OCinBuffalo

As I said, the only thing that matters now is: Obama's campaign was soundly beaten, again, by Romney's. "Even Jimmy Carter would have given that order" That's a multi-layered beat down. It's rare you can hit the candidate, his party, their ideology and their legacy all in one sentence. And they just served it up...they made it easy. This keeps happening over and over. The Obama campaign needs to wise up and stop reaching being so desperate, and reaching. It's been causing them to make major mistakes. This has nothing to do with anybody else but the Obama campaign. They're the ones who keep doing this. We just keep at it, because it's hysterical.

Me too. Why is not following in LBJ/McNamara's footsteps is a bad thing? But, that's what happened anyway. The only thing the people who matter will take away from this: "Of course I would have given the order. Even Jimmy Carter would have given that order". Bam. Knockout. That's the end of this news story. It ends with scoffing at the ad, story, the question posed, and anybody trying to use it....and it comes with an Obama = Carter kicker. The winner of all of this: Yet again, Romney. I don't know if somebody loaded him up with his response, or if he did it on his own. If it's the latter, then the concerns about Romney in the debate? The only flaw was he stuttered a bit...which makes me think somebody gave it to him.

Bull. Some hilarious threads came out of the incredible contributions Eric King has made to the NFL, manhood, and mankind in general. Eric King has been the source of major lulz for me, and others, in that at the very mention of his name, idiocy abounds. When I was just a little troll, barely old enough to rickroll, I cut my teeth on Eric King. I know the handle of Eric King's chief ballwasher. I'm hoping this works like the candy man in reverse. If I say Eric King enough times in one post, ballwasher will show up so I can eviscerate him again. WE certainly got way more than above average, at TSW, out of Eric King. He was wasted on these old teams. I wish we could have drafted him this year. IS my assessment

What's your evidence for these two sentences? I could just stop there, as it is you making the claim...but I'll try to help you along. How exactly do we know what the adjustments were, their relationship to our offense, their effectiveness, and how can we quantify Freddy playing, in terms of those adjustments? You're claiming that there would be no statistical relevance to something, in this case Freddy not playing, due to adjustments whose method of measurement you have yet to define. This is the statistical equivalent of trying to prove a negative, unless you can show that these adjustments are consistent in their effect, and are never effected by RB play, good or bad, as you claim. In other words, in order to prove your claim is true, you also have to prove that the opposite of it is false. You would have to show that had Freddy played, these adjustments would still have had the same outcome. I wonder how you are going to do that. I don't need to notice anything, I already know. If you didn't notice, I tipped you off to the flaw already once. Now, I am doing it again. Sounds like is fine, as is correlation, as long as you limit it to correlation. Some may not care for casting aspersions. It's when you start claiming that correlation is in fact causation, that the real trouble starts. That's about as much effort as I want to put into this in a Sunday. I do this kind of stuff at work. It's not work time. Perhaps I will be more interested during the week. Also, I'm not the one making the claims here. The burden is on you. I have already poked a few holes, and if I really get into it, I can poke a lot more. Perhaps you should look at the link above, understand how that works, and then consider your claim again.

This is the same old correlation rather than causation problem. Anybody ever read Football Outsiders? That website was started as an effort to overcome the false analysis that the reason the Pats missed the playoffs one year was that they passed too often. Also....I think losing Fred Jackson in game 8 might skew your #s just a tad. It might make sense to peruse that site and compare before IRed Fred, to after, in terms of QB play, total offense, etc. It certainly would be easier than doing all the stats yourself, and possibly having methodology problems in them. Also might make sense to look at our DVOA Anecdotally, IIRC It wasn't until the Denver game when we used Spiller in Fred's true role, and he tore it up.

Dude...just sayin'...Bleacher also has us getting a C- for this draft, but the Jets get an A? Pats get a C and Dolphins a D? Which Jets fanboi wrote that article? Bleacher can be fun...but it's not useful for analysis. I am not insane. However, I do think that if it comes down to Florence or McGee, it's Florence. Based on last year, I think Florence is the least likely to stay, for good reason, and I can make a strong argument. The important thing is: we don't agree, which makes me The last thing I want is knowing who all our starters are going to be on a team like this, and have it be obvious to everyone. That's what we used to have = so many holes that you take comfort in knowing at least who some of the starters will be, and worry like hell about the rest. That's not this team. There is going to be one hell of a competition at a lot of positions....which is a very good thing. Hopefully Florence, and all of them, realize this. I want to be wrong, about a lot of players. I want them to come to camp and prove me wrong, consistently. This is a rare instance where I'd much rather be wrong, a lot, than right.

Welcome to the board, rookie. Piling on is what we do, especially when somebody can't get over themselves, is being retarded, etc. After reading through this ....these guys are taking it easy on you. You are lucky that people are being as straightforward with you as they have been. Had it been me? I would have trolled you for as long as your skin is thin.

Tank Carder = 2011 Rose Bowl MVP Big players play big in big games....same thing I liked about Steve Johnson when he was drafted.

Same thing I said in the shout: This guy kills people. He's not afraid of taking penalties.....and long as he knocks you the F out.

Impression. Hmmm. There are lots of impressions. For example: This guy's impression was that if he cut off his ear, this chick would give him some. And, he was an Impressionist! Yeah....that's a valid analogy Donahoe got Drew Bledsoe and traded away Peerless Price. Buddy got Mario Williams and traded away Lee Evans. It's the same old thing. 1. Wrong 2. Wanna bet 100 naked youtube pushups on whether TJ sees the field this year? 3. QB and LB? WTF? Yeah...Buddy stupidly signed Barnett and drafted Sheppard last year. But LB is a massive hole. Which QB should we have drafted in the third round? Nick Foles = Drew Blesoe V2.0? In this offense? Dude your impression of reality? Well, we already covered that with the pic above didn't we? Don't cut your ear off....she's not that into you.

After we picked Glenn....I fully expected people to B word that we could have traded down...seeing as the...odd?....picks ahead of us gave us so many choices at 41.

Yes, I think my new response to the retards shall be: Ding Fries are Done! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFQyib5ZQZY

For what it's worth..... I don't like taking lineman early. I think we all know that. And I was wrong about Whitner. I think we know that. However, we just got a 1st round O lineman....in the 2nd :w00t: I don't care if he's too fat, blah, f'ing blah....3/4 of the mocks I saw had him in the first, and now we have him. In fact a lot of people had us taking this guy at 10. Now, instead of having to choose...we get to have our cake....and.....our truck load of cake, too.

On the Quarterback page There's our guy....and no, I didn't do it.

Good. If other teams think he's good...that bumps down another OT or WR option to us. I hope there is a run on TE too. I hope somebody trades up to get Clemson's TE....after Fleener is gone. The more bumpin', the more thumpin'

Want me to devise something?

This....defies belief. Figures. The one time he says something positive about the Bills...he is preempted by WGR extended draft coverage. Can't win for losing.

All this work....and all you proved is: the chart needs to be tweaked, not "thrown out". We aren't talking about people trading 600 for 1200, or even 900 for 1200. If that were the case, then yeah, it's time to throw out the chart, like you said. Do you know about standard deviation, or stats in general? Did you notice the deviation tended to get smaller over time? Now, why is that? Random chance...or the fact that teams had to beat out other offers, and therefore had to sweeten their deals...the higher they traded up? Why would Cleveland trade up 1 spot to get Richardson, with a team that already has a HOF RB? Answer: They had to beat the offers of other teams who were calling Minnesota. This is called: inflation. The price for moving up was inflated by increased demand for moving up. The later trades tended to follow the chart. Why? Less inflation. Your analysis isn't very meaningful without accounting for this obvious, to me anyway, pattern. Now, what would be interesting? See how closely the initial, but rejected, trade offers from other teams followed the chart. (may be difficult to get that info) Most likely they were very near the chart values. After all, the successful offers had to be higher than the failed ones, by definition. Then we could compare the accepted offers, and create a meaningful statistic, such as: "if you try to trade to the #5 spot...you can expect to pay 10% more than the chart value. #3 spot, 20%, etc." If we prove that enough times....now we know how many points should be assigned to that pick. Now we know it's...worth(or market value)...and now we can modify the chart accordingly.

And...what was the answer....at 10...for QB...in this draft? Brandon F'ing Weedon? Who was taken at 22?

4 Offensive lineman taken in first round...2 OT and 2 G. 3 CBs. We got the 8th player overall. Now, if "the good teams" build the O line, and the bad ones take CBs, then why were only 4 O line taken? We have heard that the OT depth in this draft is immense? IF that is true, and if OL is the most critical position, and if the good teams draft O line...then how come only 4 were taken? So there Bill The fact is: college is playing spread offense. So, like it or not, the NFL, over time, will be moving to spread offense...because they have to take who college sends them. That means that on offense, we will be playing a lot more spread offense, again, like it or not. That means that on defense, we will need to cover spread offense a lot more, again, like it or not. That means 3 things: 1. LBs are going to be less and less important going forward, because they are going to be substituted for CBs...and hybrids like Byran Scott(glad we re-signed) 2. We will be playing our 3rd best corner....a lot more than our 3rd best LB 3. Offensive Tackles, especially LT, are going to become less important than they were in the past. In fact, the entire O line will need to be more run maulers than pass block technicians. Less skill required on O line means less skilled O lineman....which means more starters can be had in later rounds. Meanwhile the demand for cover corners keeps rising. Again, like it or not, college eventually dictates what happens in the pros, and while I like power football as much as the next guy, the spread offense is taking over.

Like they have the last five years? (um 2 picks left on team?) The myth that the Pats are good at the draft has been busted. And, how hard is it to have a good draft....when you have 2 #1 picks....after having started with 14 picks overall? But, the Pats didn't address the secondary or their O line. I'll give them a base knock, over the 2nd baseman's head...but that's about as far as it goes. And, the only reason I'm doing that is: I have doubts about Jones(light in the pants) but I think Hightower will somehow, based on Belechick scheming, end up being a PITA for us for years.

Are you voting for Hillary?

I think Cox is the most likely. Teams that need DT...really need DT.

But that's the nice part about this: for the first time in....hell, a decade....I'm quietly confident about the draft. I knew last year was easy one in round 1...but Buddy et al kicked ass in the rest as well. Even if it is an unexpected pick...it won't shake me that much.

As I said last time: I'm not prepared to call 11 million people I don't know, criminals, because they want a better life for themselves and their kids. I am prepared to call the people who only come here for work, and then go back home, with 0 interest in kicking in, like every other immigrant group has, or being part of/building the country...douchebags. Makers vs. Takers, all over again. If we are to categorize illegals, that's probably the best way. Put the makers on a path to citizenship, immediately, to include amnesty I mean seriously, WTF is anyone going to do with 11 million people? Many of them are decent people...the makers...so why bust their balls unnecessarily? Takers are the people who refuse to kick in, and improve themselves, and their new country. Takers in most cases ARE criminals. See, I have no interest in treating everybody the same, ever, in anything. It's the height of unfairness. Why should we treat Takers the same as Makers? We should go out of our way to help the makers, and F the Takers over as much as possible. Therefore, I still like my "what to do with the Takers" idea, which has the added benefit of significantly increasing the amount of time between border crossing attempts. Divide Takers into groups of 100, by country, make them build a Trireme(big ass Greek row boat), and make them row it back to their country. Provide them food, health care, and water etc. along the way, make sure the boat is seaworthy, etc. It takes as long as it takes. Tow trireme back and make the next group of 100 row home. Nobody said anything about HOW we deport people, and if we are ensuring their safety....then what's the problem? They have no right to complain, as their claim is based on an illegal act. Don't like it? Don't come here illegally, and then act like a douchebag. And, who will stop us? The UN? The Chilean Navy? Oh, and that wall everybody wants built? Assign groups of 100 Mexican illegals, Takers, to each section and have them build it. Let them "escape" back to Mexico if they want...and deport themselves.