us all we need to know about the value of your ideas.

You have no idea what that article says, do you? You have no idea that of the implications of that vote, and neither does Cohn the writer of your link. This is par for the course for this turd. He knows less than nothing about how Medicaid works, and that's why he glossed over the "after 3 years 90% of the costs will be picked up anyway" thing. No. They won't. They will not. Moreover, the unfunded mandates of this are going to represent a hell of a lot more than $3 billion in year 4. This piece = the Jills cheering the Bills last game. The play on the field is unworthy of cheering, but they do it anyway, because that's their job. Yet again we need ANOTHER exemption to make this work? After all these exemptions, who the F will this law apply to? I know! Me. Yes, I will be the only employer in the country who will have to deal with this idiocy. Me, and a lot of other small businesses who can't afford to hire a lobbyist to get us our exemptions. Yeah, Democrats represent the "little guy"! HA! I'm 2 for 2. gator proves his idiocy yet again, and, DC_Tom uses an emoticon! I am winning all the sports!

This is the question they won't answer. That's because: It's a (not)progressive application! You try to debug the thing, but it prints "You're a racist for questioning my logic. Please contact your Justice Department Bureaucrat." to the console, and then crashes. You go to the support page, click the link for the error message reference, and your email app comes up with some anonymous private account loaded. Man, what a load of crap. Yeah, libertarians are against driver's licenses. Being a competent driver is no different than being a competent voter. It's a simple process, and if you can't swing it: too f'ing bad. We can't keep supporting stupid in this country as though it is a disability of some kind. No. Stupid is a choice. So, you ARE denying that Democrats have committed massive voter fraud, in 10+ states, over the last 4 elections. That is denying reality, as many of them are now sitting in jail. I wonder: are they doing an impersonation of sitting in jail, or, are they actually there? I imagine if we asked them, they would tell you that their voter impersonation was very real, and so is the jail they are in. So, like I said: load of crap.

Thumb is out of position.

The injuries, the uncertainty, and the play on the field have already pushed me to the point where I'm saying "what have we really got to lose?" If EJ was any other sort of person, besides the one he clearly is, I'd say this was a concern. EJ is EJ, so it is not. If we are starting over, then, let's start over. I wonder if we are treading close to "those who can't do: teach" thing here with this "need a vet QB". It'd be one thing if Kurt Warner, or somebody with a winning record, but on the downside of his career, was available, and was interested in being a backup here. Who is that player? I don't know of one that is available. Example: The Colts have Matt Hasslebeck.

He did have his problems, but I did say: Which is how you know that this isn't accurate. No, I do not expect DBs to break up every single pass. No, I fully expect them to be beaten often. This is merely a numbers, or more accurately, a %s game. I didn't base my evaluation on the scoreboard or merely the outcomes of plays. No competent coach does that. I looked at each individual player, in terms of technique. Specifically, not whether they got beat, but rather, after the WR made their initial move, how well did the CB react, and recover their position? What did they do prior to the move that gave them the best chance to recover? How often and how badly were they beaten, because they were too slow to turn their hips and run, or, don't have the necessary foot quickness and strength to make contact with their man at the LOS, and delay his rout, thereby giving the D Line time to get to the QB? Yes, Butler was beaten. However, taking each play into consideration, including the ones where his man wasn't targeted, Butler is a competent cover guy. The main reason that TJ Heath was picked on so often? Butler had better coverage on his man, especially the first 5 yards off the LOS. However, as I said, he is not currently capable of dealing with a #1 WR. Right, the lines are always more important, but especially when we miss on a high DB. However, when we hit on a high DB....what? exactly what? Guys like you spend 3 months after the draft telling us that, while you understand the need for CB, the 5-6th best LT on the board would have been a better pick than the #2 CB on the board. It's this illogical, and inconsistent, approach to posting here that I have identified. Too bad if you don't like it. It's the same thing every time: missing on a high DB pick is always 5x the sin that missing on a high lineman pick is. Horsecrap. Dangerous horsecrap to boot. We need to draft more DBs, because we need more of them on the field, period. We don't need to decry the FO every time they do what is merely: prudent. It's as I said. Enough is enough with this distortion and/or double standard.

Let me disabuse you of that notion right now: I was at the game I was a D1 athlete who played man-to-man and zone defense for 4 years. I know what running in coverage, turning your hips at the right time, backpedaling, cutting, recovering, pressing, etc.....is supposed to look like. I saw little of that tonight. I have seen other Bills teams, and, I have seen other teams in general, with players at the DB positions do these things properly. I have coached these things off and on for years. So, no, none of this is "natural", or "estimation" or whatever. This is a trained eye telling you: No F'ing Way, or whatever else is required. It's far past time to lay this down. Let it go. Whatever you have to do. We need 4 guys who can cover in this league, and that doesn't include safteties. Period. You cannot expect playoffs without them, becasuse we have to assume that at least one of them will be injured. 80% of the teams in this league have a base package with 3 WRs. Or, at the very least 2 TEs and a WR. Safeties need to cover as well. Middle LBs have to be able to cover. See a pattern? If not, let me help: it's about "cover". We've got DEs dropping into coverage now. Is that "wise"? We were smoked 3 times, right in front of me, because we had a LB covering a WR. No chance. I KNOW that if that is a real game, that LB is not on the field. Our 3rd or 4th CB is, or, one of the Ss, now that we are blitzing so often. That's right: our base defense is 3 CBs. That's 3 starters. Last time I checked, it isn't "wise" to be drafting players who are sitting on the bench during the game, as "depth" O line/D line will be, and ignoring the players who will actually be in the game, almost every play.

The simple fact is that while Belechick has been terrible at drafting since Pioli left(don't ask me why), and especially so when it comes to DBs he has been able to mitigate that by having 3 things: 1. An above average D line, and front 7, in terms of results, not necessarily talent. They've played as a team better than almost every other team. 2. An excellent scheme, that is excellent becuase it is flexible, and can be adjusted and tailored to suit the players he does have 3. Superior LB play, that is a direct result of taking what would be JAGs on another team, and putting them in position to play to their strengths However, given what I have seen this preseason, and this CANNOT be explained away using the preseason excuse, this scheming away deficiencies may have finally caught up to him. I said MAY. There are serious issues at LB, perhaps for the very first time ever since Brady/Belechik started. From what I've seen: 1. Slow LBs in run pursuit 2. Multiple LBs who can't cover: anybody 3. Marginal to weak pass rush, even when they've sent 2-3 blitzers This may be the year that all the bad drafts matter, because the LBs and DLs can't hold up their end, never mind cover for a weak secondary. When they first had trouble at LB, they got Randy Moss and Wes Welker, and went from being a defensive team that wins by Vinatieri FG, to an offensive team that wins by Brady TDs. They have never replaced the LBs they had in the SB years. What makes this year different: they also haven't replaced the WRs.

I can live with that. One thing about Lewis? Awesome ball fake skills. He completely fooled me on one play. That made the $15 I paid worth it by itself. I ended up watching the RB, who got tackled by 2 guys for no gain, and I'm just about to.....and then I was gonna say #@%! but... I didn't realize that Lewis had the ball, was long gone the other way, and was running for the 1st. Read option? All day.

Perhaps, however, on 3rd down, did they run, or pass, to get the 1st? They passed. Almost every time, IIRC. In fact, I'm sitting here with no stats, trying to remember if they ran on ANY 3rd or 2nd and short. I don't remember one.

Shouldn't this thread end now?

Your Chris Brown quote is telling: Marrone is being Marrone, and not throwing his players under the bus. However, I am not Marrone, and I don't have his responsibilities or his considerations. No amount of coaching is going to "put them in position". No. I could get all technical, and explain exactly why they were awful(and make no mistake, I can), or, I can just tell you: these kids can't play this game at this level. They lack the physical talent and the mind-->body that is required. No. The run game was not the issue. The pass game was. Over and over. So many times they got little on runs on 1st and 2nd. So many 3rd downs, as soon as we dropped into zone, and every time we played man, they were killing us. They were killing us because both Butler and Heath were often as much as 5 yards out of position, often right after the snap. Yes. And it doesn't matter. We have to have 3-4 above average cover guys on this team, at all times. We could have won this game, easily, if we had just 2 above average cover guys on the field. If we hit on the next 3 DBs drafted, then we can look elsewhere. Until then, we cannot afford to pretend this is 1985.

I'm down with that after a few weeks. Not now. That's why I said "going into the season". Reason: On one play, Lewis got the snap, and quickly threw to air. He had expected Brad Smith to be running forward, not standing as he was. Thankfully it happened so fast that it was INC. Body language said that was on Lewis. It's going to take Lewis a few weeks to learn the playbook. However, again, Lewis is exactly the type of QB that can back up EJ, in terms of skill set.

I hear ya, and normally I'd say this is reasonable. Nope. Not today. But for the Lions WRs(who did not include Megatron, so there goes the 1s vs 1s argument) dropping ball after ball? The score is worse. Against anyone other than a Lions QB who, if he played for the Jets, would be just as hyped, and just as awful, as Sanchez? The score is worse. Edit: To your other point(sorry): DB is harder and harder to find, because less and less of that body type is playing football. Nevermind the fact that WRs are getting bigger, AND, teams are using 3-4 of them every play. You have to keep drafting DB, and, yes, you are going to miss on more than you hit, which means you have to draft more of them. This is the reality of NFL football in 2013. Tonight is yet another confirmation of this.

That's OK. Bill is certainly capable of putting his head back together after it explodes, but, only after he has dealt with the reality I just observed. Thanks. I've been to both games at home this year. This team is better by a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong shot that it was last year. Especially given the fact that we are running a D that plays to our strengths(which...is basically WTF you do as a competent D coach, in any sport). We ran base D practically the whole night, blitzed little and left it to our CBs to cover. This was obviously intentional. It's as if they told Heath and Butler: "Only one of you is making the team. Perhaps neither." As I said, I am not worried by our front 7. I am worried about our DBs, and in this league, in this decade, this is problem #2 on Defense. Pass rush, or lack of it, is problem #1.

Simple: Lewis is your 3rd stringer going into the season. Cut/IR Kolb. Do it today. No reason to wait. Need I even mention Linehart? Hell, I was joking with the sheriffs on the way out of the game: "you guys wanna give Linehart a police escort to the bus station?" All of them were fully supportive of that idea. One guy said: "It's not even about his safety, we just want him out of here". Lewis can run the O. I saw that from row 15 today. The players responded to him, hell, the whole stadium responded when he got into the game. : Lewis will not hurt us, and, he can move the chains enough to close out a game. He can, given only 2 days of practice, run this O. His skill set is a match. For me there's little left to discuss. It's EJ, Tuel, Lewis, in order. Done.

Having just returned from the game, and, having spent all of it focused on the defensive backfield when the Lions had the ball, and, having seen our lack of depth, and especially TJ Heath, get beat 10+ times: Those of you who decry drafting CBs and Ss high are literally fooling themselves. We had them...over and over, drive after drive...but for bad DB play. We, and when I say we, I mean 5+ rows/seats in my section, all around me, could see what was going to happen before the snap, 80-90% of the time: the DBs simply failed. Period. Lack of talent is the issue here: 1. Searcy needs to be cut immediately. 2. TJ Heath is not even PS material.(Disclaimer: the Lions picked on him mercilessly. However, he should have been able to make at least 1 play. He did not.) EDIT: He did make one play...sorta. The WR would have had to make a circus catch to haul it in and stay in bounds. Heath made sure he couldn't. 3. Crezdon Butler is a capable player, but only against a #2 or less WR. He broke off his man coverage and tackled a RB for a loss. That alone means he makes this team, almost by default. 4. Dangerfield = cut. 5. Duke Williams was worth the draft pick, but, he is a rookie, and prone to being overly aggressive(see penalty(ies?)). 6. Meeks = solid PS 7. I'd put Kip Edwards on my team before any of the above players. 8. Justin Rogers didn't play enough for me to form a reasonable opinion. 9. I am wasting bits and time talking about Robey in any capacity. People: We cannot play the NFL game with this level of talent at DB. End of story. We need our starters, sure, but, what happens when they get hurt? What happens when we need 4 cover guys on the field at the same time,plus 1 or 2 Ss? I will tell you: this game. Enough is enough. You simply cannot continue to claim that the O lines and D lines are always more important, watch the game tonight, and then call yourself an informed football fan.

Read my avatar. This is the precise reason I created it. Also, it's the same reason I changed my title. Even though some things/times will look bad this year, we cannot surrender to despair. We are finally moving in the right direction. That much is obvious. Anyone who thinks we aren't, either isn't thinking much at all, or, has an agenda that includes being negative for the sake of being negative.

The other thing it does is destroy upward mobility and continues the permanent underclass. Small businesses can't hire, so they can't grow. This keeps the small guy where he is, and doesn't allow him to move up. All of the training budget that might be used to educate a new worker, especially one whose skills are no longer useful(the structurally unemployed), will be eaten by Obamacare's "tax". That's the real paradox. I can't hire someone I can't use, and, I can't train them to be useful, because I can't afford Obamacare. I can't train them based on only 29 hours a week, and get a ROI, and why would I spend training $ on somebody who's only useful for 29 hours a week? So I do nothing. People stay unemployed, the small business owners stay down because they couldn't hire them, and the people who have a job aren't going to quit and start their own firm, because the potential risk outwieighs the potential reward. Meanwhile the big corporations, who are buddy buddy with Obama, get exemptions, or This is the real evil of the thing. Without it, many, many people would have already been hired. The recession has been over for years. But, the "walking then running" growth period that always follows a recession has been put on hold by Obamacare. If we took away Obamacare tomorrow, the economy would begin to boom a month later. It really is as simple as that.

Remember when conner, or was it blzurl, or some other standard PPP retard suggested a war between conservatives and (not)progressives? Like Democrats would stand a chance. It wouldn't be a war. It would be a massacre.

Do you deny that Democrats have committed voter fraud all over the country in the last 4 elections? If so, then you aren't interested in solving problems either. This is because you aren't interested in beginning the problem solving process correctly: with proper problem definition.

George W Bush. The only man alive who could have singlehandedly turned BushBad, into BushBetter, by merely hanging out at his ranch and keeping his mouth shut. Even now, George W is still beating Al Gore.

I am now thoroughly informed about the political persuasions of the Chicago commercial shipping scene. "So, I've got that going for me".

Here is one of the 600k people who were at the Houston Oliers comeback.... ....that I believe. My condolences, your father is one of the people who helped create the best community of fans in the world.

Great. Another useless thread started by our new unmitigated moron. Let's fight stupid with logic: 1. The government support for Planned Parenthood does not allow me to benefit from free/subsidized birth control. 2. Therefore, I demand that they immediately stop funding this. This is not like spending on the Coast Guard. It is distributed in every state, because it is a concern in every state. Every woman benefits form it equally, but, not every American benefits from it equally. 3. There is no equivalent spending for men that offsets this exclusive expenditure for women. 4. Since the budget is in fact, "the law", the law is: sexist. There is no flaw in that logic. However, the policy it suggests is patently retarded. Patently retarded: just like everything this turd posts.