OCinBuffalo

Many of us remember the Pats and Jets being ahead of Miami, and drafting Tony Eason and Ken O'Brien(links for those who don't) instead of Dan Marino in the 1983 draft. All Marino nose-candy rumors aside, this is perhaps the finest example of blowing a chance to "draft a Hall of Famer". But, that was 1983, and Free Agency basically didn't exist. Today, with most drafted rookie contracts lasting only 4 years, and, with UDFA lasting 3, the concept of "Drafting a Hall of Famer" has taken a huge hit, IMHO, if it even exists at all. I understand the concept may still pertain to lineman and QBs...but barely. So, when I hear people say "we may miss the chance to draft a HOFer"...it sounds absurd. I think the NFL will adopt an NBA-style slotting system for Rookie contracts, and I think they will make the contracts last longer. I think they will be able to do this by promising the vets larger and longer FA deals, and the vets will take it, since, the players that this will effect aren't even in the league yet, and therefore, don't get to vote.

Using Fail to accurately and consistently define Fail = Win.

Which, in all actuality, means that Magox has not "NEVER supported Dems". You Fail. Answer your own question: if has been around for 9 months, why the F did we wait until now? Again, the Dems could have had this 'victory', minor at best, any time for the last 9 months. Pathetic. Democrats showing that they are easily beaten by Republican procedural shenanigans tells me... ...if they can't handle that, they can't handle China, Iran, Russia, North Korea, never mind Iraq and Afghanistan. Super Pathetic. Once again, just like with Gay marriage, you are angry at the wrong people for the wrong reasons, and therefore You Fail. Just like you Failed with Gay Marriage. Then you shouldn't use words like "NEVER". You Fail.

Magox has been on your side regarding the Bush tax cuts since the beginning of the debate, so your "NEVER sided with Dems" statement is Fail. So, You Fail. Give us one, NON-POLITICAL, reason why we are doing 5 major pieces of legislation, and never passed a real budget, with 2 weeks left in the year. You can't, so, You Fail. Neither you or RI pay attention to who says what around here, so, you Both Fail.

IIRC, that picture is actually too old to be Adam. Isn't Adam the 17 year old Jewish kid that lives in TinyTown, New Mexico, and got picked on by Christian kids one day, which he says justifies an ongoing, irrational hatred of all religion? Or am I wrong?

I am beginning to think that you are simply like crying. Can't argue with my content, so it's always about process. How much do you want to bet that none of these tools knew the proper definition of "intelligence" prior to that post? And, how much do you want to bet that most of them will forget this simple concept in 2 weeks? Still waiting for any of them to get the nuance here. They seem to think that attacking me = understanding the issue. Laughable. They Fail.

I am glad that they got this done now, rather than it hanging around continuing to cause trouble. This is what the majority of people want, so be it. Now, the job will be to minimize the impact. There is no "bang for the buck" argument here. This costs money and time, there is no upside in this regard. Hopefully this will go smooth. Hopefully it will be over quickly. I don't think it will, which is why I wanted a more gradual process, but that ship has sailed. We have to trust the politicians, the X. Benedicts, and the Lady Gaga's of the world, who say this will be no big deal. They better hope it isn't, or there will be a heavy political price to pay, never mind the price X will pay on this board And, 40 days is patently ridiculous. When will liberals ever learn: when you win, consolidate, don't overreach. It's a simple concept.

If this is the best you guys can do, I'm gonna go get something to eat. Later.

Yet another platitude Gene? All I do is study nuance all day. And patterns. Have I detected a pattern here Gene?

See, I can't win for losing. I was going to write a complete response to this, which would have induced crying about length. Instead, I wrote a short one, which I hoped would be taken in the proper context, and I have induced crying about content. I should have said "proved wrong/silly TO ME". And why? Because unlike Gene, you and I have the backgrounds as well as understanding of world events and history to know that nations need secrets. Not necessarily secrets for nefarious purposes, but because blabbing everything we know to every GeneFrenkle so we can say "see, it's TRANSPARENT" is not only worthless, it's pointless. The sheer amount of data alone is not something that is worth disseminating. Look at what Assange has released, what was so important? What did he accomplish? 87k pages of stuff....and we find out Karzei is a loon. I knew that by watching an interview wit the guy. So, again, most of this is worthless. Discretion, is, by definition, discrete. If we want to just blab everything we hear to everybody we meet, so that GeneFrenkle gets to transparently know that a Polish diplomat poops in a bag, awesome! Yeah, people won't want to tell us anything, because we can't keep private things to ourselves. If we can't be trusted to STFU, then we can't prevent war with diplomacy, it's a simple as that. It only takes on meaning once "intelligence" has been created. That is something we don't want getting out: because that tips people off as to "how" and "what" we are thinking, which is a whole other ballgame. Ultimately, I am laughing at Gene's attachment to, yet again, a platitude. In this case "transparency". I am beginning to think Gene goes through life saying "measure twice, cut once" every 5 minutes. You know that commercial where the tool keeps saying "this is gonna be a win/win"? I am starting to think that's Gene....and that makes me

Wait a second, aren't all threads on PPP required to be immature? Even the GG, Magox and the rest of the Jedi Council boring ass finance threads? And people get on my for long posts.

I'm not the one who can be so easily manipulated by an obscure Genesis reference. Who are you more pissed at? Tom for assigning you homework you can't do, Tom for proving you wrong and/or silly with 2 sentences, or me for laughing at you?

Nah, they just have no reply at all. The only thing they can do is try to attack me for knowing what I know, doing what I do, etc. Emphasis on try and Fail. Again.

<me IRL> Actually quite the opposite. Hint: this is a message board. You are taking this....way too seriously. If I ever met you IRL, I'd buy you a beer, goof around, and have fun, like I always do. </me IRL> Now do your homework.

People here know what I look like, so spare me. Who said I was the one who was traumatized? IRRC, many of those kids went to hospital. I went home and played with my legos.

Blah, blah, blah, Tom gave you homework. Rather than doing it, you come crying to me? I am also in wait and see mode on Global warming, and always have been. I have have been telling the chicken littles to stop and think: who benefits from the chicken little scheme? Before we go running around destroying our entire economy, we need to consider the source. I have it all figured out because: I'm not a f'ing idiot. Now go do your homework. It's an easy assignment. Now get to it.

I have spent my entire working life destroying bureaucracy. In governments, corporations, and utilities. I have found all sorts of organizational buffoonery, but it usually centers on: a.) somebody had an ulterior motive for creating the organizational unit -> in government, it is usually a payoff in jobs for supporters, in corporations, it is usually a VP's attempt at gaining power = "the more people I have working for me, the more power I can say I have, and the more power I have over the other VPs", in utilities, and I am sure it's the same in schools, it's about budget, you'd rather create more and more "work", a sort of buffer, so you can justify more and more budget, so that if you have to cut back, you get to be in control of what is cut, rather than facing arbitrary cuts you can't control. b.) laziness/weakness. It's far easier to create new resources to throw at a problem than it is to retool and gain additional productivity from your existing ones. This has the added benefit of allowing executive level managers more places to promote people, rather than having to make tough decisions. c.) non-thinking/bad managers. Most of the organizational problems and massive waste I find could have been easily avoided, had the suit who created them not been an idiot, or was willing to take on and own the problem, or had put in the effort to do their jobs properly, for whatever reason. I think most of the dumb managers I find probably used their brains way back when, but, over time, they settle in and just look to do the bare minimum. IF they actually put in the effort, they would make their work life easier, not harder, and the fact that they don't get that fascinates me. In actuality the whole thing fascinates me, which is why I do it. Disclaimer: just because I usually find these things doesn't mean I always do, or that I go looking for these things. Honesty, the discipline of doing the analysis properly every time, and true objectivity is what makes a consultant worth the title. In any event, you want to know why bureaucracy gets out of control? More often than not, a-c is present someplace.

....but thinks that whatever opinion piece on MoveOn.org today is fact-based, and that Bill Nye is a scientist. In fact, we have proven here that conner has no formal education in anything that matters. His bachelor of arts in women's studies clearly does him no good here at all. Thanks a lot for that reminder . It's Christmas, which means another year of crushing my little brother's South Park college friends when they come over for our party. It's a yearly ritual that I do not look forward to, but I feel compelled to educate these clowns. They always bring something they "researched" , one year a kid even wrote down what he was going to say. He failed. Basic economics and logic owns them no different than it owns conner here. Uhhhhhh, you may find that you are in the severe minority that is critical of/has never done a lot of this stuff, on this board anyway. There was a time for all of that = college If you are the biggest nerd of all time, that's fine, but, you know, "judge not, lest ye be judged"....

:lol: :lol: It's been 3 days, so this post has earned a: "No reply. There's no reply at all. Ohhh, ohhh, no reply at all." For the last time, Anon are not the minions of Assange, or anybody. The are only loyal to memes, until they become overdone, or something comes along that either creates a new meme, or diverts their attention elsewhere. There is no "plan" because their are no "leaders". If there were leaders, they certainly wouldn't be pissants like Assange.

Allow me to clarify. I'm not saying I want to trade Evans, or, that it is a good idea, if all we get is "fair" value. While I think estimating his value as a 6 is a preposterous, I also think giving us a 2 for him would be equally goofy. I am merely trying to show feasible situations where teams would be willing to overpay, and give us "unfair value" for Evans, since getting "unfair value" = win. Doing nothing(Nate Clements) = fail. Overpaying for another teams FAs that they are letting walk(The O lineman we signed) = fail. Not taking trade offers for players like London Fletcher = fail. You can't keep doing the same thing, fail, and then go right back to it and expect different results. I understand that each player is different, but every single time we have traded a "star" we have ended up with the better part of the deal. "Stars" on a team that can't make the playoffs the 5 years they are there? Stars? Really?

Unless I am mistaken, Bill doesn't really see it either, he's just saying that because of having gone round and round about Whitner, with tools like myself, back when he was drafted. Purely in terms of draft value(because we can't really know about leadership), Bill was right, and Whitner shouldn't have been drafted at #8. Bill is merely dropping us a conciliatory "nod" because Bill is a good guy, and he's also a good Bills fan.

Agree with everything but: I thought it was RT, not LT, where we had problems. Wrotto and the False Start on 1st and goal from the 2 really made me angry. By contrast, I thought Bell held up well, and I especially liked it when he stuck up for his fellow lineman, and got punched in the face as a result, shook it off, and ran back to huddle. I'd love it if Bell proves that we can draft a project tackle this year, and spend our high picks on DL and LB. If not, then we need to get the best LT we can, and move Bell to RT. I wish some reporter would ask if Moorman is being coached to not try to coffin corner people, and instead, is being told to force fair catches on the 15 with high punts. You...praise...Whitner...what!? And this is dead on. I would add: it's also really great to have a guy who "gets it" regarding the team, and the big picture. Look at his press conference on the Bills site = class. I want us to extend this guy immediately. I see no point in waiting until after next season, when his value will be even higher.

I don't know....while I understand and agree with the OP...I'm not convinced that the root cause of this is "homerism". There is a definite difference between the announcers today, and the announcers in the past. The old announcers(minus the syrupy Pat Summerall and Madden = the originator of this "manufacturing Greatness on air" concept) often seemed genuinely shocked/elated/surprised/whatever, when a big play was made by a big player, or any player. They didn't say stupid things like "well, it was just a matter of time until (douche player) made a big play, because he's from (anywhere) and that means (anything)." Most notably, the difference was: they often didn't say anything, and let the picture tell the story. It was completely unscripted, or, the announcers of old were a hell of a lot better at their jobs than the guys now. Also, this was before marketing/pr people had the influence they do now. Now, clearly, you can almost hear the NFL marketing people in the room with the production crew and the talent before the game: "Play up Brady. Our stars aren't playing like stars. Mike Vick is playing like the MVP, and for Christ's sake we can't have that." Remember when Joe Thiesmann said "Tedy Bruschi" 60+ times the game he made a "dramatic" comeback to play us? Same thing. Clearly it backfired, and you think they would have learned. But, not if the poll #s and focus groups say that they liked the Bruschi "story". It all comes down to the #s. These people would literally say "!@#$stick" 100 times on air if the #s said it was a good idea. They will do whatever you, and everybody else, tells them to do.

You are right. And yes, I see KC losing to the Titans or Raiders as far more likely.

Again, I am talking Redskins here. But still, what did we really get from trying to convert our "stars" who were good at the scheme we had, into average players because they were average at cover 2? All we did was bastardize their value. If we had traded, Posy and/or Spikes and/or Fletcher, we would have gotten #2-3s for them. Instead, we ended up either getting nothing, or, trading for #5s later? That was stupid. Similarly, this is not a deep ball offense as much as it is a 20-30 yard big play offense and a "get (insert skill player here) with the ball in space" offense. Why should we keep Lee Evans for 2-3 plays a game, with a max of 5-6 TDs and 400 yards a season? That's bastardizing his value. Either start gunning the ball down field more often, or, move Evans and get his full value in return.