OCinBuffalo

And.... don't you mean suck-suck-suck?

Seems to shut down everybody...but the grammar police = "address with WHOM?" To the point: Yep, we are clearly, at many positions, piling up a whole bunch of young guys, each with potential, and asking "who(not whom) wants it more?"

This is a key point, and is most likely the signal in a whole bunch of noise. I bet our most knowledgeable, and focused on, O line posters would agree: O line is about the unit, it's not about one guy. And, it's about learning technique, and turning that into skill. Only after those 2 things, is it about personal attributes, ht, wt, speed, etc. I am not saying Marrone can turn sow's ears into silk purses. However, frankly I don't think he has to do that. There are a lot of statistical analyses that had the Bills O line rated quite highly last year. Given the above, you don't lose that because you lose one guy. Rather, I am betting that there's a lot of little stuff that Marrone knows that he can teach the guys, and so far, it appears that is precisely what he is doing. The question is: will all this little stuff + whoever wins LG allow us to take 7 step drops and throw the ball for 40+ yards in the air, a thing that we weren't able to do much of, due to arm of the past QB, and not necessarily due to the O line. If that answer is yes? Then I'd put Spiller at the top of my fantasy board right F'ing now. Oh, and in that case? I'd also prepare for the "It's not that EJ Manuel was a good pick(and/or Kevin Kolb has finally turned the corner), or is a good QB, it's that he has CJ Spiller on his team (so actually we weren't wrong)" articles from ESPN right F'ing now as well.

Logic? Which month is this again?.

You have unintentionally made a key point, because you are either ignoring an obvious cause and effect relationship, or reversing it: Yes, we have not re-signed many of our players. It's likely that we haven't done this 2x as much as the Pats. But: Over the course of that time, or at this point in time(doesn't matter), what results have the Pats gotten, and what have the Bills? Why would I reward another contract...to guys who have played poorly? Why wouldn't I reward another contract...to guys who have played well? Another way to say this is: "Fox Butterfield, is that you"? Link: http://online.wsj.co...4228137272.html The fallacy here: Re-signing ---> winning. Wrong. Winning ---> re-signing. The cause is winning, and re-signing is the effect, on average. And, since you are talking in terms of the entire team, and not 1 player, then yeah, speaking in terms of the aggregate is appropriate. N'est-ce pa? In the case of Brad Smith: being merely OK, and not being the cause of winning, but also not being the cause of losing, and likely having more to contribute != contract extension and a bump. No. It = contract restructuring and a pay cut.

9 "go" routs to start practice? Awesome. Fans or no fans, show or no show, from a pure football perspective...that is awesome.

Perhaps the best way to say this is: If you are going to spend 10 years saying "Ralph is cheap." then you don't get to complain when he spends $, and it doesn't work out. Reason: your simplistic solution was/is "more money = problem solved". Therefore, the premise for your position of being critical of the Bills, from this angle, is saftisfied merely by the application of $. Sports writers, TV commentators, fans, have chosen to make it simple in these terms. The simple solution they've defined should work, if it is in fact: that simple. When it doesn't, they don't get to complain, and they sure as hell don't get to excuse their piss poor analyis, which created their oversimplified solution, by now saying "well, it's more complicatied", or, "it's not as simple as just spending more $". Yes morons, it was always more complicated, and was never as simple as spending more $. The fact that they are just now arriving at understanding this, which many of us have known since day 1, says a lot more about them(hence: morons), than the Bills. This informs What the OP is saying here: Media/Fans: Pick a position on QB, and then stick with it. If over time, you don't want to stick with it anymore: publicly disavow that position, and don't try to pretend that you never said it. You certainly don't get to complain about the Bills doing what you wanted, and then it not working out. That is the land of the Eagle fan/media, and we are, in every way, simply better than that.

Heteronormative. Don't forget heteronormative. The idiot left has a new toy to play with, and there she be. I'm looking at your link....I'm thinking, this link is either really racist, sexist....and kinda funny... ...or it's yet another redirect to Peter Pan (as you are an IT guy with what I assume are the skills to pull that off)... ...or it's just taco pie.

This is the irony in all of this. Obamacare's success in large part depends upon young, healthy, white males buying into it. Yes, the very same people that have been the subject of incessant attack/marginalization, for their entire lives thusfar, by the biggest suppoters of this law. Consider: these young white males are the 20-30 year old "oppressors", who don't even know they hold such status. Now, if you were to ask about oppressing their buddies, by farting and then locking the windows...that is a different story. In fact a liberal blogger wrote this up in detail some time ago. I was thinking then, and, I'm thinking now: "Telling guys in their 20s they have to do anything, never mind spend good beer money on bad law? Law that the liberal blogger directly stated rips them off, in favor of the people who will be asking for their money for the rest of their lives? With the reason for this being, again stated by the blogger, that they should consider themselves lucky to be young, healthy and white, not everbody can be, and therefore: they owe?" Hilarious FAIL rationale. The shakedown of the insurance companies for advertising dollars, is disgusting, but also irrleveant. Why? Can't wait to see the Old Spice/Axe Body Wash-esque Obamacare commericals. ESPN the Healthcare. "Dude, the law is good for you, bro, you should whip out your phone and check it out. And, while you're there, check out what the laaadies are saying about it. Allriiiight. (cheezedick nod/smile) See you at GetMeMyExhcange.com. Peace." Yeah, it's going to make us all cringe, and then laugh, when the distortion of young white males they've been running for years, bends full circle, to bite them in the ass. Doubt it? 3 words: Duke Lacrosse Case. Thus, there's even precedent for this. The government group of most software/consulting firms is 90-95% minority. Merely go to a trade show and see for yourself. Then go to the same firm's show in any other industry. Amazingly, it's down around 10%...which is just enough to keep the "greivance industry" off their backs, and, they can always point to the government group if things start to look Sharpton. Yeah...no pattern there at all.

This is why I wish some sort of voting feature existed. This way, if a thread sucks, and starting a new one, especially if it is specific, is preferable, we could see that, and the crap thread would be automatically closed. OTOH, whose to say the new thread won't suck just as bad as the old one? Thus, we are left with the best thread available, and we know what the conventional wisdom is on that.

I am considering creating my first twitter account...specifically to tweet back at Greg Sargent, with the following: Obama pivoting to economy = Morrissey: "Says nothing to me about my life". Hang the DJ indeed. Edit: but then, I figure they'd make a big deal about the "hang" thing, rather than understanding the reference, because they weren't cool enough to get The Smiths then, so why should I expect them to now? So....I'm still not on twitter.

This is the singular phrase upon which most liberal FAIL is predicated. Ask yourselves: how do we determine demand? How do we determine market? How do we determine interest in market? How do we determine tensile strength/ brand loyalty/attachment to existing solutions? Provided we get affirmative answers to those, how do we determine expected market share, and then, how do we do sales projections? This quote above is how they determine those things. It's the only way they determine those things. And, then they wonder why we call them idiots? It literally is amazing. Oh sure, Liberals love the poper use of marketing when it comes to winning elections. But, they completely forget about it when it comes to governing? Does anybody know how/why Main Steet in Buffalo was closed to car traffic? Does anybody want to venture a guess as to the premise? Yeah: "if we don't build it, they won't come". Now what are we doing? Spending millions to put it back the way it was...because...they didn't come, and we apparently couldn't be bothered to do the marketing analysis that would have told us that prior to "building it". Yes, who needs a working knowledge of busines anyway...that's Wall Street/1%er stuff. Let's elect a Community Organizer! Again, I ask: does anybody still wonder why I think most liberals are idiots?

Another liberal(s) destroyed by failing to factor in a timestamp, this time on their own logs? Now that would be hilarious. This is like what happens on crime shows, when they run out of ideas: they just take the old ones and change them a little Perhaps it is as I've heard many a cop say "the truth is most criminals get caught because they are dumb, and they make it easy for us." If that is so, then, why would these criminals be any different? I mean really: these are the same people that stood their boss next to a convicted felon for a photo op. These are the same people who approached Obamacare the way they did. These are the same people who thought they could get away with all kinds of stuff, and have been busted over and over. This fits their pattern of idiot behavior, it just turns out that this time it's criminal, as well as idiot, behavior.

...lybob You aren't really talking about how smart/dumb people are, are you? That's not a conversation that is going to end well for you. One thing I've learned by observing the internet? One must be careful with memes. They are often likely to end up producing the opposite outcome that their creator intended, and this is based solely on which is more funny, their intended use, or the "alternative". The Zimmerman hero thing is starting to look an awful lot like the Chuck Norris thing. Which...completely removes the focus from race/unfairness/etc which is the intended serious message here...and moves into internet troll/humor land, where nobody takes anything seriously.

Ok...it's been ~7 hours since the last post. Has the sarcasm setting returned to it's default position? And, can I start laughing, at all of you, now? 3 posts in a row of "I wasn't being serious, I was being sarcastic"? I'm just going to say it, but, I'm just going to suggest what was demanded from me: perhaps you guys should consider using emoticons?

No. Reading comprehension is important, especially for someone with your limited abilities. I specifically asked: which way has China been moving, towards socialist ideals, or towards libertarian ideals? Because you are a moron: I will answer for you, it is the latter. That is the best example of libertarian ideals being PARTIALLY implemented, and, the OUTCOME demonstrates their superiority over socialist ideals. So, no, your premise, that both are = in that both cannot be implemented in the real world: is false. EDIT: I posted the above before reading the rest of the thread. Gotta love it when you literally prove "your limited abilites" in your very next post, Frenkle. This is why I like Frenkle: I never have to work that hard. He even demonstrated his lack of reading ability, as if on cue.

How would you know if he has a shirt on or not? And, you have evidence of this? We have all kinds of evidence of socialist failure. I've yet to see anybody prove that libertarian ideals cannot be applied practically, perhaps because they've never been applied practically, in total? I do know that moving towards a free market, and away from a government controlled...or monitored...one, seems to have done some good things for China over the last 20 years.

Bah! That's why I think the medical staff essentially made this cut. But, it was made safe to do so, based on what they think they have in other players.

Exactly. Somehow, even though I know i shouldn't, I feel bad for Naaman. UB thing aside, that guy was always there, at the end of the season, breathing some life into the offense, making plays, etc. We couldn't ever seem to get him on the roster, but, it seems like he's played as many games, or, at least done as much, at the position as anyone other than Steve Johnson. There. Now that bit of empathy is out of me. Back to normal: I am glad we have the WRs we do, and screw the Browns. Why should I care about them signing our practice squad all-star?

You are missing the point. There's no way they cut anybody on the team, in a vaccuum, and "make a hole" unless we are talking about a behavioral problem. Short of that, the decision to cut one guy or another is dependent on the other players on the team. They didn't cut Kerry Wood, or Fred Jackson, or Stevie Johnson. They cut the guy who has injury problems, in favor of the 1st round draft pick we traded for, it's as simple as that.

Or, dare we say it: Hughes or somebody looked pretty good?

Anybody else think this has to do with injury progress, combined with how Hughes and Blatnick looked at practice? I don't see this as a money move at all. But, who knows?

So I guess the answer to my question is: he doesn't know what he doesn't know.

It's hilarious to think that Obamacare, if we play this out positively(follow on lawsuits-->equal rights under the law, etc.) and then extend it, would be taken down by something called Hobby Lobby. It fits perfectly, if you think about it. Ridiculous law taken down by ridiculous sounding name. Just imagine the 11th grade history handheld hologram thingy(not textbooks) 100 years from now: a single paragraph of the half-page devoted to Obama "a President whose only significance was his skin color", that talks about Obamacare...and Hobby Lobby.

Which....is the other side of that coin. But, it is as I say: even that is still better than letting them get away with it, long term.