OCinBuffalo

This article describes just how messy this draft already is, and clearly points out the amount of flat out LYING going on. Agents, lying. GMs, lying. Everybody, lying. Now, this is a member of an actual news organization, who gets paid for doing that job, not by banner ads, telling you they are lying. Hopefully this will curtail the "But..but..but...I heard it on twitter" people = No. BAD. Read the article again, then remember how many times Mario Williams "left Buffalo", before you argue/post. You take this, along with the mass chaos that Barron is causing in terms of screwing up everybody's board.... ....and this is more than enough evidence to show that anything less than a direct quote from another GM, confirmed by Buddy Nix/Doug Whaley, regarding what the Bills could do/did/could have done, is most likely utter horseshit.

If that's the case, I can see Dallas trying to move up to get Barron for their 3rd? 4th? Something like that. Also, the most likely trade down scenario for me is if Fletcher Cox is still on the board when it comes to us. We'd get more than a few calls I am guessing. Other than that....I don't see us taking a Safety. Not this close to the Whitner thing. Given everything I have heard, and haven't, I think its Keuchly.

1. Not have our QB have cracked ribs for all 4 of those games? 2. Not have so many injuries by that point in the season? Look, I don't want to make excuses, but there was clearly a drop-off as we lost guys. The first Jets game was right after the game(Redskins) where Fitz got hurt, and after reviewing those 2 games, now that we know about the injury, it's fairly clear. Not every play, but there was some definite instances where he was floating the ball on throws that the week before were on a line. We also got killed by the run at Miami, and also lost Freddy, Jones and MgGee before halftime. Not good. Especially not after that Dallas game. Team wasn't right from here on, but IMHO, it all started with the hit on Fitz in the Redskins game.

First the link I understand what this guy was trying to do. But he failed....miserably. Instead of convincing me that it wasn't Tebow's fault...all he convinced me of is that Spiller is going to be really good, Johnson is s stud, David Nelson will be a solid slot receiver years, Chris Kelsay will provide good veteran depth, and that our secondary can be really good now that/if we have a real pass rush. How hysterical was the "Did Tebow lose the first half?" part(starts at 2:33), complete with musical hook? And, the awesome returns, along with the music at 5:00. How about 8:28? Tebow FAIL in the foreground, Bills fans doing the Snoopy dance to the music, in the background? :lol: This is now my favorite game highlight of last year, because it reminds me of what is to come against the Jets....and the fans dancing to Tebow FAIL. As I said in my comment: The only relevant question that remains: Now that Tebow is a Jet, can we expect Jet fans to post unintentionally awesome videos of the Bills smoking him too...in HD, with house music?

Except for Brian Billick. See here What do you, others, think about the TE from Clemson in the 2nd round?

I am the walrus. Terry Bradshaw It's going to be so fun watching the Broncos find this out this year.

Seriously? Ok...primary reason: Parent's Ego Secondary Reason: Even though Little Johnny has no skills, or talents, required to be a white collar worker, he doesn't have to be a blue collar worker if he doesn't want to, cause that would hurt his self esteem. Meanwhile, Little Bobby becomes a blue collar worker, and develops a massive chip on his shoulder that no white collar worker cares about, or even knows exists, and then big working class hero teaches his kids that education has little value, because it has little value for him, thus doubling the chance that we will end up having to put little working class hero and his brother in jail soon. Meanwhile, Little Billy's parents are rich, and send him to college....for no apparent reason. Hence....This guy gets into school, because just like they have always done with Billy issue, his whole life, the best way to deal with Billy is to throw money at those around him. Billy ends up crapping on police cars in a park.... Meanwhile, Professor Assclown demands that the Women's studies department be expanded, or he will organize a protest and manufacture outrage....all while not explaining how the F more Women's studies majors help us with competing against China. Meanwhile, we have 32 year old college students with 4 degrees: Women's studies, English, made-to-order sociology thing major, and whatever, with narry a BS degree in the bunch....who decides to become a government employee/political activist, who advocates for more funding for college, or testifies at government hearings about abortion....for no apparent reason. Meanwhile, it costs $70 an hour for a friggin plumber...as if that guy's skills are economically equivalent to a mid-level contract programmer. Meanwhile, assclown college President knows that he can just keep raising the cost of the tuition, because the government's willingness to underwrite any loan, however ridiculous even for another degree for 32 year old student, means that he never has to actually deliver quality while managing cost....and he's got that new Women's studies department to fund...so...what's another 5% tuition increase? Dude, there are a lot of bad actors here.

Again, Terry Bradshaw

That would require actually knowing WTF they are talking about, rather than simply receiving a point in time briefing, and basing all activity going forward on that point in time understanding. Typically most lawyers "don't want to bother with the details of business process"...they'd rather F about in the details of the law, which as a result, will have little basis in that business process, or, more likely, will be just fine for how it works today...but then will be rendered a least partially useless in a few months as things change. In this, they are no different than Microsoft's approach to Word, or the assclown Ruby on Rails people's approach to websites. Rather than build something that is truly configurable, and therefore is capable of dealing with any convention, they demand that we all go along with their convention(approach), for no other reason than they supposedly know better. And, when this approach is exposed because it's one size...does not in fact...fit all? What do they do? Bloat the hell out of it by adding a never ending cavalcade of features. Sooner or later, so many features exist that the software becomes confusing to everyone....and it takes an expert to come in and show you how to do the things you want to do. And even then, you have to go through 15 steps to get something done. But once you figure that out, a new release comes along that you have to accept, which changes those 15 steps, or moves them around, and now you are F'ed all over again. Sound familiar(ahem, tax code? or maybe...the software you use at work?) Now I could go on and blame all you Wall Street turds for propagating this assclownery in the .coms, by demanding that we all follow "The Microsoft Model" or you would downgrade our stock, causing a lot of them to fail as a result....but that's another thread. Let's just keep blaming the lawyers...because they are the root cause of this thinking anyway.

I dunno. I remember this tiny little Navy Lt. Commander, with her dopey MS Project plan, wasting my time and forcing me to make my guys update her dopey gantt chart....for things like re-running unit tests and filling out our time sheets. Because that dopey gantt chart was her only job, most likely because it was the only job she could handle. I remember the VA clowns who told me my stack was the best thing they've seen in health care in 30 years, but that they were also deathly afraid of it, in the same sentence. Not exactly cavalier....

That's the part I don't get. Where the hell was the planning? My experience with government work is with the Navy and CMS. I have routinely found "planning to plan" to the point of doing nothing...is the routine. That's why this is so foreign, to me anyway. When I think of government employee doing something, I don't think of cavalier people running around blowing money on 20 projects, because they know they only have to hit on one, like VC partners/investment bankers.

Nope. That book came out a bit after , but thank you for reminding me that I am rapidly losing the ability to continue to refer to myself as a kid. I will always be a "linux kid" though...so there. We used the footage from the meetings, and basically a documentary IIRC. So who knows? It could have been her work, just not in book form yet. I do remember the "deviance" issue. It's kinda like what is happening now = "rounding of a rounding error". Basically, the "normalization of deviance" is enemy #1 for our crew, and one of the many real-life issues(theory my ass) I based our architecture on. Except...we call it, "the client's being douchebags about us using finding out that half their business units hide their supplies for the weekend in the ceiling tiles, so they don't run out". I assume you can extrapolate the rest?

and then?.....there's ...lybob :lol: ...lybob could have started this thread on the pretense of "knowledge" gained from some hack website, but, when that is summarily excused as the dribble it is, and a poster who does know WTF they are talking about challenges ...lybob to provide any reasonable credentials/didactic preparation to establish ...lybob's qualifications to speak on the topic, ...lybob would have ejected from the thread, and ducked the poster(s) making such demands for the next 3 months. ...lybob..... heeeeeeeeeeee

Well, I should hope so.... ...but...I assume even you have to cover your ass some of the time, right? Or, at least deem it worthy to spend a little time on what if X happens? What I don't understand, and would like to, is the notion that says..."I don't have to do that, even though I am in a purely political job, and the political risk involved is great enough to get me removed from said job, but I feel powerful? enough to ignore it." That's certainly a plausible explanation. But do you think that's the whole explanation?

Kidding aside....the depth of...what?...depravity...delusion....let's be nice an call it affectation.....it takes to arrive at these decisions, as an organization, without any readily apparent recognition of the risks involved and 0 contingency or mitigation? Yeah, I want to know how that happens, because that schit is fascinating. Consider: if it was you, as a finance guy wouldn't you have installed a way to pull the plug, an automatic sell order, etc, something to protect your client.....long before the thing went down, or just before, if for no other reason than so you could at least say you had one? Instead, it's quite possible that the failure of these companies....just snuck up on these people, who were the primary investors, and they were deer in headlights. What kind of affectation does that require? How did they get there? Why didn't they have a single plan B, for legions of plan As? Just like with what these guys did to gay people with their handling of gay marriage, they themselves have done more damage to the cause of the environment than the opposition could have done in 30 years. (as long as you remember that just like gay marriage, they forced a lot of us into unwillingly being their opposition, because they were clowns about it) How do you go from day one of "Ok...we are going to invest in alternative energy because they are wrong about oil and we are going to take up the cause of the environmentalist", which, although somewhat obtuse, at least has some rationale-->to today-->where now it's "Run! They pulled out their Solyndra Strap Ons again! They are blasting every liberal/enviro they can catch in the DELMARVA! Ruuuuun!"? (I was going to draw a cartoon of Sara Palin in dominatrix gear, with a big gleeful smile on her face, wearing a strap-on shaped like a...really bad time...with the words "Solyndra" down the side...but I don't have time...still have the picture in my head tho....) That's what will continue to fascinate me.

Exactly. Organizational theory....which is just putting a business face on behavioral psychology. Oh, yeah....I see....yeah, it would really be a shame if we really are that far gone. Part of one my management classes was studying the 1st Shuttle disaster. That was fascinating. I would hate to think that "we can't teach that, because we only teach about private sector failure here" has made it impossible to learn the best/most important things in college.

Ahhh but this is my ridiculous thread....so it's my ridiculous rules....so I decide what is fun, and what is not. You will submit to my rule in this thread.....now, where is my hat? No, not the Sabres one....the one that says 10/6 on it?

Yeah...I should have put that part in quotes...so that you could see I was speaking as a 3rd party....as in "What?" As in: "why is Tom calling me an idiot again? Having a single fighter that everybody can share....is good. Sharing is good. This is progress, and we are smart because we thought of it. Now, let's go praise ourselves for being smarter than those people who never want to cut the defense budget." ----------------------- This is the fundamental problem with progressive "thinking". It never provides for performance measures or change management or exits if it fails. It always assumes the entire, one-step solution, as theory, is not only feasible, but is easily deployed and maintained, with very little testing or step-wise prototyping. See: Obamacare. This is an impossible approach to solving problems and puts far too much faith in the originators of the theory. As such, the fundamental flaw of progressives is....ego, or laziness, or most likely both. I mean seriously I would love to see how the decision to fund Solyndra evolved. I bet a college class could be designed just around that, and I bet it would be fascinating.

We will try to compete.

= the reverse of why Terry Bradshaw is a HOFer.

Well, per my words in your sig....here we are...talking in terms of reason, data, and fact....and here they are, once again, talking in terms of emotion, wishful thinking, and delusion. Let the hazing continue. Yeah....I'll remember that the next time I go into a client and am tasked with explaining why the F ups in how their chart of accounts are set up, are causing supply chain problems, which in turn are causing inventory shortages at the point of sale/care...while I am fighting a 2 front political war against the CFO who is trying to cover his ass for the crappy state of the COA, and 2 operations ladies, who are trying save their asses from having their excuses for non-delivery taken away. "As long as I can explain it simply"....

In the Philly.com article, which is the source of all of this, he awards Kelly a SB win....so he's got that going for him. Seriously: The way I look at it...Montana, Kelly, Marino, Aikman, hell even Steve Young, all had one thing in common: they had a year or 2 where they were the best QB in the league. You turn on the TV, watch them play, and say, yeah, he's the best there is this year. McNabb never had that for a full year. He had it for about 4-5 games, the year before Vick came back, but then got hurt and it was done(and so were my dreams of winning my fantasy league). For the entire time McNabb played, except for that 5 game stretch, he was the 3rd, at best, QB in the league. When people(um Eagle fans) complain about McNabb's WRs....I remind them that he had Owens, who, while he was with the Eagles, was the best WR in the game, and caught 1200 yds and 14 Tds from McNabb his fist year. Then, if they persist, and talk about McNabb's #s in spite of having no WRs the rest of the time....I ask "did he get those #s by throwing to himself?" This is a great way to haze Eagle's fans. And, for those of you who haven't had much experience with that, a good rule is: everyone should haze Eagle fans, about everything, as much as possible, all the time, as either they deserve it, or will soon do/say something to deserve it. Nah...not a HOFer. Not with Duce Staley, Brian Westbrook and that defense...and no ring.

I think that if a guy like Mayock doesn't have at least one major screw up....that's he's either not trying very hard, or simply reading what everybody else is saying and regurgitating. I am willing to give him a pass on this.... ...even though I thought Gabbert was Ryan Leaf 2 last year, and would have crapped a brick had we taken him at #3....or appeased the morons and traded down to take him and some other guy, neither of which individually, or combined, had any hope of approaching Dareus's value. The reason they "shoot up" "draftnik" boards is that: sooner or later draftniks get tipped off to how NFL teams actually have players rated, and have to immediately react to the new info, hence the "shoot up" effect. Kiper just basically admitted that in his latest piece. That's why i laugh when I hear "this guy picked the whole draft accurately", as though his talent evaluation skills are better than his phone call/email from NFL source receiving skills.

He definitely moved CB to the front in this interview. He went out of his way to say that both WR and OT were very deep, specifically referring to rounds where they could be gotten. Now, whether that is a ploy...who knows? If it is...my best guess is Keuchly...because that's the only position they haven't talked about. This is not an endorsement of Keuchly...I am a BPA guy...and I don't watch college football, so don't start with the "Keuchly is London Fletcher round 2, tackles behind the line" thing. I got it the first time I heard it. I do not require hearing it for the 200th time. My guess is based purely on the realities of how GMs act this time of year. ---------------------- Also...we know for certain which CB it won't be, in any round: Janoris Jenkins

Sure...but the propensity for them to happen this year is significantly less given how things grade out. The point is simple, and ongoing: I don't want to see 1000 threads started about "we could have traded up/down because somebody said so on the Internet" next weekend. Given how things are shaping up, I also don't want to see 1000 "Some draft guy gave us a crappy draft grade because we reached"....when these same guys are grading players 8-20 as equal value. This means that no matter what we do, short of a miracle, we will be reaching. How are we supposed to get value at 10....if no value pick is available? So, we can look forward to these clowns saying, "see, I was right", by "analyzing" their way into making it impossible for anybody to get value from pick 8-9 to pick 20. My point is merely....vaccination....against the assclownery to come.