OCinBuffalo

Required viewing material for this thread Annoying but necessary thread disclaimers, unfortunately : 1. This thread is about what the title said, ONLY! 2. This thread is not about Ann Coulter, whether Ann Coulter is a POA, Global Warming, Liberal media bias, the BBC, your mothers, women in general, my supposed dislike for women, my ability to know what women want, my ability to know what your mother wants , or any other distraction(the usual distortion/distraction people know who they are). 3. This thread is not about any extreme position taken by Ann Coulter, Micheal Moore, the BBC, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Alan Colmes, the NY times, or your mothers(to include running with scissors). So what I am talking about? Simple. You have to be an idiot or as equally affected as this BBC guy to somehow miss the clear bias in this guy's entire demeanor, or not understand just how badly Coulter Assinated(still laughing at that) him. But how did this happen? In a country like England, where the left has been in charge for so long, an inevitable brain atrophy occurs when your thinking is never challenged. It was clearly present when I worked over there, as it was when I worked in Canada. It happens often in large organizations, public and private, in this country as well, as many professional "agents of change" here can attest. I bet this BBC guy worked all night on that zinger "does it get any better?" and she grabbed his "genius plan" and took his nuts with it. Why? Because the man clearly hasn't been up against somebody that can honestly represent a significant challenge to his position in a long time...maybe ever. BBC guy's hubris is the same disease that allowed the Republican Congress to think they could get away with all the scams they got caught pulling, same with Edwards, same with Clinton. All started believing their own BS. We will suffer the same fate if we remove reasonable debate from this country. Therefore, I hope Obama re-thinks his attacks on those that oppose him in the media, because if he is successful in silencing them(um Fairness Doctrine), then all we have to look forward to is legions of idiots like this BBC guy. That is "Change we don't, won't and will never believe in", and as Americans, per Patrick Henry and the ACLU, we have a duty to "fight"(quotes because I don't want to offend candy-ass sensibilities) against. This BBC guy is the product of what I would call, for lack of something better, intellectual incest, and that ain't good anytime, anywhere.

Thanks. The Senator keeps asking why we listen to this "trash". Well, I have a new reason now. You know the part of the show that I enjoy the most? It's when callers, sometimes as many as 5 in a row, first get on and ask "how's it going". Seriously, I think that is the funniest part of the whole show. It's hysterical to me because these simpletons always respond with a sarcastic "we're fine". The funny part is that they think the joke is on the caller, because the caller doesn't realize that they are making fun of him/her. They sit in their own private "hell"(they created for themselves), because no matter how condescending they are, it has absolutely no effect. Tomorrow at least 5 people will do it again, and there's nothing they can do about it. They even complained on air about it for a while...no effect either! "Whaaa! The worst thing about my job is people ask me how I'm doing. Whaaa! How do I make it stop????" Instead of seeing it as the positive it truly is = callers ask this because this is the first question people from this state ask out of politeness with strangers and genuine curiosity with friends, Schopp and the Bulldog choose to get irrationally annoyed by it. Insecurity? Lack of Wisdom? Low Intelligence? Drama queen behavior? Doing a poor Howard Stern imitation? Take your pick. It's funny watching supposedly smart people push on a door labeled "pull". It's the same as listening to these guy haze themselves every day desperately trying to come off as "smarter" than the callers, and still not getting that door opened no matter how hard they push.

For reasons passing understanding , this reminds me of the scenes in the beginning of Rocky III with Rocky goofing and Clubber crushing himself in the gym. Hopefully Maybin = Clubber, smacks Brady* around, and Brady* the anti-Rocky exits the game quivering.

I just have to say: Assinate? LOL! Spit out my Mt. Dew on that one.

"No reply at all, there's no reply at all" Another fine example of how well grounded the current liberal position is...keep settin' em up, I'll keep knocking them down. You guys can goof around now but realize that the only reason people voted for Democrats was because they were punishing Republicans for screwing up, not because they suddenly think socialism is a good idea. They will punish the Democrats in 2010 if they continue this nonsense.

No. The far-right people are at least aware of the concept of shame. They are religious after all This is also true because Conservatives base their ethos largely on truth, and Liberals largely on compassion. It's easier to lie when you aren't very concerned with the truth, or "things as they really are", to begin with. Let's compare the difference between the Reagan Revolution or the Contract with America --> they were based on removing bad ideas/poor performers in Congress with bad ideas and replacing them with good ideas that not only worked, but worked beyond all expectation...and what has happened since 2006 --> the few improvements(the Surge, Aids relief, etc. ) have happened in spite of the Democrats. Nothing else has improved other than gas prices, due to the market, and nothing this worthless Democratic congress, the worst Congress in history by the numbers, has done. 3 years after the Contract with America things were noticeably better across the board. You cannot name one thing this Democratic Congress, that we "had to have immediately or else", has done that has made anything better..not 1 thing. They haven't even originated an idea...other than "spend a sh!tload on pork", but let's face it, that's not really original now is it? The only reason the Democrats are in power is because they were able to skillfully be "for Iraq before they were against it". Kerry must be pissed that he was the only one unable to pull that BS off. It's hysterical that they want to call the Republicans "The party of No". It's like the pot calling the kettle black. If that's the case then the Dems are "the party of nothing" and/or "the party of nonsense". And, where's your "morally superior outrage" over the fact that this camp has been there for at least 10 years?

And while this is all very beguiling, it doesn't address the original, albeit fumbled, point of this thread. Schopp said he doesn't like talking about the Bills and only does it because his job says he has to, period. We all heard it. And no phony-ass denials from WGR or their surrogates(um, Preston) changes that. Having an(I'll be as fair as I can be) objective attitude towards work is one thing. But complaining about doing your job on air, especially when you have a reasonably successful show, supposed support from your sponsors, and people carrying so much water for you that they are still spinning up the positive 16 pages into a thread: is not excusable, and exposes your contempt for your audience. Beyond being fairly unprofessional and stupid(see: 16 pages of this thread that has brought all kinds of trouble, program director quotes, nonsense defensive spin, and appearances from other members of the press), Schopp's comments simply aren't that entertaining, relevant, or interesting. Would more people buy your stories if you complained about having to cover the Bills? How does Schopp complaining about having to talk about the Bills help the "business"? Most importantly: Why has there been a SIGNIFICANT uptick in Bills/NFL coverage every single day since these stupid comments were made? Coincidence?

How hard is it to google this? You all missed the friggin point(hardly shocking). It's not just Oprah fellas. Over 75% of the damn press parroted this story before it was reported by reasonable people as complete BS. I don't have time or the patience to link to every damn story I found that was reported "Grapes of Wrath" style. It's not hard to type Sacramento Tent City into your favorite search engine and see that for yourself. It's pathetic, and don't try to pretend it's just Oprah. It's "journalists" and "TV reporters" who are blatantly lying to us because they can't get their political views, and their ego, which is tied to their political views, out of the way long enough to do their job properly.

The truth. This place has been there for 10 damn years and almost all of the inhabitants have alcohol/drug problems. Now, go do search on Tent City Sacramento and see what most of the idiot media in this country say: "Oh GOD! It's the Grapes of Wrath! All these middle class people living in a tent city that has just sprung up because of the depression(Bush created)." It's absolutely pathetic when you have to have a left-leaning weekly magazine 4000 miles away from Sacramento actually do real reporting and get at the facts of the case. Pathetic. Anybody who pretends like this isn't phony is equally pathetic. What's ironic about this? This left-leaning British magazine is asking a perfectly reasonable question: where was the outrage over this tent city 5 years ago? How about 8 years ago? Answer: it had no propaganda value back then. Now they can say "see, we NEEEEED socialism, nice white union people are living in the streets for Pete's sake!" = complete lie....and the far-left tools here and elsewhere wonder why I call them phony. Far-Left Rule #1: It only matters to us if we can get political gain from it today, and only the parts of it that support our nonsense. This is merely one of thousands of examples of why I am wholly justified in calling them phony.

Yikes! How Orewellian I thought the Iraq war hurt the economy.... Are you saying it helped it? Let's face facts: WWII was the single greatest thing that helped the economy, not anything FDR did. He was much better at the war than at the economy. Buffalo was simply not "sustainable" under FDR/LBJ(and Jimmy Hoffa) policies. It was while we had the giant head start after WWII, but that went to crap as soon as Japan and Europe cleaned up their mess and started producing again globally in the 1970's. Lesson to learn: Idiots demand that a guy who drives a truck, or works in a factory, be paid the same and receive the same benefits, as a guy who skills are in much higher demand, just because they said so, with no economic or financial basis for that statement. Idiots pretend that one guy driving a truck is exactly as good as the next guy driving a truck, should be paid the exact same, and automagically gets better at it every 5 years, and therefore deserves more. Sooner or later the market comes in and makes an ass out of you = Jimmy Carter...and Clinton in his first 2 years, until he wised up. The history is clear: Carter = done, and beaten badly Clinton 92-4 = put nonsensical socialist ideology ahead of common sense and paid dearly for it Clinton 94-00 = did what works(hint: not socialism), gained success with it, and stayed in power I wonder if Obama will learn from Clinton in time to turn this around and get re-elected? Odds are he will...he's smart and he's not falling on the Mondale sword for anybody...which means you can forget socialist health care, environtology, and any other "change" policy where believing in large amounts of BS is key. I will howl laughing at the far-left either way, because Obama will either get tossed out of office, or he will ignore them. They still don't get their way, even from their own guy...but I'm sure it will be somebody else's fault as usual. Root cause: 1. so many people clinging to a broken ideology that pretends that other countries in the world don't exist economically or militarily 2. people clinging to paying people whatever they decide is a "living wage" instead of what the market will bear 3. ??? 4. "Yes we can!" Exactly nowhere, the other states/people are looking out for their own interests, which is what they are supposed to be doing. Then you will see a repeat of the Taft-Hartley act and it's consequences. It's helpful to actually know history and economics before you set out to "solve" problems. BS Flag. Pretending that the quality of care in Canada is the same as it his here is specious argument as well. If you buy the lesser product, by definition, you expect it to be cheaper. Replacing insurance company bureaucracy with government employee bureaucracy that eventually costs more and that you cannot fire for incompetence without 5 times the hassle and cost, is not a solution. It's just moving the problem from one place to another. It's just creating more people who owe you their vote because you got them their jobs. But of course Democrats wouldn't dream of doing that now would they, they aren't the party of corruption!(cough, Chicago, cough, Cleveland, cough, Buffalo)Right. Now if we all accept that we are going to have to wait in line, or be denied outright, for medical services, and proceed on that lowered expectation, then sure, government MIGHT be able to do it cheaper. But then again, there's the Post Office vs. Fed Ex thing, and there's nothing specious about that argument now is there? What are you going to do, go to the UN and tell them to only allow China to sell here and in Europe? What is the % chance that the UN will enforce said trade regulations, or that China will obey them? This is all right by me, because it's predicated on the truth and common sense first, compassion when we can afford it, and not ideology. The real problem IS ideology. If you believe that government, by definition, SHOULD grow larger/smaller in all cases, and is the answer to all/no problems, then you aren't solving problems, you are creating them. Each situation requires common sense, period. However, larger opportunity for corruption INEVITABLY follows larger government. Also, when you remove the consequences of competition, and replace them with the expectations of entitlement, you drive down efficiency and most importantly, effectiveness. I don't like the phrase "run government like a business" either, because all too often the people who use that phrase don't know the first thing about running a business, on any level. It simply sounds good. The greatest weakness of large organizations in inflexibility. Driving decisions based on ideology, and not sound methodology, is the very definition of inflexibility. Methodology seeks improvement. Ideology pretends to be infallible. I don't want a health department social worker to be more efficient, because I'm not sure how you do that = tell people they have AIDS by phone/email? But I do want them to be effective, and to REQUIRE efficacy from their peers and employees. Which means we only need to hire 5 good people, instead of 3 good guys and then force them to take 4 mediocre guys and 3 losers that we had to find a job for because they voted for the "team", and now the "teem" needs to pay off.

Elephant in the room??? = TO can have a bad attitude at times? Signing a one year deal auto-removes TO from the team with the minimum possible amount of drama. I.E. if he acts up and we don't renew his contract, it's over. There is no "big decision" that can be embarrassing to the team(see: Dallas, Philly). You just let the contract run out. You simply did what you said you would(bring in TO for a year) nothing more or less. It's not like trying to decide whether to keep him on the team for year 2 or 3, but then wasting roster bonus money, etc., when he forces you to throw him off the team, etc. Let's not forget 20 teams said "no way". That's rare, because teams usually keep their options open, however crazy or wrong. One year will not change that # much, because in addition to the nonsense, TO will be a year older.

Looks like special teams coach was taken out in a stretcher. Prayer for him. 6 people to hospital one in critical, rest serious. What a mess.

1. Astute member of the audience = Lori I bet. 2. At the very least the Bills did SOMETHING about the O and D lines this year. 3. Who can say, this plan may fail, but as I said #2 is better than the stop-gap plan we were forced to use due to Donahoe's Mess. And this plan is at least better than no plan = Donahoe plan. 4. If you take Brandon at face value, Peters is a tool. Even if you don't, no way he is worth more than Lee Evans, in this universe or any other, especially not after last year, no way. He's dreaming if he thinks he's as good at his job as Evans, and anybody who thinks that is dreaming as well. I didn't see many pancake blocks or great plays from Peters last year. I did see Lee Evans catch a ball on the back of his helmet for a TD. I did see Peters turnstile people twice right into Edwards, and you can't blame that on Dockery. 5. Man I can't wait to see if these guys are as nasty as advertised up front. "Nothing would be finer than to give Wolfork a shiner in the eeeeeevening".

Yeah....but that's not really the point though. The point is that for the K-Gun/hurry up to work, you have to have a TE who can block reasonably, and change who he is blocking on the fly based on the play call/audible at the line. The other point is that you have to have a TE who is a credible pass catching "threat" to draw defenders, and burns people when they don't cover him. If you recall correctly, that's exactly the role that McKellar/Power Pete played. They'd always show up when you least expect it and get the TD or the 1st, especially when teams would scheme to take away our WRs and Thomas/Davis. It's really a "one thing leads to another" concept: the TE going down the field draws a Safety, which means the corner on that side has to play off his guy, which opens up the crossing pattern for the WR, which creates space for RB on a screen/out pattern etc. The avg # of catches per season in the stats you provided is 48. (92 was the year that they transitioned from McKellar to Metzelaars in terms of starting, so both got less, but Pete led the team in receptions in 93) That's 4 per game. Last year Royal caught less than 2 per game. We need much better production from the TE position = credible threat, and consistent blocking = blitz pickup/safety valve, for the hurry up to work. It's like others have said here, a good % of the concept is mismatches. The more people you have in the pass pattern, the more mismatches you create, and the more chances for the D to get confused and make mistakes (see: 4 blown coverages for TDs in The Comeback).

A little early to say Chung is a big deal. Especially with vids like this running around. Can he cover Nelson? That's what I want to know.

Agree on the first para, but there's some ifs there that have to get answered in OTAs or they won't do this. 1. Yep 2. My God, can you imagine Lee Evans or Roscoe running crossing patterns? I would love to see that consistently. It could work the other way too: have TO running the crossing route and Evans a fly pattern, confuse the safeties and somebody gets single coverage. Evans or TO in single coverage all game = that's not fair. 3. Yep, and there's no reason that Lynch/Rhodes can't be Thurman and Jackson can't be Davis. The question for me is: can Nelson be Metzelaars(or McKellar)?

Agreed to a certain extent. But if your boy Edwards is as smart and mobile as we think, the ball is supposed to be away before the line really becomes a liability in a hurry-up, right? Also, tiring out a fat azz NT and the rest of a 3-4 defense by snapping the ball every 20 seconds, has to be a good thing. Whether it's public or not, fat azz still has to line up and play. Making the 4 LBs chase TEs and Rbs around is always a good plan. Think 49ers vs. Bills in 1992(3?). They were trying to cover Thomas w/ a LB and got beat severely on multiple plays, 1 for a TD. In fact, I think a hurry-up basically destroys the 3-4 concept on the whole. You can't leave your LBs in there the whole game. You have to play a large part of the game with nickel or dime. This puts the big talent assets of a 3-4 team, the LBs, on the bench and makes them play their 3rd and 4th CBs. But your points are well taken. As I said, a lot depends on the smarts/blocking skills of the TEs and RBs. You add in the new O lineman and it may simply be too much to do this year.

Crap! I was gonna post something like this the second I had the time-->really I had been reading the K-Gun playbook. I've been thinking no-huddle since the draft. But, then again, I know what I would write would NOT include quotes from Sam Wyche, etc. Posts like this are better left to the professionals like Tim anyway. However, here's what I was thinking that hasn't already been said someplace here(edit: in terms of blocking TEs not catching TEs) 1. For those of you that don't know, the K-Gun was predicated on the Tight End position = the K stood for the name of the TE = Keith McKellar. 2. Here's a handy copy of the 1994 K-gun offense for X's and O's dweebs(including me). 3. If you look at #2, you can see just how important TEs are in terms of protection schemes, formations, etc. to the K-Gun. Not saying that TE is important to every no-huddle system, but I have to figure that most of the concepts described above are relatively universal. 4. We know Edwards can move his feet and throw on the run. That makes all the waggles and roll-outs available. (Why the hell we didn't have JP moving his feet, I'll never know. You throw off the entire pass rush scheme when you move just 5 yards. But that's all in the past.) 5. For this to work we have to count on Nelson, etc. at least being able to throw a decent chip block on an outside LB and then get open in the space behind that OLB if he is blitzing/playing the run. In fact if you look through the plays, chip blocks by RBs and TEs are all over the place. Also the RBs and TEs have to work together on who is blocking and who is getting open after an initial block, etc. I am comfortable with our current backfield being able to chip block people and disrupt rushes, and then get open. But, I'm not sure if Nelson can do all that, and while I am sure that Fine, etc. can do the blocking part, I'm not sure that they can do the get open after the block, catch the ball, etc. part. Again, perhaps hurry-ups are not defined all the same as the K-Gun, but it seems to me that many of the concepts of a hurry-up depend on the TE, and that's a lot to put on Nelson's shoulders. However, while I don't know if 4 and 5 will work, anything is better than last year's offense.

Our new refrigerator?

me too and I couldn't agree more with the sentiment you expressed. Exactly. They can play semantics games all they want, but there is little doubt that your 1-3 here is exactly the meaning, WITHIN(as opposed to "out of") context. I honestly don't think many people understand the concept of something being "out of context". It appears they think it means "backpedal my sorry ass out of saying something retarded, the minute I realize other people are calling me a retard for saying it".

That's because Johnson looks like a steal, and we still don't know if Hardy will adjust to the pro game. I am optimistic about both guys. The best scenario for me is if TO's work ethic and competitiveness, and not his me-ness, rub off on them. I wonder if the coaches can convince him that he will be seen as "even greater" if he can pass on his knowledge.

Hardy of course Kelsay yes, if he isn't traded Simpson no, but he may also be traded...for a project O lineman or DT or something similar. Otherwise he...is...gone. Edit: although...most of us had Youboty's walking papers prepared last year at this time too...maybe Simpson gets a fire lit under his rear like Youboty did

The proof's in the pudding. Here it is 5:19 and they are still talking NFL and the Bills. Complete departure from yesterday where they spent maybe 20-30 minutes over the 3 hours. Complete departure from the average time they spend talking about the Bills = 0-10 minutes in the offseason, 30 minutes, maybe, during the season. When all is said and done today, they will spend at least 1.5 hours on the Bills, which is as it should be Tuesday after the draft, btw. Am I supposed to believe that today's behavior is a coincidence? Or, the more likely explanation: Schopp and the Bulldog got the message that the listeners want to hear about the Bills, and not the friggin Indians or the Red Sox, especially two days after the draft? He knows damn well he shouldn't have said what he said, and while its doubtful he will admit it fully, at least he is trying to compensate for it today. You can't fault him for that.

It seems to me that if Sanchez was that good we'd be talking about how he helps football-wise AT LEAST into the following day. Surely I understand the angle, and let's face it, it's a good marketing move. But why are they talking about it already? Smith is a Jets fan, talking about his team on his show for the first time since the draft, and he's talking 95% marketing, 5% football? They traded to the 5th pick for this guy, is he Peyton Manning? I don't remember the talk being about Manning's marketing potential for the next 4 weeks. I remember hearing about what he was going to do on the field, and why that was going to be better than Ryan leaf. What about when Vick got drafted? I don't remember them talking about his marketing potential in Atlanta, and hey if there ever was a racial demographic/city match, it's Vick and Atlanta. I remember people telling us that it was showtime in Atlanta based on Vick's running ability. Just seems strange that they would be so fast to change the subject...unless they already know that they are going 5-11 this year and they want to let their fans down easy with a "feel good story"??? Reminds me of Clean Up Buffalo.

Seriously there was some doctor on the news basically calling for everything but the national guard. I dunno, don't we pay taxes for this? Or is that only so we can give free money to about 30% of it to people in need and the rest to people in lazy.