OCinBuffalo

I fully understand what it does and what it means, politically. Apparently you are too dim to get that. Tell you what, in 17 months, when the EPA is being gutted, and you are posting threads, I will be there, laughing at you. I will take this thread and others, and post them in your threads, and laugh all day. Not because I am "cheerleading" mind you. But because you were to affected too see what I am actually saying in this thread. Ignore me now, that's fine. Just understand that not listening to me now means me laughing at you later.

No. Roscoe.

I am expecting Roscoe Parrish to be a star. I am expecting him to be the #3-#5 reason we win games this year. Special teams aside, I am betting he tears it up in the slot, especially against our division. I am expecting Roscoe Parrish to have at least 900 yards receiving, and at least 8 TD. Everything I have seen out of this offense tells me that's precisely the direction we are going in. Roscoe in the slot means: 1. Our offensive line play is less important. They do not need to hold the point of attack. They need to get down the field and set up the screen properly and/or pull down the line and set up the off tackle runs with the slot and outside WRs blocking. . 2. Our TEs are less important...but absolutely deadly when we use them. 3. Defenses have to make a choice, let Roscoe catch underneath stuff, or, take a risk on letting Steve Johnson/WR #2 hit home runs. They will choose the underneath more often than not, and that's why Roscoe will pile up the yards. I am expecting that many teams, especially early in the season, will learn too late that letting Roscoe have the underneath stuff is just as bad as risking home runs....and that's when they will begin trying to lock him down. The problem is: I don't think any player, or double team, or scheme, can lock down Roscoe Parrish, without major sacrifices being made elsewhere on the field. So, that's where the TDs will come from: failed attempts to lock him down, that result in Roscoe with the ball, on the move, with only the FS and maybe an OLB to beat. Roscoe Parrish is a major component in the "pick your poison"/mutliweapon/2 second play style this team appears to want to play. I am not saying it will work. I haven't seen enough to determine if I like it. But clearly, the quick play is the default, the run and/or the long pass are the mix-up plays.

I have been upsetting that crowd since I have been here...so this is nothing new. I am sorry, but the NFL has changed. Call it decrease in talent, call it bigger, faster, stronger players, call it simply innovation. Call it whatever you want: the NFL has changed. Hell, how many of you will use/have used your first pick in fantasy on a RB this year? In the 1990/2000s, that was law. In fact, depending on when you drafted, you used your first 2 picks on RB. Not now. Now, you better look at QB, as there are only a very few RBs worth a first round pick. Now its about having 4 good WRs that you can mix and match each week, and the RBs you do take better be productive in the passing game or you are going to get stomped on.* Why? Because the NFL is now a passing league. It's the exact opposite of the 80s, Frankenstein, NY Giant football The run is the "mix up" play, passing is the default. You know who started that "pass first" thinking? The 1989-1995 Buffalo Bills. So, I find it highly ironic, that the "3 yards" people continue to insist that our weather, of all things, means we should not pass first. I find it ironic that they want to reject the offensive methodology we have had the most success with by far in the entire history of the club. It's clearly ironic that they seem to insist on us dumbing down our offense, when we have a coach who has made highly specialized plays for his players and meet with high success for a long time in this league. * Fantasy is a bad tool for judging lots of things. However, it is a perfect tool for determining the direction the league is going on offense.

I only chose the Lions example, because nobody would say they are a better team than the Pats right now. There are a lot more teams that have the potential to win the SB each year than the media would have you believe. The "any given Sunday" saying is real, and accurate. If the Bills are spinning their wheels, we will see that this season. I doubt that even Gailey will be able to hide it. If you have Roscoe in the slot: You don't really need a running game, because you put the other team in nickel, unless they are idiots, and open up the 4 yard passing game, because they have to give him and the other WR a cushion. It's like West Coast, sort of. Nobody is dumb enough to try and play press coverage against both Parrish and Johnson(or hopefully our newly minted, equally good #2) on the same side of the field. If either gets free, it's 6, or it's get tackled by the FS 20 yards down the field. That's too much risk for a defense, so, one of them will be open for a 4 yard gain most of the time. The only way you beat that is by being able to cover him with a safety. Good luck! No safety in the league can cover Roscoe 1 v 1. So, the 2 second quick shots to Parrish with Johnson setting up the WR screen...can be deadly. And, all of this is based on the 2 second play. 2 second plays negate everybody's pass rush, not just the Jags. 2 second plays to Roscoe, with a cushion in front of him...nice I reiterate my argument: I believe the offense Gailey actually wants to run is this 2 second play offense. He's not doing it because he has to. This is by design, and not default. More and more evidence of this is becoming apparent. This type of offense means the O line only has to REALLY pass protect every 5-8 plays. It also only has to REALLY run block with the same frequency. In this style of offense, the O line just isn't that important. This type of offense is about deception, and mismatches-->see Poz trying to cover Jackson down the field last game. It is not about holding the point of attack for 3 seconds/power football. We'll see if it works, but, right now, I see this as the most likely explanation for why they aren't doing much, and saying even less, about the O line.

Yes. Nancy Lieder, if that is indeed her real name = genius. Biggest scammer or biggest troll, either way, genius. "a submersible submarine type device with robot arms" Is there any other kind of submarine than a submersible one? Or, if you want to use the other definition, is there any kind of submersible that isn't a submarine? Robot arms!

This is the real problem here, and therefore, this is why I want to see the speculators take a major beating. Not one that stops them from participating. Rather, one that merely gets their attention, and keeps them honest going forward. Like calling a reverse on an over-pursuing defense. They will be much less likely to dominate the market, or, even if they do, less likely to have the current effect they do, if they know that the possibility of them getting a major whipping exists. It's the same argument for why we don't need regulation...we need consequences. We need tailored consequences that are limited to hurting the speculator, or investment banker, that gets out of line. Screw jail time, hit them, and only them, in the wallet.

You are woefully misunderstanding me. First of all, I have no, as in 0, personal opinion on this. Really. I know better, I really do. Unlike you, I am not saying I know the science. I did say that I thought the 'atmosphere in a can" was cool, because even if DC_Tom is right, it's still cool. I am saying that at the very least the science is "unsettled". I am also saying that the concept of "settled" science on this issue, given our ability to reproduce results, is absurd. However, I do have an opinion, and a well-founded one, about the beginnings, evolution, and eventual results of the attempt to politicize this issue. You are confused. My position is strictly limited to the political side of this issue. Specifically I am talking about the effect that this CERN project will have on the political situation. Re-read my OP. It should be clear as a bell. Punishing the EPA will happen because they, and Obama, made a political mistake-->signing up to artificially inflate gas prices and trying to use "the right thing to do" as political cover. The problem is not enough people bought it as "right", and even less bought the plan for how to do it. In that way, this is the exact same political mistake as was made on gay marriage, or Obamacare for that matter. The actual issues themselves have been made nearly irrelevant due to the left's choices to try to use them as weapons. This is compounded by the fact that the "how" being proposed for each issue has either been absurd on its face, or has been communicated in an absurd manner. Um, this is the Politics board. God forbid I actually talk in terms of politics. If you want to have a scientific debate, I suggest both of us read the Nature paper, take 3 days to interpret it, and see if we come away with anything we can understand, never mind take a position on.

Put it this way: The Lions just blew out the Pats. I guarantee you that if the Bills O line played as bad against Jacksonville as the Pats O line against Detroit, this board would have had a conniption. Are we to conclude that the Pats are going to be a second-rate team this year? Why not? The Pats D line was just as awful as their O. The point is: anybody can have a bad game. And, anybody can have a good one. The Jags had players sitting out, but so did we. IF Roscoe Parrish is in the game, that does a lot to negate the 3 Jag pass rushers that weren't in the game. And on and on....if Jones-Drew was in the game, but, if Merriman was in the game...blah, blah, blah. The truth is that the Bills players that were in the game on both sides of the ball executed play after play, consistently, against another NFL team that has been decent recently. But, we can read as much into this as we can read into the Pats getting thrown around the field last game.

You haven't been working in my professional long enough to toss the word meta around yet.

What, exactly, is not right about it? Did the left not clearly begin politicizing this issue? Nope, they did. The first time I heard this become a political issue was in 1990. Did the right not finally, after getting sick of getting beat up by this issue, not react? Nope, they did. I'm not saying that the right didn't politicize it, I am saying they didn't start it. I am saying that they, because of the severe mishandling of the issue by the left, will likely be the ones that finish it. That may or may not be a good thing, but that has no bearing on the likelihood that it will happen. You may not like that your friends on the left are about to get a beating for their bad behavior, just like they did for politicizing gay marriage, but your wishes mean nothing. Obama will lose. The winner will declare open season on the EPA. The EPA deserves this because the EPA has started their own schit, overstepped their bounds, and will have to pay the piper. Nobody will care to listen to the mewling. We have already heard the mewling since 2004. We were already tired of it, and now we are finding out it's probably BS. You may wish this wasn't right. Doesn't Change the fact that It is. You may Hope that it isn't. But, there will be Change. Just not the Change you want. I take it you are done looking up the word "projection"?...perhaps it's time to look up "ironic"? I am merely telling the truth. You don't like it? Tough schit. The left started trouble on this, they got waaaaaay off base, and now there are consequences. Yeah...real ironic.

What makes you think I need to be Obama's uncle to get sauced every night? What makes you think I am not sauced...right now?

Which hype machine is that, exactly? Chris Brown? Hey, he's great but come off it already. It's not like we have ESPN Buffalo sycophants trying to make money by telling us how great we are. Instead, we have blatant hacks working at Sports Center making sophomoric cracks on Steve Johnson, and running highlights of David Garrard...in a game where he was dominated, and completely ignoring our QB's perfect passer rating. Oh, they did get in the Amish Rifle joke. Yes, whatever would Buddy Nix do without his "hype machine"? This is written by a typically ignorant, because they are typically biased and lazy, ESPN-like, idiot. How can we tell? Well, I don't know, besides the blatant inaccuracies in our "story"...perhaps if we consider that the biggest story in New England right now is "Chad 85 is not working out" and/or Haynesworth is hurt and marginal. But, instead, we get: Yes, the rookie left tackle's unquantified progress is the most important thing to point out after they get blown out by Detroit, directly due to their horrible O line play. You mean like when MSNBC had an expert telling us that Irene was an opportunity to fund a second stimulus, or that somehow every news outlet doesn't say something similar to "people are saying" if not those exact words? You mean like Dan Rather blatantly reporting lies 1 month before an election? Buddy, ALL of the media is ridiculous right now. If they weren't, and actually did their jobs, we wouldn't see articles like the one above, and we wouldn't have an unvetted, wildly inexperienced, assclown like Obama in the WH.

Bah! I was going to go with the Francisco Franco thing... ...because the word "speculation" is involved. Speculation begets "distortion" sooner or later. I am just hoping that the new President takes the leash off oil drilling...unexpectedly, and massively...so that these oil speculators all have to take a kick in the nuts. Talk about Great Justice.

Well, he's back now. How funny is it that we are "obligated" to grant citizenship to these people, according to...them. Perhaps this is the reason why Obama FAILed to address illegal immigration in any way, shape or form. He didn't even try to get the DREAM? act passed, because he knew it had a snowball's chance of getting through the Democrat House, never mind the Republican. But I wonder if the real reason is: he knew that these oddballs were in this country, and that they would damage his self image.

Yed, we want to keep the slave labor out, the Nazis entire economy was based on slave labor. It's the exact same! The USSR, based on slave labor, the current Chinese system, the same! While we are at it, the entire socialist ethos is about dragging everybody's salary down to slave wages, slowing down productivity and innovation to a drag(um, notice the inverse relationship between # of vacation days Europeans take, and innovation from Europe. Think that's a coincidence?), paying everybody based on # of years of doing just enough to get by instead of basing it on talent and merit, and treating everybody the same. The very worst thing a manager can do is "treat everybody the same". The people who praise that notion are the same people who know that if their crappy manager didn't, they'd be in trouble. Why then, should we ever consider treating illegal immigrants "the same" as productive, tax-paying American citizens? The next time I hear some Hollywood turd talk about "fairness" I want them to sign up to make "the same" money as the janitor that cleans up the set. Hey, that's only "fair".

First of all you can't go anywhere with me. You simply cannot hang. You are an amateur at best. At worst you "know" things that aren't true, because somebody mis-educated you, or you did it to yourself and you know less than 0. It would be better for you if you were completely ignorant, so you wouldn't have to unlearn things. My opinion of it depends on the context, just like my opinion of inflation. What's your opinion on purple? How about mint green? How about oral sex? All of these things can be good, or bad, depending on the context. Some things do not require context to be defined. For example: You are a unmitigated moron. This is evidenced here every day, and specifically in this instance by the fact that only an unmitigated moron would ask for an opinion about deflation, or inflation, as though their effects can be defined in absolute terms.

Wrong. The only absolute certainty here is: that the left tried to play politics with science and are only beginning to suffer losses as a result. The right simply reacted to the left's poorly concealed tactic. I am certain that you will not find many Republicans who will tell you they are convinced of anything scientifically. Instead, most would say that they simply need to see more. However, the one thing that the right is certain about is that the left has bastadized this issue, and that they are sick and tired of it. This is exactly like the gay marriage issue. The arguments are weak, therefore so are the few solutions to the problems the left have identified, and the solutions they do offer cause many more new and unintended problems. Just like with gay marriage, the only way that anything will get done on this is if the rational Democrats and Republicans agree to provide adult supervision of it, and that is only after we first get to down to what is truthfully, and actually, going on. As far as the UN is concerned: they are all clearly motivated by the money they can make/steal on this, and we simply cannot trust them with any of it.

How cool is this? Ok, yeah the article is about further evidence that AGW is NOT the primary reason for Climate ChangeTM But, let's put that on hold for a sec...These guys created an atmosphere? Now that is awesome. I don't care who you are, that's awesome. All of the political BS that is going on around this issue means practically nothing compared to "atmosphere in a can". Even if we assume the writer has a bias, the concept that we can actually create a real experiment that can really determine what's what is fascinating for me. Really. All of my usual trolling aside, this is cool. Now, back to my persona: Look in the comments. See the guy who is writing in all caps? You know who else does that on message boards/comments posts? Scientologists. Yet another example of why these ALGORE clones are not serious people. This is why I call them Environtologists. Here we have perfectly reasonable information that clearly contradicts them. And, what do these assclowns do? Instead of responding rationally, with facts that can refute the findings...they do exactly what the article accuses them of: character assassinations, howling cries of "heresy", and refusal to address any of the points that were made. These emoting assclowns are literally that affected. How seriously am I supposed to take you if you can't help but behave exactly as the writer predicts, and don't even realize you are doing it? Key lines: Funny how the behavior of Environtologists looks a lot more like the College of Cardinals and a lot less like Da Vinci, doesn't it? Yes, Brother Gore, we must not let the spawn of Satan build his evil machine! It's the Devil's work, I tell you, the work of the Devil! Yes, restricting research is very "scientific" behavior.

Did you know that welfare and unemployment insurance make it more difficult for poor people to buy things...because the inflation they create, due to deficit spending, increases the price of everything, and that the price of money being worth less hit the poor the hardest? (EDIT: I will try to help Dave. Dave, what other asset do the poor/ lower middle class have, besides cash? What happens to them when you devalue that asset?) See, like I said, what's not to like? Dave doesn't understand that the Keynsian "multiplier" theory at best is a short term solution to minor economic downturns, and should never be considered as a long term fix to structural employment issues...Dave probably doesn't understand most of what I have written here...and that's hysterical.

On the contrary, I find Dave extremely entertaining. It's fun to see the under-educated struggle with simple concepts like Supply/Demand -->Price, the fallacy of the "broken window" theory. My best guestimate is that 20% of Republicans, and 50% of independents, will have to start hating...themselves...for the Democrats to take the House as Dave says. What's not to like about this?

Link here 5 time pro-bowler...knee sugery...I dunno. This looks like a reasonable move. Perhaps it isn't. I would not trade for the guy. If I wanted him, I would simply try to claim him off waivers. Or, let that go by and try to sign him to a 2 year deal or something similar. We can move him to guard if we don't want him to play center. He has to be an upgrade over Urbik, right?

Apparently we will have to endure links to this idiotic site for a few more years. I was hoping that we were done with it. Perhaps we should make it a term and/or condition for new registrants: "You agree not to post links from WalterFootball, Huffington Post, or any other widely acknowledged traffic whoring websites, as by definition, their only authority lies in saying ridiculous things to drive traffic, and are not a source of information for serious people and/or grown-ups." SDS, get on it!

Great. Abstinence-only education fails to stop teen pregnancy. But, in typical liberal, intellectually bankrupt fashion, they forgot to mention: Sex education equally fails to stop teen pregnancy. My high school in NY taught the entire thing, and we had our share of religious opter outers. Regardless, my high school was like attending a porn movie. Kids would get it on in the friggin band practice rooms, for Christ's sake. There were at least 3 pregnant girls in any given class at any given time. Hey, I am not complaining, I am merely telling the truth. Hmmm. So, neither approach does jackshit. Well then, why the F are we still talking about either of of them? Oh, that's right, because the "we want abortion on demand and 10 year-olds to have sex" vs. "no abortions for rape victims and 'ignorance first'" unreasonable and irresponsible assclowns are involved. Who is serious about solving/preventing this problem? People, like Obama, who want to throw $110 million at the problem, but refuse to do anything to the parents of these kids? Certainly not. Certainly not the tool who wrote this article. Certainly not the tool who wrote this article, without attaching their name. There's a good chance that the reason they didn't is because some of the conclusions are sketchy, or based on sketchy data, and their hope is that we won't bother to do the checking. This is standard for this clown website, so that a questionable article can be instantly deleted as soon as it is exposed as sketchy. Unfortunately, I have spent all the time I can on PPP for now, so their hope is accurate.

You are an idiot. This notion is preposterous on multiple levels.