OCinBuffalo

No. I think that was the case when he got here, and he was smart enough to recognize it and act accordingly. Rather than what we had: run "the system" no matter what. Not really sure what you mean by "intent". It was what it was when he got it, intent had nothing to do with the reality he had to deal with. He has made some headway working with what he had. The only question for me is "preference". As I said, we'll see. If this style of offense works, why would he change it? Just so we can say we have a good O line? Why should we put resources into that, and not into say, a star QB? If anything, I want to trade up and get the best QB we can get, let him learn under Fitz, and take the time to build the line so that when said rookie is ready, so is the line. Yes, the offensive coordinators in this league have no way to predict zone defenses...neither do the QBs or WRs. In fact Fitz has no idea how to read zone at the line of scrimmage... ....other than a magic 8 ball.

I think Gailey's offense is predicated on not having to rely on an awesome O line. It's become clear in terms of the type of plays that we call. And, those plays also account for the weather in Buffalo. I don't remember a play from this past game, or for the last few games last season, that is designed to take longer than 2 seconds to develop. Or, if it does, it develops with the intended ball carrier, RB or WR, with the ball already in his hands and he is moving. This changes the O line's job from holding their ground at the point of attack, to more of a moving down the field and hitting people on the run approach. Conversely, I don't know if Gailey is simply shaping the offense based on what he has to work with, or, if he had the best O line in football, if he wouldn't be calling these type of plays anyway. Perhaps a little of both? I don't know if this is intentional and has to do with money, i,e, they don't want to expend resources on the O line, and would rather spend them on the D line, but it sure seems that way. In all cases, although some posters swear by having a power offense in Buffalo(weather, intimidation, etc.), it seems we aren't headed in that direction. The main problem with this quick-play type of offense, and we saw a little of it in the last game, is that if a team drops into zone, it can cause some problems. If you aren't playing man to man, then misdirection doesn't work as well, in any sport, because a defensive zone means all defenders have their eyes on the ball, and not as much on their man. The way to beat a zone, for this team, is to predict when they are going to be in zone, and then call a play that overloads(i.e. more people in the left flat than they have defenders) a part of the zone. This way, you can still get a quick play off, and in theory, you have automatic blockers ahead of wherever the ball goes. That's why we keep seeing all kinds of screens. The other way you beat a zone is with quickness/speed, as the defenders are playing "off" = giving up space in trade for time to react. If you can get to where they aren't, and gain that space before they can react, you win. Brad Smith showed that quite well this past game. The theory seems to be that the O line will be more of a set of guys running around, than a wall to stand/run behind. We'll see.

Lazy can sometimes be confused with smart and/or knowing your limitations. In this case, only drafting what you know means no busts, like Maybin. Yes, you may miss out on a few good players...but you won't waste high picks on bad ones.

You can't refute any of the above. Especially the part about teaching nothing about Obama in 100 years. And, you know it.

Wait a second: you are talking "worst President in lifetime"....with Obama in office right now? Are you kidding? It's already a lock that Bush goes down in history as better than Obama. In pure "got things done", lead the country, etc. terms...Obama is easily the worst President of my lifetime. Obama is such a good leader that his entire senior staff has turned over, along with most of his cabinet. If Obama isn't re-elected how is he better than Bush? Objectively now, 9/11 response/economy handling alone means Bush has better results. Bush, pound for pound was a better leader than Obama. Don't believe me? Ask how conservatives feel about Bush's leadership...then ask liberals about Obama's. If they are being honest, it's no contest. If you can't even lead your own party, how does that make you better than a guy who lead the entire country into 2 wars and effectively won both? Obama is such a good leader that he got 0 Democrats to vote for his budget. That's Andrew Johnson-level ineffective. Don't forget, we are talking history here, and the emotion tends to get swept aside, leaving only results. The narrative is already forming: "Bush would be remembered as a lot worse of a President had Obama not followed him". Just think, 100 years from now, students will be learning...nothing...about Obama, just as we basically teach nothing about Franklin Pierce today. Obama and Crispus Attucks. Two "first black man to..." guys that nobody but people like DC_Tom, myself, and whoever is asked a trivia question for money, will ever really know or care about. And, there ain't jack schit you can do about it. :lol: EDIT: Unless Obama pulls a 180 and becomes instantly pragmatic, Jackie Robinson, rightly, will be remembered as accomplishing more than Obama by far.

When, oh when, will they ever learn that these tactics will never work? File this under the "tax email, tax the internet" and all the rest of the "lasts 3 days, never to be heard from again" campaigns from politicians. There are already websites telling you exactly how to negate this, you don't even need me. All it takes is a single email get around and your "permanent ip ban" plan is FAIL. Wrong tactics for the technologies involved. Stop thinking like this is the 80s and you are Ma Bell. This is the kind of thinking that pushes funding into the undernet, China, and other things, and that is a whole lot worse scenario. This is also the kind of thinking that lets Google get away with murder. I'm honestly not sure which is worse at this point. Never forget that these tools provide extremely useful information. Knowledge is free, or it's supposed to be. That means everybody, everybody....get it?. The very last thing we want is to restrict use, drive it to places we can't see, or drive it to a single, irresponsible company. We want the exact opposite...why in the hell would we want to give away a massive source of raw data that can very easily be turned into intelligence and get nothing in return, other than a Hallmark moment story about busting over 9,000 people that is actually BS? Think. First. What kind of users are we talking about here? What do they know? How likely are they to avail themselves of alternatives unless you are pushing them in that direction? Unintended consequences...galore. Wrong tactics. Old, irrelevant thinking. Just stop it already. Let the people who know the right tactics do their jobs.

Apparently you haven't spend any time in a Skilled Nursing Facility that is primarily Meidcaid-driven recently. Comparing that, to the 1930s and before, when charities, and god-forbid...families...took care of the elderly, is no contest. The old way was easily better. And how did so many elderly, who aren't even supposed to be using Medicaid, end up on it? That's right boys and girls, Medicaid, as designed by idiot LBJ, is for YOUNG PEOPLE. Easy. When you are an idiot, LBJ, and you don't know how to plan very well, LBJ, you make programs like Medicare and Medicaid, LBJ. After 6 months of Medicare keeping Mrs. Jones alive with every conceivable medical advancement...no hold barred...because Medicare spends the big bucks...it runs out. Then, after Mrs. Jones spends/gives away all her assets before she dies, who's left to pay for her care? Medicaid. Why? Because Mrs. Jones is now "poor". This way, the family doesn't pay, Mrs. Jones doesn't pay, and actually, the Feds only allow $30 a day for Mrs. Jones...which doesn't even come close. So in truth, the Feds don't really pay either. Meanwhile, the place goes straight to hell, taking the residents and staff with it. And why? Because the Feds insist that a person who is on Medicaid get the same care that a private pay person does...so, there's no way for a provider to ever get their head above water, because the Medicaid patients keep dragging them down. They cannot offer service commensurate with price. Instead, they have to charge the private pay people more, to compensate for the Medicaid people, and even with that they are still out 20% in revenue. And what I wonder is the result? Over worked staff, under funded facilities, and of course, lawyers coming in an suing everybody. This is FAIL, for everybody but the lawyers. Yeah, You're RIght. Reagan's 3% growth in government over 6 years...as a way to get us out of a crisis, that produced excellent, tangible results that even Clinton was making a living on.... ...is the exact same as a 10% growth in government in 3 years, that has produced exactly jack sh_t. What a cogent comparison! How well did the stimulus, or, Jack "Green Shovel" Shyte, as I like to call him, work? Oh, that's right, spending $3 trillion has no effect...it's only when we spend $5 trillion...that's when Keynesian economics works, right Mr. Idiot Krugman? There is no measurable effect at $3 trillion....and the effect is not incremental or exponential from $3 to 5. No. Only when we hit $5, then its effect is astronomical and instantaneous, until then, it's completely undetectable...(because it secretly runs on magic). It's the "invisible hand...up your ass...because your Krugman's puppet" effect. Go ahead and do some more expounding on Economics. Entertain Us! How about comparisons? Got anymore "golf balls are the same as your wife, because they are both round and have holes" analysis you'd like to contribute?

QB Yep RB Not sold on White. They may have been featuring him because they wanted to give him a chance before the ax. I have definitely seen better performances out of RBs in that 3rd Rb/bubble position on this team in recent years. Fred Jackson for example. I don't know that White can catch, return, cover, etc. WR Yep...Easly will be better, IMHO. Parrish, not Jones, is our #3 WR. He may even be #2. They aren't going to play him much in preseason, to avoid injury. The guy we signed who was Chargers #1 pick may yet have a chance. Last 3 WR slots are anybody's, and we may keep 7. TE We don't have much of a choice on this one, do we? Can anybody remind me why we didn't keep Stupar? OL Yeah. We have to hope this changes. DL The only thing I'd chance is Heard for Jasper. I know that's cutting a draft pick, etc. But Heard is clearly ahead on the depth chart(he played with the 2nd D). We'll see. This could be the same thing as with White. LB I'd lose one LB and keep one extra WR....tough call cause I like Moats, Batten, White and Sheppard. DB Yep ST Yep. This Moorman getting cut thing is a probably crap. Remember "The Great Cut Rian Lindell Movement of 2006"?. Yeah, real insight there...morons. PS: Don't care That's what I think.

Who said anything about class warfare having anything to do with it? One of the biggest battle royales I have seen was in the club seats started by a supposedly well-off guy and his buddies. Again, here is wisdom: never give an order you know won't be followed. I know, and, unless you are psychologically committed to anit-smoking, you know, that 10ks of people smoke at the game. You expect them all to listen to you, when they don't even listen to the "designated smoking area" rule? This is not about anarchy, this is about common sense. Moreover, if the Bills win some f'ing games, more people will be watching, and less smoking. Again, common sense. I am sure the "buttheads"....not the Bills "losing", is the only reason you cancelled. Hmmmm. EDIT: 1. Somebody is hacking up this thread...and it isn't me. Mods. 2. I can't believe I have to explain to anyone the difference in the group dynamics and mindset of 70k people with the expectation of "hey we have a chance, should be a good game" vs. "we have no chance, and that A-hole Pats fan, who doesn't even know what happened to them in 1985, won't shut up...."

Let's review: 1. You said my non-voting means that I am responsible for not making things better. 2. I ask you how any of your votes have made anything better, especially since the people you voted for are dumber than both of us. 3. Now you try to squirm out of the logic trap I set...by calling me a stalker? WTF? We have been posting back and forth on this in this thread...but suddenly, when you see your end coming, you go for the character attack? Cheap, emotional and ineffective and blatantly obvious. Back up your claims, lawyer! You can't, and I knew that 5 posts ago. Yes, I love it when lawyers assume they are better at this than I am, for the sole reason: they are lawyers. If we look objectively at the net effect of your votes, and my non-votes, and compare them quantitatively, at best they are =. At worst, my non-votes have made things better by not encouraging idiots. If we are to treat votes like the scare resource they are, my approach is either no different, or better than yours. Claiming otherwise is contrary to the results, and is at best an emotional response.

Where the F are you going to get $49 trillion, moron? If you don't have an answer, then STFU. Do not talk to me about taxing the rich. Even if we taxed everyone who makes over $250k a year 100% we don't even come up with half of the what your dumbass party wants to spend. So, take your "Bush tax cuts" buffoonery and blow it out your ass. Your party doesn't want to cut defense, because they know that's an election-losing albatross. So, you can take your "cut defense spending" and blow that out your ass as well, because your elected people won't do it anyway. Of course they will stand up at fundraisers and talk schit, of course your idiot talking heads on TV will spew it, but behind closed doors these same people will advise doing nothing on defense. I don't know if you knew that. Now you do. Obama and your Congress, since 2006, spent us into a massive hole. It is time to take the shovel away...unless you keep digging and find $49 trillion down there.

How exactly have any of your votes made anything better.... ...OTHER than allowing you to self-congratulate on being "better" than other people for voting for people nobody knows. Do you go around bars telling people who you voted for, so that when they say "who?" you can say "well, you wouldn't understand".

Um, no you can't. You cannot say that you are not for immediate cuts, and call yourself a rational person. The two things are mutually exclusive. I don't care how we got here. We are here now, and we have to start climbing out of the hole immediately. IF that means I have to take your shovel away so be it. Fine. You want to play word games, you go right ahead and call it "reform" instead of "cut". I don't care, as long as the results we need are achieved. We cannot live up to the promises you party has been making for the last 60 years. We never could have, as they were never realistic. Now its time to do what we can, and tell anybody who doesn't like it to F off. This is not a f'ing game mother Fer. Pull your head out of your ass and realize that your attitude is the a major part of the problem. We need to be serious. If this is all a game to people like you, then you need to move aside, and let the adults deal with these problems. When and where did I ever say that? More evidence as to why "this is a game" for you. When and where did I ever say that? More evidence as to why "this is a game" for you. Idiot. This is like saying "well, your side says the sun is going to come up tomorrow...and that's your way....so..." What need to be done needs to be done. This is not about somebody's f'ing "way". We are far past that, way far past that. There is no compromise with fairyland. I cannot meet you in the middle between here and a place that doesn't exist, other than in your delusions. Where the F are you going to get 49 trillion dollars from? Tell me, now, or STFU and go take your meds. I would say show me how it works. IF it actually conforms to the laws of economics, if it actually has a reasonable chance of ROI, if it has an easy exit strategy so we can shut it down if it gets out of hand, if it has the ability to actually do what it says, if there is no potential for it to compete with real banks, if there is no potential for it's scope to grow beyond it's intent.... then sure, I'd like to see it. Why wouldn't I? There's nothing wrong with doing things that get tangible results. The problem you have is: almost all of your ideas FAIL. And have FAILED for years. Yet, you keep demanding that we do your ideas, and call us racists, homophobes, sexists, etc. if we don't. F you.

Don't make the assumption that you know what I do, what I make, that my job is any less fun or cool than Brandon's, or that you know my my smoking status, because you are probably wrong. The only thing you actually know is: I am criticizing Brandon, accurately I might add, on a message board. Here's some data for you: 1. 10s of Ks of people smoke at the Bills game. This is a fact. Whether they should? Irrelevant opinion. Whether you like it? Also irrelevant opinion. Whether they get cancer? Not in your or Russ Brandon's scope of control or concern. 2. The more you tell 10s of Ks of people they can't do something, when they are already lubricated with booze and amongst 100s of other people doing the same thing, the more they will do it, partially because of the fun of telling you to F off, partially because of the numbers they have and the group dynamic is unique to the Bills game, and partially because they need to remind you how dumb you are for even considering imposing your world view on them. This is about dealing with reality. Reality is 1 and 2. If you, or Brandon, are unable or unwilling to deal with 1 and 2, that will reflect itself in the ineffectiveness of your proposed "solutions". You will find them: lacking. Thus, you can either work on your acceptance of the reality of 1 and 2, or, you can continue to deny reality. The choice is yours, but I guarantee that you will find legions of people smoking at the game this year, as always, regardless of whatever you say/do. Brandon needs to realize this, even if you can't, and understand: winning games is the best way to alleviate all of these problems.

Hmm...the chances of that happening....vs....the chances of getting rid of all loopholes and lowering rates. I'll take "What is the second one, Alex." Understand, I have had plenty of experience with government regulators. Clients routinely send them our way, because then they have deniability if we screw up. But, we don't. I will never forget the regulator lady in Dallas who brusquely told me to free up the next 3 days for her and hung up on me. She lasted a half hour...and had no earthly idea WTF what we were telling her. It ended with 2 of my guys walking her to the elevator, being polite as possible, and on my orders they told her where she could go to get the education necessary to understand what we were doing. I felt sorry for her, so clueless that she actually thought she had something to be arrogant about. Mind you, I never knowingly contribute to any wrongdoing. Given this: do you really think that the government accountants you assign to my outfit won't quit after 2 weeks? Buddy, the hazing we would put upon them would be classic. We already haze the hell out of the accountants/clerks that work for us. What do you think we would do to the ones that don't?

That's what I was saying. You can't just do one thing. Now if you did all of that, but, you also lowered the rates of everything, "the rich" would probably be less likely to engage people who are smarter than you to defeat your plan. Good luck with taxing the accountants. They know where every body is buried. If you were Harry Reid, and you put forward this plan with the accountant tax in it, about half an hour later you'd have 50 phone calls from people in your own party demanding that you take it out. In what world do accountants that work for me determine that something I say is an expense, in fact isn't an expense? Not this one. If it "isn't an expense" then I tell them, "find a way to make it one", and that's the end of it, or, they don't work for me anymore. Get it? Moreover, do you honestly believe that every receipt for every expense we incur, and every other firm, could be reviewed by the IRS? No. Ridiculous. There's no point in taxing for something that can't be done. Kind of like "never give an order you know won't be followed".

I just spent 3 posts talking about how to do something, but am trying to squash talking about it...at the same time. Y'know when I say you are delusional? The above suffices as an example. ... I never worked on the tax side. Hell, I never worked on the accounting side at all. You'd have to ask them. However, in a contest between Big 6(is it 3 or 4 now?) accountants and you? Um, they'd win, and they probably wouldn't even need to assign a manager to it, never mind a partner. I do have an easy way to circumvent it though: don't pay people as much in traditional payroll. Issue them stock and pay dividends-->capital gains. Pay people per diems for expenses. We are talking about people that make more than 100k, right? It's easy to "pay" them in expenses, while keeping their salary low, we already do that. Hell, most of the recruiters out there are constantly trying to get consultants/programmers to take their gigs by dangling large per diem checks, and paying us out of Texas, so that we get to keep more of our money...and that's just what the F already goes on. A while back I had a guy out of Columbus offer me 40k a year in salary, and 100k in per diem none of which is taxable. I told him he was going to get busted. He told me he already had 20 people working under those terms. So what the F do you want?

yes, I am fine with that, provided we stop acting like Billy the minimum wage drifter = OC the consultant both in terms of what we have contributed, and our ability to manage our money. We are not equal. We will never be equal. "Treating everybody the same" is a great management style if we all work at the highway department. Billy might, but I don't. You don't. We need better solutions. The current ones fail, and they fail to address today's problems. Again, I will remind ...lybob(LBJ) that it is not 1965.

Sure. If we are going to treat this as a real retirement program that actually gets better than a 2% ROI....with the assumption that rich people are by definition going to pay more, which in turn covers the poor people/disabled/etc. taking out more than they paid in... ...then there's a chance I will collect social security after all. See, the difference here is: I want solutions, not delusions. If this is the only way to get it done, then just come out and f''ing say it. Then, f'ing do it. Stop demagoging the rich. If there are other ways to do it, I'm all ears. I would think that if you removed the cap, but at the same time, cut the corporate tax rate, you won't find many "rich" people bitching. Besides, their "income" usually pales in comparison to their capital gains anyway. Right? That's the only problem I see with your "the only thing we do is remove the cap" idea. Without anything else, people will simply find ways around it. I used to work for the Big 6. I am certain they would be overjoyed with your plan, as they could bill tons of hours circumventing it.

I don't see how or why we would want any cap on anything. Each person is different, has different abilities and earning power in their lifetime, so what's with a cap? Similarly, I know wtf I am doing when it comes to investments. Why can't I be allowed to manage my own SSI? Do you really think some tool in DC knows better than I do how to manage money? If there is: I want a name and number. I want specifics. I'd rather pay a financial adviser to manage my SSI, with strict conservative instructions, then collect less interest than I would get from a f'ing savings account. But, if there's some government guy that knows better than my adviser, give me his number. The problem is: I don't fit into the liberal "one size fits all" mentality. I also don't fit into the "we know better than you" liberal mentality, because liberals have proven that they patently do not. Edit: I did answer the question, with a question. You know damn well that SSI doesn't operate as designed, and hasn't for a very long time. So spare me. This isn't 1965, there LBJ.

So every disabled person and everybody that goes on disability will have contributed what they get out? It's the same problem with Medicare. For every apples to apples $1 people have paid in, they are being paid $4. Why? Because Democrats, and some Republicans, have been irresponsible in what they have promised people. The question is now: do we sign up for more bad behavior until the whole thing comes crashing down? Or, do we take the steps we need to gradually fix the problem? I'm for the last one. But again, I don't see how we compromise with people like you, unless you give us a map to your home in fairyland, so that we have a starting place on both sides from which to create a compromise. Or, we can sign up for more irresponsible nonsense. Hey, I know, let's have another stimulus that creates shovel ready green jobs! That will raise all the revenue we need and, after waving our Pelosi magic wand, all our problems will go away, and then we can self-congratulate on how "moral" we are all. Right now that last part is the ...lybob plan...unless you tell me different.

You cannot say you want fiscal responsibility.... ....and also say you want no cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and SSI in this universe. They are diametrically opposing concepts. But, no cuts to anything is Nancy Pelosi/Dick Durbin's position currently. We would have to have $46 trillion in the bank right now, collecting interest, to meet the obligations Pelosi, etc. currently demand. W...T....F is "responsible" about that? This is not a "matter of perspective", opinion, or anything even approaching them. This is outright denial of reality. This is delusion. How the F is anyone supposed to compromise with delusional people? Where do we start exactly? Your side has no basis in reality...so how are we supposed to find the middle ground between here and fairyland? Do you have a map we can use?

Win some f'ing games, tool. Instead of f'ing about trying to harass smokers, and inevitably failing in your efforts....win some f'ing games. Your 3 Neon Nazis aren't going to stop a pack of 80 people from smoking, ever. People will be less likely to go out and smoke, or even think about it, if they don't want to miss the, winning, action on the field. Instead of f'ing about trying to stop people from drinking so much, and inevitably failing in your efforts...win some f'ing games. People will be much less likely to hit the concession stand for that final beer that sends them over the edge, if they don't want to miss the, winning, action on the field. Hell, people won't even drink that much before the game, because they won't want to miss what happens. Instead of f'ing about with parking and everything else that simply wasn't a problem when we were winning games....focus on job #1! Win some f'ing games! I'll make this as simple as I can so that people in marketing, like you, can understand it. There is absolutely no way in hell you are ever going to get people to stop: drinking smoking when they drink chasing women(without boyfriends mind you) swearing harassing(good natured mind you) opposing fans because this is Buffalo, and that's how we roll. When I was 10 my grandfather was tailgating in the parking lot, handing out cherry bounce shots to whoever would cheer when he said "Go Bills", and giving the Jets fans crap about drafting Ken O'Brien instead of Marino. Nobody was getting arrested, there wasn't a problem. What's the only difference here? Back then we would win some f'ing games! The fans are going to do these things, as we always have, and you will FAIL by placing your focus on us. You will WIN the second you realize that winning makes us do all of those things LESS! Wake the f up and realize it really is that simple. You can blow coming down on the fans, and accepting exactly 0 of the blame for the last 10 years, right out your ass. This is your problem far and away more than it is the fans. You need to take demonstrable steps to correct your own bad behavior before you start talking about anyone else.

I'm with you on that, but only a little. The difference is: Dickerson was being negative...when the Bills were good, and therefore he was usually wrong. Dickerson was doing that to get ratings, and it was phony as hell. His whole thing was about trying to get back at them for firing him. There's nothing wrong with being negative if there's clearly something to be negative about. How great would it be if we were back to Dickerson splitting hairs on whether we made the right move with a backup linebacker?

Perhaps. I am talking about passion, and doing their jobs, not necessarily being right. Bulldog can back up what he is saying here with fact. Conversely Schopp is for the Evans trade, and even he has found a way to get from A to B to C rationally. This beats the hell out of the usual: where all we have to look forward to is the news guy telling us the facts, and Paul Hamilton. Look: everybody who's been here awhile know I not very friendly with the sports media in general, and I hammer WGR normally. However, I am not a turd. When they do something right, I am the first to give credit. This show feels right to me so far, in fact I can't remember the last time I was this pleased with WGR...we'll see...