OCinBuffalo

I've got stuff to do, but, if I get some extra time, I might try and do a proper analysis to see if this is true. I would think that the non-division win % over 10 years would be a good way to measure if that was in fact the case. And, no, the Patriots performance in that would not skew the #s: they are in our division. I might have time to do a thread this week on that. We'll see. Somebody might already have that stuff laying around as well.

If that is the case, then that merely adds weight to WEO's point. It goes from highly likely to near certainty. I can't say Long won't make it in. But, I suppose the fact that the Dolphins couldn't find a way to retain him/didn't start with "we have to keep him first, and then we'll see about whatever remains of the rest of the $98 mil", says that the draft pick was better spent on Ryan. I mean, the guy isn't on your team anymore. Ryan is still on his. That alone may be all we need to say. Which...again makes me question how the Dolphins "won" the offseason. Did the Bills "win the offseason" when we dropped all that cash on Langston Walker et al? Given what I've seen tonight? Tannehill isn't great. He may be good. He's certainly not great-->makes the $98 mil, a lot of which was spent on WR/TE, better. He's not going to compound that value. It's value is whatever it ends up being. Tannehill also isn't great, in that he's going be clearly able to make the left side OL issues irrelevant. Frankly, I don't think Joe Montana could help that situation. If they don't make significant improvement at LT/LG, and nothing says they can't, it's only the HOF game, it will cost them. It reduce the value of the investment in WR/TE.

Yes, and by doing this, they create a near mathematical certainty( = 97%), that they will always be: right-->more realistic-->more knowledgeable about football. It's logical fallacy based on poor math skills. I don't know whether it is intentional. However, that really doesn't matter, as the result is always the same = "blah blah I was right about us sucking". Being "objective" '= starting with a 97% chance that you are right, and then taking credit for being right, because you were being "realistic" in your evaluation. No, you simply had the odds, significantly, in your favor. Same thing is true for playoffs = 63%. That's like taking credit for being the house in Vegas. That's not sound, "realistic", analysis: that's taking credit for being exactly in line with a lucrative business model. The people who pick the Bills record are the real objective folks. And, the "every year teams that were 4th in the division end up as 1st...but not the Bills" is a double edged sword. Since that is true, then we can clearly say that the Bills playoff drought is an outlier, and something to abhor. But, we can just as easily say that since it is an abberation, the chances of that abberation being corrected increase every year. The Bills don't live in a vaccuum, and the data based on the entire league shows that we can reasonably expect a correction relatively soon. So, being positive, in terms of expecting that correction, is, if we do our stats properly, because we know how: the most realistic position to take.

Yes, and every year they are supposed to win it all. Yet, every year there always seems to be some excuse. I don't know enough to say whether that excuse has to do with Ryan, or not. So, as I said: I don't know enough about Ryan to say I did see Long play, lots, and it was clear to me that, for what an LT means today(and not 6+ years ago), he more than held down his end. But, I do see your point: I'd take really good QB with some potential to be great, over, excellent LT with a chance to go to HOF all day. QB is simply that important, and LT, less so, especially since it is today, and not 6+ years ago.

Soo...are you telling us you dated a big girl, with bad hair, and summer teeth, with that not-so-fresh feeling? Um...why?

It's on, huh?

This is true because the contrapositive is also true: If EJ/Whaley/Marrone do pan out, will it be because of Ralph or Littman or Nix or Donahoe or whomever...? How many fans will be lining up to give the past credit, if the present is successful? Possible exceptions: Give Ralph credit for getting out of the way. Give Nix credit for drafting Spiller, and creating the culture, starting with the scouting department, of success. Alex Carrington panning out puts the 2010 draft in a whole new light. Same is true for Troupe. All of this is merely an exercise in logic, and math, and whether you apply both properly.

Or, ask yourself: Is there any chance that this team won't be entertaining this year? As in, fun to watch? Compare this year to the Trent Edwards/Dick Jauron teams, where the philosophy was to hang around until the 4th quarter and try to win by FG? As I said above, the math is stacked against us, and if you measure purely based on playoffs, you have a 2 in 3 chance of being unhappy. However, if you measure in terms of "fun to watch", I'd say this team has about an 80% chance of being exactly that. CJ Spiller and Fred are on this team, and, we finally have a crazy D, once again. In terms of norms: a crazy D is the norm, over my lifetime, for the Bills, and conservative, hold the POA, is the outlier.

Hehehe...now this is thoughtful analysis. I wonder if you are right? I can't say. Primarily because I don't know enough about Ryan to say. I saw enough of Long to be quite pleased that he is gone. In the end, it's only one early preseason game. But, the Dolphins can't be happy about what they've seen here today. They don't need to be depressed, but, they can't be happy. Lots of mistakes, sloppy play, and most importantly: Tannehill inaccuracy. His first 4 practices were atrocious. Then, in their team scrimmage, he did well. But this looks more like the first 4 practices. If the reporting is to be believed.

This is idiocy. Well intentioned, an attempt at thoughtful discourse, but still, idiocy. It's idiocy for 1 reason: 31 out of 32 teams will not win the SB, and only 12 teams of out of 32 will make the playoffs. That means 20 don't. Thus, "realisitic" means the negative people will tend to be "right" automatically... ...due to math... ....and not necessarily due to their ability to analyze, or understand, the game, or the quality of their understanding/analysis. Being negative is simply the easy, and safe, choice. Of course it is the most "realistic". The math means it has to be. But, it certainly doesn't make anyone who tends to be negatve more knowledgeable about football. In fact the person who chooses to be positive, because they have something they've seen that makes them that way, and when the positive outcome they predict occurs? They have a high propensity to know the game better than the negative person does, again, due to the math. To pick against the "baked in" math/trend, and be right, means you almost definitely know WTF you are talking about, or, you just got lucky, Conversely, being right about being negative tells us very little, since again the odds are stacked 2/3 in the negative poster's favor.

Sorta. Not really. How do you win in FA, if you lose Jake Long? Or, how do to you win, by losing Jake Long, and replacing him....with these guys? Who've been beaten on 8 out of 11 plays so far?

So far? With the number of times Miami has been hurt by poor play at the LT position, like we just saw? Winner in FA my ass. They were able to run the ball over the right side. But that left side looks to be Jerry Hughes heaven as of today.

Then, there's this white lunch bag.

Yes, yes, and you're trolling activity has been funny 3.5 times out of 20 lately. Whoever actually had the Crayonz account before was a lot better at this than you are.

My criticism of Mike Schoop didn't begin in earnest, until he sent his surrogates onto this board(yes, your evil vision, right here. ) and they attacked us, and then refused to answer our questions. Disclaimer: Normally I never post PM stuff, but, in this instance, due to the passage of time, and the fact that we've never heard from this poster in years, it's appropriate. Especially since he called us all cowards, but then has never shown his face here since. If you recall, it began with the very same intentional misspelling you see above. I believe I still have all of the PMs from that...checking...yep, I do. The first one includes the famous, "I'll debate you anywhere", and "I'm done with this thread", which was followed of course by 13 posts and 3 more PMs. Mike's "friend" said this about his friend: "There is no doubt that football is his fourth favorite sport behind baseball, hockey and tennis and I'm sure that contributes to his surliness that day(the day after the draft)." It is therefore not wrong to make this point, and question why we have a guy in Schopp, who doesn't know/doesn't want to talk about football, on the radio, when the Bills are the #1 thing in this town, since it is a matter of fact. A "long 9(now 13) years has made it difficult" for all of us, not just Mike. But, as this site shows, we all still want to talk about the Bills, and, it's Mike's friggin job, for Pete's sake. And yes, according to Mike's friend, this all started with the Schopp vs. Donahoe thing. So really, all of this overblown criticism is: your fault. (Oh, and just realized now that I completely missed a pm from you about helping out. Poor showing on my part. If you need, just ask.)

I will say, if you ever go to Indiana and have to spend some time there...you might consider preparing yourself for, what we would consider, inappropriate use of the word "sack". Yes, "sack" just rolls off the tounge like it's nothing in Indiana. You will hear things like: "Did you bring your sack"? "What's in your sack"? "I wonder what's in his sack?" "Somebody forgot their sack" "That sack is too big for her" "I had 3 sacks in my car, and they broke and got everywhere. What a mess!" (I FAILed to keep my composure when I heard that one) "We could give everybody a sack, and then they'd be be prepared for the next meeting" Oh don't worry, It never ends, nor does it ever get old. I was there for 6 months...and every night I would go back to the hotel room and laugh hysterically. Every day, every meeting was a constant exercise in patience. EDIT: Oh and as far as the topic goes? I don't plan on going to Seattle much anymore. But, if I do, you can bet I will find the time to stand on a busy corner and yell out ALL of the banned words. Double EDIT: So, yeah, by propogating use of the word sack, the people of Seattle may not realize what they are in for. Liberal unintended consequences strike again!

What? Did somebody say Prada? What!? I'm eqal opportunity when it comes to women, and I've been like that since I was little. Deal with it.

The threshold, moron, was set by liberals long ago: 1. Single Payer is better because it covers everbody and/or ensures everyone has access to health care 2. Single Payer is better because it is cheaper for everybody, including the people who already have health care benefits, because, you take away the profit margins of the private insurance companies 3. Single Payer is better becuase it ensures proper care, and keeps care decisions away from the evil VPs of private insurance companies. 4. Single Payer is better becuase when everybody is covered, and pays some/the government pays some, the cost of care will be spread out amongst that revenue, and this will allow us to lower premiums and the kicker? 5. Single Payer is better because it removes the burden of paying health care benefits from companies, allowing them to create more/better jobs = more middle class jobs. Now, ask anybody on this board if 1-5 is true, or will ever be true. In fact, I challenge everyone here to repeat 1-5, but, rewrite them based on reality, and not liberal, magical thinking. The middle class would rather have private insurance. That is the VAST MAJORITY. So, no, single payer is not helping the vast majority, if the vast majority wants nothing to do with it. You should never go into sales. You don't understand the concept of "value proposition". Single payer is the best at 1 thing: breeding corruption and incompetence. Single payer only does what it is designed to do: create yet another column of leftist centralized FAIL, because it does NOT solve the problem for which it was established, it merely performs its intended purpose: 1. creates condiitions for leftists to draw both votes and power 2. reward its enablers by being a platform for handing out benefits, jobs, and contracts Anybody else see how easily these clowns slip between: "what is best for everybody" and "what is best for the individual" based solely on whatever is convenient for their argument at the time? "Yes, tiered care is great, but, single payer is also great! Let's keep spending money on everything, everywhere! Efficiency and effectiveness be damned!" It's a lie, people. It's a lie that is solely predicated on giving more power to DC, so that these clowns can have more power, and their percieved enemies, American business, can have less. In their 0 sum world, every time my company expands, they lose power. So, they have to have constant control over me, so that I don't expand too fast, be in positon to exploit the market, and outpace their ability to control me. Lord knows they don't want me to turn into yet another "rags to riches" story, in which the government had no role. Then, I might walk around with a general contempt for them, and government employees in general. I might even go on message boards, and tell people how little value they truly add to society.

Yes, and too bad for you, I retain control of what I write, why, and whether the length of it suits my purpose. You'll read it regardless.

If we believe him, he told Murph that he picked Buffalo over 17 other teams. So, yeah, that is the steal of the century right there. But wait. Why did he choose us? He came here because we drafted Robert Woods and Marquise Goodwin, and those 2 were guys he liked and worked out with. So, if you want to know how we got Rogers? Look no further than: Buddy Nix's draft. That has to stick in the craw of some of you. And I think that's

#1: I ain't touching the Mac vs. PC thing. It's like wrestling with a pig, all you get is dirty, and the pig likes it. Years and years of arguments have pretty much solved: nothing. Oh really? Well, don't you realize that "Mike Schopp has received multiple offers from other cities to do radio shows there"? That means: we are truly fortunate to have Schopp, so you aren't allowed to complain. EDIT: What that really means? Schoop doesn't realize that we would prefer that he takes those other offers. I am calling that bluff all day, all night, and with every chip on the table. Yes, and this is the "mad scientist" characteristic of this whole thing. The bosses can f around and do all kinds of stupid things, and we have to put up with it, because we want info and analysis on our teams. WGR being highly rated? That says nothing about the radio station, and everything about the fans of the Sabres and Bills. The delusion that WGR labors under is that the ratings have something to do with them. Given their performance and decisions over the years, if this station was in any other city? Blown out of the water, long ago. Listening to Sal right now? That is good performance, and he just made a great decision to bounce a turd caller. The difference betwen him and Schoop? He actually hates doing it, and, he's done with it. He isn't spending the next 2 minutes talking about why, and explaining his superior rationale.

Fascinating. Do you really believe this helped your case? That I, of all posters here, have made up an Obama, in my head? And, that I hate anybody, never mind Obama?* And that "this stuff", specifically, that Stevens was conducting his own unsanctioned operations, or, not conducting the ones he'd been ordered to conduct, as ordered, has been "out"? Fascinating. Do you even know the difference between the State Department and the CIA? Do you know which one Stevens belonged to? Yes, a career diplomat...conducting covert intelligence operations, on foreign soil, that are unsanctioned by Obama, and displease him. All this with no reference to the CIA at all? And not just this, but that: Obama put a "hit" out on his own diplomat? And this has all been "out for a long time"? This is a new low for you ...lybob. Imagine my surprise at saying that. You know, I've really tried to avoid turning you into my conner. Frankly, I never wanted the responsibility that Tom had taken on with that guy. You are making it difficult. *You know who I really hate? My gifted and talented teacher in 8th grade. She is the only person I truly hate in the entire world, because she was a disgusting ugly pig who kept finding reasons to rub her nasty breasts on me. That is the only person I hate. Edit: the more I think about it, it's more like pity than hate, anyway. Obama is an annoyance, but, he is a relatively decent human being, and there is no call for anyone to hate the man. He is simply out of his depth, and is only where he is due to media malpractice, and the decline of the Democratic party, as a party. The man is in office based on a big lie. The big lie is only functional because so many people want to believe it. IF there's anything to hate, it is the lie, not the man.

Wait a minute...now you are quoting yourself ...lybob? Look at the post above. WTF is that? And not only that, you are saying, honestly, that the reason the President left this guy to die...was insubordination? And implying that we shoul therefore be Ok with it? A commander, leaving his troops to die...because he is pissed at them? Anyone else want to know why I say we should never let the far left be in charge of of something, without the commensurate adult supervision? I am pretty sure any reason anyone had to be critical of me making fun of you...just went out the window with this post, as well.

Well at least that's better than Single Payer health care....that bird has been in the oven for 70 years, but apparently...it's still a work in progress?

It's hilarious. They know marketing priciples well enough to use Spyware-->Analytics to get themselves elected. Yet, they completely forget them when it comes to governing? The reason the HHS secretary was out raising money? The internet ad campaign they are going to try and run. Too bad for them: the NSA story, coupled with the the IRS scandal, has got everbody's radar up. Make no mistake, the web will take their money. But, right afterwards, will release meme after meme that makes fun of them. It's going to be entertaining really, the first truly all out internet war since the Napster mess? The right has a lot of ground to make up in terms of logistical support, however, they have the moral high ground: ("why are they giving big business a pass, but making you pay right now, Mr. 20-something? Could it be because this plan depends on your money, on you overpaying for something you are unlikely to need, and fails if you refuse to sign up? You're being scammed, buddy. You're being treated like an idiot. How does that make you feel?), never mind the initiative. They shouldn't wait and respond, they should be out there right now beginning the attack, try to make the Dems use up their money defending, and never allow them to get their message out they way they want it.