OCinBuffalo

Ah, I see. Of all the metaphors available, showing a great ass, slapped-till-red, was the furthest thing from my mind...but I got it.

Seconded

What's with your avatar? Is that a rash? STD girl of the month? or is that from a whipping? Umm...then again, perhaps I don't want to know....

I don't care how we do it: 1. Fine turns into a good offensive threat TE 2. We draft a good TE 3. We trade for a good TE We NEED a TE for TE. TO is not a TE. TO is not going to help TE bail out of a play and pick up +5 yards anyway. If we don't have a credible threat in short yardage passing, neither Evans or Owens will be getting open. Teams will just drop 6-7 guys in coverage and sit in their zones waiting the ball to come to them, no different than was done in 4 losing games last year. Now it's possible that TO/Evans makes throwing to the RB a better option this year, but I still don't think that's enough. A good TE takes a safety away from the D, and that means no double covering Evans and/or TO. Or, it means putting a single CB on an island against one of them and a whole lot of space to work in, and I like those odds.

Dude, this is how the TO nonsense starts. The minute he thinks he has the fans on his side, his nonsense will only get worse. I saw it first hand in Philly. TO is lucky to be playing with us for what he is getting paid, and he needs to remember that he just got his ass cut for worrying about more than his own role. Don't feed the TO troll.

"Send him to....Detriot!" -Kentucky Fried Movie

This all seems plausible, but who knows? Even if it is true, we won't, and may never, get the actual story anyway. If Cook is trying to use the media as you say then we best prepare for all kinds of crazy-ass reports coming out over the next few days.

Things that happened today: 1. Significant resistance from both parties to issues being forced to through that not only have nothing to do with economic stimulus, but are just bad ideas = getting rid of union secret ballots, etc. 2. Significant resistance to earmarks and other stupid crap that, once again is not economic stimulus, but rather, stupid crap, on it's own merits or bunched with other stupid crap. 3. The stock market saw this and rallied. 4. Citigroup made money. Yeah, but the rally started in earnest BEFORE that announcement. What else can you say but: Another bad day for Obama? So far, every time he opens his mouth, the market goes down. Every time people resist his policies the market goes up. His agenda simply cannot survive the retaliation, not when there are clear, causal, and drastic swings that are created on the stock market, in direct proportion to its failure/abandonment. I mean what else can you isolate that wasn't their yesterday. The only new things are this resistance(can't say rejection yet) of Obama and Citigroup, and this was well underway before Citigroup. Obama needs to get rid of his old game plan quick. Time to face facts: blaming the guy before doesn't last very long when you have promised to be the "messiah".

HAHAHA! For some reason, your image of TO running around the locker room trying to buttfug people(even that's funny), with that schit eating grin on his face, made me spit out my tea. I don't know Chuck Pollock, and I don't care, especially if his is casting homosexual aspersions on TO, funny as they may be.

Right. Conversely, I don't see us being that afraid of trying to get something done with Peters, since we have basically 3 years and umpteen million to do it with. That's what I am saying. Neither team is in a "desperate" situation to move on any of this. Both teams will overvalue their positions, get to an impasse, nothing gets done, it goes away....except Buffalo gets to test the water to see what people think Peters is actually worth. The only way I see it happening is if Philly thinks its going for one last shot at the SB before the end of McNabb/Reid/Westbrook = big rebuild and figures they have to start all over again anyway, why not go after Peters as a known quantity both to help them go for the big one, and then to be the cornerstone of the rebuilding process?

Jason Peters is worth 2 first round picks and two thirds. Period. All day, every day, and here's why: No Single Man is worth 4 starters on any team. If you have to choose between losing 4 starters or one superstar you choose the superstar every time because this is not golf. Mike Ditka/Ricky Williams proved that once and for all. I don't care if we are talking about Montana, even he wasn't worth 4 starters on his team. Picks 1-3 are supposed to be starters, and 1st round picks are supposed to have a shot a pro-bowl level. Here's another reason: as I literally knock on wood, Injury. What if we did get those 4 picks from Philly and Peters(knock) got hurt? That's a body blow a team doesn't just recover from... Both of these teams are going to overvalue their positions, and this is the kind of deal that somebody usually loses big on. So, I don't see it happening, because of the riskiness to both sides. Unless Philly is desperate and willing to take the chance of giving up their draft, or, Buffalo is desperate and thinks it's ok to take less than he's worth, basically take what they can get for Peters before he holds out again, the thinking being that they will get more now than later, once these problems inevitably start up again. Thing is: does anybody see either Philly or Buffalo as desperate? If anything Philly needs to sign somebody after losing the people they have, and so that makes them need us a little more, not much. Then again, we did give them an ass raping on the Spikes trade(thanks for .5 of Stroud, a-holes), maybe they liked it?

So...you're an idiot, huh? Reading comprehension is absolutely demanded around here. Read my original post again...we'll all wait for you. Being happy about your team winning is not the same as knowing WHY they won, but apparently you can't tell the difference. Thank you for so rapidly providing proof of the general stupidity of most non-Bills NFL fans. (mark that as exhibit #1) My other point was: the Bills are opposite because they haven't won in so long. So...you're an idiot again, for telling me why you have a right to be arrogant as a response to me stating that TO is in, again, the exact opposite situation of Dallas/Philly/NE* in terms of recent success, and fan expectations. Hint: the two things are completely unrelated...idiot (mark that as exhibit #2) Oh boy, I can see this one coming from here...hopefully this doesn't end with an attempt to roll 3.5 on a die... You are acting like whoever buys a t-shirt is suddenly a fan, and is the same as every other fan = they all belong as part of the denominator, therefore it's ok to talk about 10% of the fanbase, etc. (not a surprise coming from the place that has recycled more Giants for Pats* for Giants jerseys than Champion). I am saying: No, those rules apply to YOUR idiot, bandwagon fanbase, not our smart, committed fanbase. For every 5 Bills fans 4 are real and 3.5(hah! got it in here) know the game, even the women, we are raised = opportunity fans. For every 5 SF/Dallas/Philly/Pats* fans, you are lucky if 1 are real and .5 know the game. Based on the criteria of "real", our fans don't only know more than you, there are more of us than you. Those ratios hold, nationwide, whether we are talking about lining up 10 Bills fans vs. 10 Pats*, etc. fans, or 10k v. 10k, and I can back that up easily: Show me one(1) in 25 female Pats* fans who know what Pass Interference is. I asked that question at 5 Pats* games and never found one female Pats* "fan" who knew it. I have never gotten past the third female Bills fan I ask, and I usually catch hell just for asking the question. Speaking of that, what is significant about 1985 for the Patriots?(...hook in the water) Who was the starting QB?(hint: it's a trick question...reeling in slowly) And remember, at the last Pats* game I asked this question 25 times. 5 got the first answer, 1 got the second. You ask Bills fans who was playing backup QB in 1985...and 15/25 will tell you. So yeah, again, we are the EXACT Opposite of you/Dallas/SF/Philly, because we know the game far and away better than you do, and we actually stick with our team long enough to know something about it. Be sure to come back wearing your Giants jersey in a couple of years, when the Pats* go back to sucking.

That will NEVER go away, even if he dies.

Wait, Hillary Clinton is NOT an actor? Albeit, her acting is about the level of Community Theater, but I didn't see her do much of anything as a Senator, then she "deserves" the Presidency, and doesn't get it, and now it's Secretary of State? I am still waiting for her to accomplish something that can be reasonably attributed to effort that she has lead or organized or done personally. All I have seen her do so far is fail: health care, then Senator, then lose for President. So yeah, she has to be an actor. Until she does something clearly tangibly useful, anything, that belongs to her, besides be a Clinton, she will always be merely acting like she belongs...repeating the liberal bumper stickers every so often, etc. Mostly lacking substance, and definitely lacking consequence...a very pathetic figure ultimately, and quite an acting job to convince people to even pay attention to her still.

Meh. A 33 yr old guy who didn't play 7 games last year, with one(1) Int is going to start for the Pats*? Because he brings "size"? They will probably draft a guy, and this is their stop-gap.

In case you have never seen the Seinfeld episode: in hinges on George coming to the realization that he appears to be more successful when he does the exact opposite of what he thinks he should do. Along those lines, Ralph Wilson and Co. have seemed to take this advice, popcorn and all. We all get the "what do we possibly have to lose" argument re: TO, and I think most of us agree, or can at least see it as reasonable. But, I think there might be a little more to it than that, and given this is so opposite from SOP around here, I decided to look for other examples that are polar opposites regarding this situation: 1. Dick Jauron is the Opposite of Steve Mariucci and Andy Reid in that he's not a screamer, and the Opposite of Wade Phillps in that he's not happy go lucky generalist. 2. Trent Edwards is the Opposite of all the other QBs TO has played with, except Steve Young and that was a long time ago. 3. Lee Evans is the exact Opposite of what TO is used to on the other side, since Jerry Ric 10 years ago 4. Buffalo Media/exposure is the exact Opposite of Dallas. Sure there are mics and cameras and all the rest, but the media environment isn't the same. Is Paul Hamilton or Jerry Sullivan going to get into it with TO? Doubtful. 5. Buffalo Fans are the exact Opposite of Dallas, Philly, and SF fans. Key differences: a. We know the game far and away better than they do in general. I have lived in all 4 towns, each for at least a year, and it's not even close. Talking general football with any of those fans is usually a waste of time. All they know is how to say "(Buffalo/Philly/Dallas/SF) Sucks", but they can never tell you "why". They can't even say "why" about teams in their division! I guaranteed that we know more about "why" the Cowboys might suck this year than Philly fans do. Go to any message board and confirm it for yourself. All they know is how to parrot a bumper sticker. Our knowledge means we are a hell of a lot less likely to get drawn into stupidity/celebrity crap than they are, because we actually understand what is happening on the field. TO will learn quickly that we are just as smart as he is, and therefore not so easily manipulated. b. We root for what's on the side of the helmet, not what's on the back of the jersey. It's between us and the Steelers for who is bigger on that. In the middle of the SB years we were reasonably critical of Kelly, TT, Bruce, etc. and still are. We like our players, but we rarely love them. RJ/Flutie is the best example of that: nobody cared about the players themselves, or what they had to say, we were pissed at the coaches. Philly/Dallas/SF is all about the "celebrity" and individual thing. This is a team town, by definition. 6. Buffalo is the Opposite of Dallas, Philly, and SF in that it has been a losing team the last 5 years. Should of, could of, etc. aside, nobody can say one way or the other that we are only missing a few pieces. We were 5-1, then we were 7-9. Who knows what team shows up this year. 7. Nobody is expecting TO to come in....and the Bills with the SB. This is the Opposite of the expectation in Philly and Dallas. We all knew going into the off-season that 4-5 other things NEEDED to happen, and some may already have, for us to make the playoffs, never mind win any games once there. So that's a lot of opposites, and there are probably more. That's why this is so weird. But with all these opposites, and providing George = Ralph/Brandon, this might just work....

Philly:NYC as you:that little kid who is 6 years younger that is always trying to make you think he's cool, and accomplishing the exact opposite by being eternally annoying. It's worse than an inferiority complex, it's like Buddy in The Incredibles. Smoking ban, and on and on, there are tons of examples. If NYC decided that it was OK to run around naked with your car keys hanging out of your ass, and told Philly that it was the new, liberal thing to do, Center City would be a jingling nudist colony inside of 2 months. Of course the people in South Philly would ignore them, just like they do the smoking ban, and all the rest.

I voted NFC west for weakest, but it was tough to choose them over the AFC West = the only division to have no team with a winning record. The reason I still think it's the NFC West is that let's face it, Arizona will fold, again, this year. Rams, SF, Seattle are just terrible, and, they are playing in the NFC, which should mean that they win an extra 2+ games a season, but they don't win them. Conversely, on paper, this year Denver, Oakland, and San Diego have better players with better upside, who knows what will happen with the Chiefs. Ultimately, it's a tie, but the fact that the NFC is such a weak conference is the tie breaker. Clearly the West in general is weak, followed by the Central in general. I'd give the East the clear edge over the South in both conferences.

Bizarre. I would not expect that but the guy who broke the story first said that this started out as a Dick Jauron plan. Ralph is telling him that this is the year, or else, but he is also saying that he will get DJ whatever he needs. Man this is the exact opposite of how I saw this off-season.

Bottom Line: What's the worst TO can do? Keep us out of the playoffs? How exactly would that be any different than the last 9 years? So I ask, what's the real risk here? IF the Bills don't make the playoffs this year we are looking at a melt down of Hindenburg proportions regardless....or at least another rebuild.

That's awesome. I wonder if it will stick?

The most annoying for me is he almost always starts his speeches with a prolonged "I". As in: "IIIIIIIIII.....IIIIIIIIIIIII.....just wanted to start by...." Given the teleprompter story I wonder if the "I" is what he does while he is waiting for it to boot up. And I love Kelly's: "he's only been in office 45 days" thing. Anybody want to take odds on how many days they keep saying that? I am setting the over/under at 250. Didn't realize the President got a probationary period. Does that mean we can get our vote back after 90 days? Of course I am kidding, but come on, how long is the "# of days" thing going to last? Hey, remember that gem: "what did Bush know, and when did he know it" re: 911? That was after 8 months. If we are going to use that standard then....O, bama there's going to be blood. Seriously, I don't think Obama should step down, that is ridiculous. However, I do think he needs a win, soon. And, he is making major decisions right now and so far he is 0-fer. I look at it like baseball batting average, though, and there's still a hell of a lot more at bats before his average starts to matter.

Specifically, how would you "regulate" that? Have a regulator walk around with a ruler and slap people on the hand for thinking/talking about it before they did it? How would you prevent them from doing that? And, even if you did come up with some rule, give me 5 minutes and I will find a way around it. You simply cannot make up a damn rule for everything. And even if you could there would be no way to prevent those rules being circumvented. And what punishment can you proscribe after the fact? The ruler again? Seriously, they already gave them the money, and it's by definition - a bailout - so what can you do? Ask for it back? And even if you could, who is doing the accounting? They are. The trick is: you don't give them the damn money in the first place. Or, you put the money in an account that only a regulator has the keys to, and each request has to go through them. But then you are giving the regulator too much power, and, there's a good chance the regulator isn't smart enough to know a good plan from a bad one, otherwise they would be working at AIG and not for the government, and, ultimately it defeats the purpose = speed = get the money where it needs to go quickly to prevent failure. Again, how do you prevent it, or punish after the fact, when we are talking about a bailout here? The corporation has a signed contract with these employees that it must honor, or be sued, to include all golden parachutes and stock options, etc. You can't just waive a wand(this is still the USA) and make those contracts go away. Unless you bankrupt the corporation, do an asset purchase, start a new corporation, and have the new corp buy the assets, those contracts stay. And even if you were to do all that...which again is wholly counterproductive the concept of a bailout = you bankrupt the company you might as well have done nothing(or took them through a managed bankruptcy), because nobody is going to want to deal with a bankrupted company, and it fails anyway...those CEOs still have a claim against those assets, which means they are likely to get paid millions anyway. Hopefully you see, based on what I wrote above, that your statement here is wholly retarded. Unless Obama becomes a dictator and wipes away the last 200 years of contract law precedent, there's absolutely NOTHING HE CAN DO to stop a corporation from spending whatever money they get however they want, especially when they are contractually obligated to do so. Once that money is gone, it's gone. Once again we see somebody talking about another "should" without the first clue as to "how". And what's worse? Thinking that Obama has magical powers that can somehow preclude contract law, or that are magically capable of outsmarting Wall Street CEOs on their own turf, in their own companies. Dude I dealt with the SEC on behalf of clients on 4 separate occasions. Wall Street:SEC as NHL:Junior Hockey, and Obama's magic powers aren't going to change that. EDIT: While we are at it Wall Street CEOs:Obama as Lions:Lambs. They guy might be a good speaker in the auditorium, but so far he's getting his ass kicked in the conference room.

I walked up to Anchor Bar for lunch.

Computer guy.... ...well that's what I say to women, but essentially that question screws me every time, because, if I explain fully people start running for the exits, and if I just say computer guy, people accuse me of calling them stupid, as if I think they won't understand. Lose/lose. Suffice it to say: Managing partner of small mobile workflow/business intelligence full-service consulting firm. We build our own stuff, do integration work, and have a significant SME presence in two industries(in the form of the rest of our partners). The health insurance gig I did was 10 years ago. I was engaged to give them a workflow game plan, amongst other things, which they then promptly ignored, once they realized that it would make them so efficient, they would actually process claims in a week = they lose money because the delay in the process means many people give up on getting their claim paid. I am certain I could walk back in there tomorrow and find the same problems the papers I wrote addressed. And, the reason those problems exist probably haven't changed either = data model/business process/business rules.