OCinBuffalo

Say #2? Buddy I started a company from scratch based on a complete architecture I built from scratch, based on running a 3 year feasibility study I conducted whose methodology is now proprietary. The architecture has been ported into multiple industry-specific solution frameworks, and I'm only an average programmer . I'm too slow, and getting slower seemingly by the day. A fact that I am constantly reminded of by certain younger assclowns....but my ability at the rest of it means they get back in their holes and code. so....where's the "say"? Much more like "do". You've never run across Cap Gemini, Lockheed, or Accenture? You sure you know anything about the government? Their contracts probably add up to at least a couple billion, if not more. And that's only the management consulting/IT stuff. If you are talking about Booz Allen, Deloitee, and McKinsey, then yeah, they are #1 types, and I wouldn't work for any of em.

I have no reason to believe you are lying, and every reason to believe that you know who you say you know. That said: 1. Why would you, or anyone, put a lot a stock in the political sensibilities and perceptions of those "who know the logistical ins and outs of the 2012 incumbent candidacy"? Aren't these the same people who told us the "country has moved massively to the left", were so tone-deaf that they thought "people will like it once they see it" was a justification for shoving Obamacare through the Senate, and were convinced that Barack Obama was the better candidate to prove liberal methods work than Hillary Clinton? What have these people been right about politically in the last 4 years? 2. Do these people understand that Romney has connected every single time to a large enough group of Republicans to continue to lead the polls, despite being attacked by all, in every single debate? The same thing happened last night, and he brushed them off with a high degree of skill. Look: I don't care about any candidate yet, but I know excellent body/speech control when I see it. Romney is being tempered in these debates. What has tempered Obama for the last 4 years? Ask your friends if they are even sure Obama can take a punch/deal with a gotcha question in a debate, because I've never seen it. Do they think the Media has been hard on him? 3. I'm curious: have any of your friends ever said "boy we really screwed up (insert any of Obama's 20 major failures in policy approaches here)"? If all they can ever say is: "well we didn't message it right, or, we didn't say it enough", then again, why are you paying attention to these people? Nobody is ever going to take what you say about housing seriously if you refuse to identify the root cause: Democrats in the House and Senate demanding that banks give loans to people that can't afford them. We can talk about what happened after, and why, but if you won't admit what created the environment for all of this bad behavior, you are lying to yourself and wasting our time. As for the rest: Do you really think raising taxes to pay for more government employees to poorly create and poorly enforce ineffective regulations is the answer? I have first hand information that regulators are mostly idiots. You can hire 400, 4000 or 40k more of them in Medicare, SEC, whatever, and I will destroy them all, because I have always destroyed them. That's because I am good at my job and they have no clue how to do theirs, and, my job is infinitely easier because it's based on reason and sound methodology, theirs is based on emotion and buffoonery.

Re-read my post. IF you are talking urban metropolis, then you are talking what I have outlined. Therefore, NONE of my objections are mitigated by your plan, new or otherwise. Typical liberal thinking: you need TOTAL CONTROL in order to get anything done. Well, Obama had TOTAL CONTROL in 2009 and how'd that work out for us? The difference between you and I is: I could actually implement you new idea, because, I'm a good project manager-->Every good project manager knows they will never have full authority over the gig, but will held fully responsible if it fails. The first thing a project manager does after identifying the scope of the gig is identify its dependencies and constraints. You seem to think you can ignore them, because your idea is "new". Again, this is why liberal methodology fails. Something being "new" still has to adapt to the environment in which it is deployed, and must be capable of ongoing change as that environment changes. Something "new" is worthless if it cannot adapt to the old first, and then improve, or expose in some cases, those things around it. Watch me work: taking my reality combined with your idea, you cannot solve the mayor's office problem with the self-delusion that you have total control. Even if you were commissioned by Congress, you'd still have the realities I have defined. Instead, subtlety and cunning is required. Rather than simply paying off the mayor, cut him in for more than he expects...tell him that you are going to let him pick every single employee of your food center and that part of your budget will go to his non-profit(s). Tell him you understand how things work, and that he is right to want to have a lot of control over your food center. After all, it's "his" city. Make sure the offer is too much for him to turn down, and that he sees you are no threat to him. Then, when he's picked his people? Hold a press conference where you give the mayor major credit for helping your food center by suggesting the best employees in the area, thus saving you time, and the city money. Tell the press that you will be releasing monthly reports that prove the efficiency of your food center, so that the mayor's wise leadership skills can quantified. Now, we have people who must do what the mayor says, because they are his people, and, a mayor who must ensure they bust their asses, don't steal, work hard, or it's his ass in the media, because? They are his people. You win either way: the people he picks work out, or, he quietly moves them out of your food center and never bothers you again. Of course either way, you give him consistent public credit for his help, which means he can never bad mouth you or your food center. See? That's how a good PM does the job. I have literally used this tactic twice in real life...substitute division president with "the mayor", and head/corporate office for "the media", and there you go.

I was asked a specific question that required a specific answer. I provided an answer based on what I recently saw was the 'average' salary. Therefore, it could be off: 8x, 9x? If you don't care, then why post anything?

The American voter doesn't sign contracts. They also don't read status reports, sign time sheets and expense forms. The American voter is not in the conference room approving the next phase of the project, signing off on change management items or add-ons. No sir, the people in government do that. And if, as you imply, they are not capable of doing these things properly, then they shouldn't be doing them at all. If that's the whole job, then we don't need them. If that's the point of the whole group, then we don't need it. A long time ago I went down to DC for a demo with the VA. The word for word feedback was: "This is the future of health care. You guys have the best software I've ever seen by far, in fact I didn't even know some of this was possible". We didn't get the gig. Why? I was literally told that the people in the room were afraid that our stuff would expose their incompetence. I am not big on blaming clients, and I don't allow it as a rule, but, in this case: Come on, man! The American voter isn't the reason we allow these incompetents to refuse to improve. The size of the government and the lack of transparency is.

Which is best for the country? 1. Passing some more half-assed legislation that has only a marginal chance of doing anything useful, and will produce only short term results? 2. Getting rid of the cancer that we now have in the executive branch? I understand your point, hell we MIGHT be able to improve things a little in the short term if the Republicans were willing to deal. But that is simply not worth the long term consequences of having Obama in office. The Republicans were ELECTED to stop Obama. They are doing precisely what their constituents want. The Republicans are doing the most patriotic thing they can: following the will of the people that elected them to the letter. Put your faith in the American people: we know an idiot when we see one. We gave Obama a chance. He failed. End of story. Your problem is: you have a loser in the WH and you know it. Don't start pulling the typical, far-left, blame everybody but yourself routine. The man is a failure. You supported him. You could have had Hillary. You made a choice. Now you have to live with that choice. Don't start blaming Libertarians/Republicans/Fox News for Obama's failures. You KNOW he and the 2006-2010 Congress could have taken vastly different approaches on everything, but they also made a series of stupid choices. My unsolicited advice: it's time for introspection. How did you get here? What do you have to do make sure you never get here again? Have you learned the lesson of letting the far-left of your party be in charge? Have you learned that while you may share their motivations(hint: so do we all), their methods are FAIL? Have you learned that they whine and whine for 20 years, and when they finally get everything they need and all the power, they completely F things up because they and their methods don't deliver? Do you need another Carter/Obama in your lifetime to reinforce this lesson? Do you think "millions of green jobs" was realistic? Do you think millions of "shovel ready" jobs was realistic? Do you think putting "infrastructure" before private sector growth is a good idea? A new choice faces you now: you can learn from this, and adjust what you believe to fit the evidence, or, you can continue to try and conform the evidence to what you believe.

Well then, back to my point, the people that cause that to be so are idiots.

I tell the truth. Tough schit if you don't like it.

This is inaccurate. No good consultant is a "know-it-all", rather, they are a "have listened to it all and wrote it down", such that when you try to take them on, they pull out what you said 3 months ago and own you with it. And, in reality, there are 2 types of consultants: 1. Those who spend 3 months, put everything you give them in a 3 ring binder, reword it, add a little value perhaps, define the problem, propose some solutions, and then send you the binder and their bill. 2. Those who will spend as long as it takes, and in addition to propose solutions, #2s can correctly recommend one, and have the skills to both manage and provide the implementation of that solution to completion(provide does not mean hire subcontractors, provide means you could do it all yourself if necessary). Then, of course, these types rape you for add-ons and change management(was my specialty), but at least you got something tangible that solves the problems and is 100% tailored to your specific needs. Plastic dog schit is more useful and insightful than the #1 type consultant. Why? Because if you never have to implement things, then you never know if your solutions are actually solutions, and, you never know what actually doing it entails. Therefore, you have no idea if the client is even capable of doing what you are advising them. Beware of consultants who talk about "advice" and don't talk about "implementation". You are confusing #1 and #2 types. #2s are contractually obligated to get something done, or they are fired, it's as simple as that. Anybody that hires a #1 to do implementation is an idiot.

You are already wrong. The POTUS doesn't have full control in that area. Before you get out of your government-provided limo, you better pay off the mayor's office or s/he will raise an army against you of screaming assclowns, and every Democratic politician will light up your phone like a Christmas tree, all of them threatening you, for threatening their political base. Great, and now you have to pay off the local pols with campaign/personal kickbacks, contracts for their people who take too long to under-deliver and want more money, and of course, pay off the garbage people("I assure you it's not the Boy Scouts"), the trade unions, the police and fire, and let's not forget, have to hire the mayor's idiot cousin to run the place. EDIT: And don't forget that she'll hire all her friends, who will attempt to rob you blind. Keep dreaming. The scenario I outlined above is the ONLY way as long as these "new Democrats" are in 100% control of the urban area we are talking about. It sounds like you want to put your center in the suburbs....just like everybody else is doing. What a shocker. Which corporation is going to volunteer to take your place, and get shaken down like I said above? All you have proven is that you are one more naive suburb kid who has no idea how things really run in the city. Hey, on its face I like your plan. The trouble is: you simply aren't aware of the practical constraints and the inherent barriers to it's success. Feel free to outline contingencies for these constraints. I'm listening. But keep in mind, you have a budget, and, you have political appointee bosses who are not going take kindly to getting a call from the state's party chairman, or worse, that party chairman using this as ammunition against those political appointees.

I recognize that I make 10x more than many people. Therefore, in addition to thanking God and my parents for the talents I received, I also understand that I have a responsibility to my community and country to be a good steward of the wealth I am trying to create. That means paying for things that make things better. I have no problem with it, and I am not even one of the "millionaires and billionaires" that are constantly being vilified. However, I am not a f'ing sap, and therefore, since I am paying more, I feel I have a right to demand that everybody else at least pay something. Also, I have a right to demand that my "more money" is being used effectively. How many people have literally starved to grow a business from nothing? I have. So anybody who runs around declaring that that have a right to take ever increasing sums of my money, on the pretense that they are entitled to it, or that somehow I didn't earn every single thing I have with hard work, or that I didn't throw away numerous chances to make even more money staying in what I was doing, taking a huge risk on this that I am not clear of yet, or that government had anything to do with my results ---well? Say that to my face, and see what happens. My mistake. I did mean to add "income". I guess I was thinking faster than I was typing. However, please describe which state/county pays for "aircraft carriers" as I wrote above. I think you could have probably inferred what I meant, and not wasted a page debating needlessly with Chef. You obviously think that there's nothing wrong with "mixing up" taxes. Let me educate you. The biggest LIE of Medicare is that the Feds run it with 4% administration costs. By the time the money gets to the patient, at least 40% has been taken out directly due to the fact that the Federal/State government is involved. Some of my clients have 3-4 FULL TIME nurses at total cost of $120k a piece who give 0 hours of care a year. Why? Because they are fully dedicated to complying with Federal, State, County and City regulations. These organizations have 2% margins and have to cut staff/materials all the time, because they have to maintain this non-value adding staff, and can't afford to be fined.... exorbitantly. Make no mistake: they are going to get fined. Why? Because the state hires private contractors, with 0 accountability, and pays them by the % of fines they impose. Yeah, that's much better than corporate America. All these guys can do is contain the fines, they can't ever hope to stop them. And of course, as soon as they get fined, some assclown lawyers sue them looking for a handout. Liberals love to talk about "trickle down" economics. Well, what the F do you thin happens with your medicare deduction? It goes to the Feds, and then absolutely "trickles down" to the state, and in the case of Medicaid, county, and finally gets to the institution. That's after every assclown Ph.D nurse has already taken their cut for another piss poor attempt at trying to do my job, and after the state employees have taken their "administration" cut. This is BEFORE we talk about Fraud. This is BEFORE we talk about abuse. This is BEFORE we talk about every scumbag lawyer, union boss, and politician and political organization that routinely shakes these guys down for money....or else they will send in the regulators and surveyors. Still think "mixing up" taxes is a good idea? The private insurance companies have nothing, NOTHING, on the governments, lawyers and unions when it come to "profiteering" on health care.

HA! First of all, these people are scumbags, but let's not lamely try to extend this to all of Wall Street shall we? Now back to HA! This one's personal. My last gig working for others: we had a financial analytics framework that would have caught this crap the first week it was deployed. Our premise was that we could catch rogue behavior before it got out of hand, and the client was sued/shut down/it's officers jailed, etc. Part of my job was handling all the pre-sales for the division. I met every serious prospect we had, and then took charge of implementing the larger projects we sold. I was surprised, but every single firm we spoke with were interested in our offering but a small few, as most wanted nothing to do with bad trading, wanted to stop it themselves, and more importantly wanted to have a system they could blame(us) if something went wrong The clients who at least tried to deploy this will remain nameless. That is another story. But, guess who wasn't interested in our system at all? That's right: Bank of New York. They threw us out of there after only 15 minutes of explaining our bundle's full functionality. So...HA! That's what you get for making me get up at 5 am, to take the the train to NYC for an 8 am, 15 minutes of wasted time meeting. HA! Enjoy prison douchebags.

First of all, the notion that there are grown ups in this country who pay 0 Federal tax is absolutely ridiculous. The fact that at least 40% of our population doesn't is a legitimate, historical pretext for war. Thankfully we invented alternatives. If this was 200 years ago, IRS agents would be tarred and feathered for carrying out this policy. Liberals love to talk about business owners living off of infrastructure they taxed us to put in place. This is another of their "one-size-fits-all" ridiculous assertions. But let's assume liberals weren't full of schit and that "everybody" does in fact gain significant utility from government infrastructure/spending equally. If that is so, then "everybody" should have to pay for it. Here's why: it is ruinous to create a entire class of people for whom every facet of their existence is "less than" others. How the F are people who pay nothing supposed to call themselves "citizens"? How the f am I supposed to recognize their claim to that title, if they are able-bodied and of sound mind, yet pay 0 of the cost of maintaining that citizenship? How are we supposed to be a nation, united, where everybody can take pride in providing some, however small, of the $ that paid for that new highway/aircraft carrier/cop, when 40% of us didn't pay a thing? Don't misunderstand: I am willing to pay more than my share, and I understand why it's necessary. But I KNOW that making someone a literal "second class citizen" is a recipe for disaster. These are people, not farm animals, and as such have a need to feel useful, and take pride in their contribution to society. How are they ever supposed to feel that way, if they know it's a lie? How are they supposed to take themselves seriously, if nobody who pays taxes does? We need the Fair Tax, or something similar that ensures that everybody pays at least something. The country will eventually tear itself apart otherwise.

Yes ...lybob, I describe the tactic, but I'm not smart enough to have figured it out. You're showing us exactly how smart you are....once again.

FUTILITY! Perhaps I should bring back my old FUTILITY avatar. There is nothing in this world that Republicans hate more than Obama. The same could never be said about Clinton. Some of them hated the anti-gun lobby more than Clinton, some hated the NOW/Planned Parenthood people more, some of them hated the Unions more, some of them hated liberal economics buffoons more....no longer. Obama has found a way to stifle the usual bickering/all out fighting between libertarians and social conservatives. He has found a way to bridge the mistrust between the Northern, Suburban financial sector/business owners and the South. Amazingly, Obama has found a way to utterly shatter the coalition that elected him. Not that it wasn't tenuous to begin with, but, idiots that Obama and the media are, they didn't realize that, told themselves the country was now socialists based on 0 evidence, and together they gleefully proceeded to take a rocket launcher to his coalition. It was easy: make all Republicans and Independents hate Obama MORE! This is not enemy of my enemy. This is not racial. This is not issue-driven. This is Obama: I hate your arrogant, incompetent ass! And so, these efforts to help the candidates go after Romney are FAIL. Perry is done, nobody else was ever a serious contender, and you might as well get used to Vice President Herman Cain. Might as well get used to this too: Romney/Cain 2012 Destroying Obama Together --- isn't that catchy?

It began in Toronto? Now that I can believe. Never in my travels have I seen a bigger aggregation of sluts. I would estimate 3.5 sluts per acre. This is great. If they are out yelling on the street, that means they will be all yelled out when they come home-->some men....are smarter than others.

Well, then, why don't we send Booster there to do their thinking and living for them? He obviously knows better than everyone on this board, especially since he used to be a bartender and "owns" me all the time. While we are at it, let's create a sub-department just for booster at HUD, and allocate him 400 listless employees and a $100 million dollar budget. Then we will really see some results. Does anybody remember when I used to criticize booster? I used to say all he could do was post emoticons, because he wasn't capable of actually arguing a point properly, never mind effectively? Yeah, I was wrong about that all right. DC_Tom's supposed "minion" is to be respected and feared! I am completely tickled that booster chose to take the bait I obviously left above. More evidence of his superior intellect. The only thing missing here is for conner to show up and tell us that the $100 million spent on Booster's sub-department is vital, because it shores up consumer spending. That would make this perfect!

Given this league, this year, nothing is certain. That's why I am saying Cowturd is full of it. The only thing we have that for certain are these numbers. They may lie, but, for right now, they are telling you Cowherd is full of it as well. He's full of it largely because of his eternal big-market bias. He thinks the NFC East are better than the Bengals, I guarantee it. Too bad the Bengals have the same record as the Steelers. I am merely pointing out that the numbers don't support his assertions. The Steelers have to play the Browns twice, and we have to play the Dolphins. The Steelers have to play the Bengals twice and we have to play the Jets. Do you really think the Jets are better than the Bengals right now? Who can stop the run? Whose QB is better?

Cowherd says that the Steelers, Raiders, Chargers and Pats are better than us because they've played a tougher schedule, and have easier schedules going forward. Wrong, cowturd. Exhibit #1 Notice that we have had the 2nd hardest schedule in the AFC, and the Raiders had an = not tougher one. Notice that the f'ing Chargers are at 35%. Not even close. Notice that our remaining schedule = the Steelers. Notice that the Pats have the easiest schedule going forward Hey, you can tell me that it's too early for this, and that's fine. This is about refuting Cowturd. He's the one talking out his ass.

Perhaps assclownscore has FAILed to take into account a key metric: We have had to account for a good-elite running game, every single game we have played so far. 4 teams in the top 10, Bengals are #15, but are well respected as a run team. As such we haven't been able to just line up and tee off on a QB all season. We have had to contain a mobile QB, deal with Brady = 6 DBs, the best stats rusher in the league in McFadden, etc. So, I think the real story is not what is our O line going to do....rather, it's what is their O line going to do? If we let our entire team off the chain and blitz Manning, especially given that McGee will be back--> who is capable of playing man, they have much bigger problems than we do. In fact, we may not even have to do that. We may be able to get to him with just 4-5 guys. I think this is the game where, since we finally aren't facing a potential all-pro RB/running game, we finally get to see just how good our pass rush really is when they can consistently go after the QB.

NO. I just finished watching every game this season...again. Dareus has had a significant impact: drawing double teams consistently, forcing teams to run away from him, forcing teams to bring in the TE/keep the RB in the pocket for extra protection, basically doing everything a DT/DE is supposed to be doing. And, he's still making plays in spite of teams having to account for him...none bigger than jumping up while, again, double teamed, on Brady and causing the deflection/INT/TD. Here's my prediction: the Bills have had to respect the running game of every team they have played so far, because all were good if not elite. This week we play the Giants. Their running game sucks. Time for the Bills to tee off on Manning. They don't have to worry about containing the run/mobile QB/pass to the RB/screen game. This time it's all about rushing the passer for 80% of the plays. We will see what we have in our OLBs and DEs. But, most importantly, this is the opportunity for the middle of the line to showcase themselves.

The difference is: they were motivated, organized, had a message and stayed much more disciplined with it, and ultimately: were effective to a degree as a result. Too bad for them, we are going to have to tear down everything they believe in, because, it doesn't f'ing work, and even if it did, now we can't afford it, because they overdid it. And, over the long term, their unwillingness to actually live their beliefs is obvious. They are clearly the most selfish generation we have ever had. To wit: 1. Baby Boomers in the 70s wanted everybody else to pay for their college/grad school, bought their first house = Carter 2. " in the 80s wanted low taxes because now they had their first job, stated their company/family, bought their first house and wanted interest rate to go down = Reagan 3. " in the 90s wanted everybody else to pay for their kids college and train their employees and din't want to pay for their health care = Clinton 4. " in the 00s wanted low taxes now that their kids were out and they were looking at retirement = W 5. " now want Obama to make sure they continue to get 3x what they paid in to Medicare and don't want to it to be means tested or the age of any of the entitlements adjusted to the fact that there are too many of them still alive for these programs to be functional. It's funny, because it's true.

Pretty sure the 12 thing is for girls who have been abused, who don't want to identify their abuser...for fear of getting abused even further. Since it's possible to get pregnant at 12, and since we have to have one law for everybody, it has to be 12 for everybody. This is a "best we can do" solution to a ludicrous set of circumstances. The problem is the girl getting pregnant at 12, the problem is not the only rational response - abortion - that is correctly predicated on "no way a 12 year old takes care of a baby for the next 18 years and/or can physically/mentally deal with giving birth and adoption". -------------- Again, as I have said many times, this is something women should work out amongst themselves in the ladies room. That's not sexist. That's realist. Look, it's not like they are going to pay attention to what men say anyway....until they change their minds, and demand to know our opinion, then change them again, and decide that they are in charge of their own bodies, then change them again, and declare that they want our support in their decision, then change them again, after they talk to their friend of course, and adamantly state that they are free to make up their own minds, then change their minds, and demand that we fully support the kid they might have, then change their minds, and demand that we accept that they are perfectly capable of taking care of the child on their own. Now do you understand why I want nothing to do with this? Don't tell me about father's rights, when women can't even rationally define mother's rights. What the F am I, or any man, supposed to do with this nonsense? It's ridiculous, and somehow we have allowed them to suck us and the law into their neurotic silliness. Women need to figure out what the F is an acceptable set of standards, and then present them and stick to them. Only then will we be able to figure out what to think about it. Here's what I do know: A 3 time pregnant crackwhore is not a 12 year old victim who is not a vice president who has no time for/no interest in a kid, none of them are my problem, and I will never have their problem. Honestly, how the f am I supposed to disagree with a woman who tells me abortion is murder, and cites a fetus that looks like a baby getting ice picked in the back of the head, and then turn around and disagree with a woman who tells me abortion is a right, and cites that she just got raped by her husband? None of these things are my f'ing problem, yet both women tell me I am evil if I don't agree with them. F you, leave me alone. Figure it our amongst yourselves and then bring what you have to me and I'll take a look. Until then, we should just do what always works when they get this way: stand up and leave/ignore them. You can't fix them, there's nothing to gain and plenty to lose in engaging them, and there's absolutely no reason to reinforce this neurotic bad behavior.

2 things. The DCCC is trying to co-opt these idiots*. And, even more amazingly, trying to raise money from them. As if they will give you money, morons, when there's weed to buy. Rendell knows this, and also understands that the $50 in change the DCCC gets from these people is not worth the tens of millions of PR damage that will be done to House Democratic candidates if they get visually associated with these clowns. Therefore, he's trying to nip this in the bud before the idiots at the DCCC drag down the entire Democratic Party into the mud. Rendell is no fool. The second thing: Rendell could easily run for President in 2016. Being on the record telling these people to go home, regularly appearing on conservative talk shows, Fox, etc. reminds people he is one of the most reasonable Democrats you are likely to come across, and even palatable to many reasonable Republicans. Again, Rendell is no fool. If the new Republican President is a clown, Rendell could cakewalk into the job. Edit: * what on God's green earth makes the DCCC think these people will be of any use politically is beyond me.

Might be a cool idea. However....for the (I forget)th time: Jim Kelly and a group of investors are buying the team. I have this on good authority. The "I've known Jim Kelly personally for 20 years"-type authority. The only reason you don't have it on the same authority is that they refuse to make their plan public. They feel it's the smart, and careful thing to do given the circumstances, and especially if your main goal is keeping the team in Buffalo. That ends what I was told. It sucks not knowing that this is locked in, but the realities are: the shady political/union environment in this area/state, the overabundance of scumbags looking for a handout(i.e. the WNY Turd Mouse habitat is threatened by tailgating and bowling ball shots, and $2 mil for a study is suddenly required), the often misguided NFL business value system, dictates this level of prudence. It's simple really: the usual assclowns can't start trouble if they don't know the plan until it's too late.