OCinBuffalo

Miami 4th and 5 at the radier 35

Hooray!

No, my original point was: is the OP wrong about what he was saying? My last point was: censorship '= telling people to stop stating the obvious over and over, or, attempting to hold themselves above deserved ridicule because they are "entitled" to drop idiotic crap on us. The first argument is nowhere near a repetition of the other. Hiding behind "you can't censor me" when one doesn't have anything new/insightful to say is silly. I don't doubt your view, but "live and let live" also means I get to call on people to stop needlessly parroting others, or worse, themselves. I was here for the Lindell nonsense, and it's curious that you bring that up. Both situations are very similar = people of questionable football knowledge seizing upon some minor issues and treating them like a cure all. This team needs a confidence boost, or a swift kick in the rear, or both. It doesn't need more "what we did wrong" analysis(especially from the geniuses here), and certainly not the kind of utter nonsense I have been reading tonight.

Needlessly = we all know what we saw the last 3 games. But, somehow you feel the need to remind us? What does that need come from, exactly? And, is there anything in what you write that explains why this is happening? Or can we expect you merely telling us that it's happening over, and over, and over? To be fair, I don't want to lay all of the nonsense I have been reading tonight on you. But this is getting ridiculous.

There's a giant difference between censorship and ending needless/useless repetition. I would think that would be poignantly clear to someone with the word Sisyphean in his handle. Right?

I concur Mr. Lion. I watched the three games again this week. There are a ton of little mistakes. Dominated? Yes if you define that as us dominating ourselves with: 1. Dumb penalties/putting ourselves in position for an butt-raping by the refs. 2. Receivers running the wrong rout/falling down. 3. Lineman blocking the wrong guy, or missing the audible call, blocking scheme? Something, but certainly not consistently getting physically abused by the other team. 4. Edwards doing his job at about 85% overall. You can't do that and win. He has to be up around 95%. You can't drive for 50 yards and then play games with the ball, overthrow receivers when nobody is even close to you, etc. 5. Lynch has got to stop dancing and hit the holes. I grant you there aren't "mack truck" holes, but they are there, it's just that they close by the time he stops dancing. Also, I remind you of last game, we were running on them badly(3 plays = 8, 7, 5 ypc) the first drive of the 4th qtr. Why we got away from it? Who knows? But it's clear as a bell that Lynch was hitting the hole and the results are obvious. All the bad plays are certainly fixable. These are all little things!!! But, they need to get them fixed, and quit F'ing about with the ball, the play calls, etc., and start to get an attitude out there. They need to get their confidence back. Hopefully Monday night is just what we need.

I was gonna say that there were people who would only give up their "right" to B word needlessly if...but this guy said it for me. It's a one game a week season, sure, but there's no way we don't go 3-0, never mind simply beating Cleveland, over the next 3 games. I would also go so far as to say that we beat Miami at "home". So that's 4-0 and 9-4 overall. I'm sorry but if you can't feel positive about being 5-4 with 7 winnable games left on the schedule, some almost locks, then what will you feel positive about? I'd venture to guess that this beats the hell out of last year at this time, when we the same record, but barely any winnable games left.

So those of you bitching at the OP, let me ask you: Is he wrong that we have 20 threads talking about the same thing?-> NO. In fact, I haven't been in a week or so and I have never seen this amount of repetitive nonsense tolerated. It begs the question? Where are the Mods? Is he wrong about the fact that Jauron isn't going anywhere?-> NO. So what's the point? Oh, that's right, I forgot: bitching for the sake of bitching, especially amongst the newbs here. Although, the usual "Bills suck at everything" posters aren't as conspicuous, perhaps they have been drowned out? Or, perhaps they are absent because they won't get the attention their ridiculous positions typically afford them with all the new whiners running around? And finally, is he wrong about the fact that this is the same guy who has us a winning record? respected around the league? and all the rest? -> NO. So we lost 3 games in a row. That's going to happen with a young team. It doesn't mean it's chicken little time, although I know it's so very tempting for some of you. It'll be interesting to see what happens after we win the next 3 games. That's right I said it. We are going 3-0. Let's face it: we are going to beat the Browns, Chiefs and 49ers. Then we will see what's what around here. My guess is there will be a whole of explaining to do when we are alone in 1st again at 8-4. This whole thing reminds me of the Angelo Crowell posts at the beginning of the season, um, then we went 4-0.

Add another person to the list. While my example might be used to demonstrate inference, it certainly demonstrates the difference between what is "in context" and what is not. Moreover, if you say that his comments were taken out of context: explain his context. How is "no pre-conditions" not the exact opposite of "pre-conditions"? This should be good. I gotta go to a meeting, but I will be highly anticipating your entertaining response. Look the guy is a politician, so I expect him to say whatever he needs to get elected, they all do. Moreover, I hope they can change their damn minds when necessary. As in: "I'd rather be right than consistent"- Churchill. But, this endless, "out of context" nonsense has to go. He said what he said, stop making excuses.

Does the fact that Bill Cosby is pretty darn funny, his whole career, enter into it why his show was widely accepted anyplace? Or is this all about the social/racial rhetoric? And, does it matter that Dr. Cosby actually lived a real life, had a real job, and therefore had real experiences that we all could identify with, before he started doing comedy? (Funny, same exact model for Jeff Foxworthy, I wonder why both have been so wildly successful ). Perhaps Cosby had to do a better job because we was black, but, he was obviously up to the task. But, I would put more stock in Cosby's talent rather than his blackness. Not sure yet if we can say the same about Obama, the way he had been portrayed by the media, etc. And I think that's too bad. I really don't know if the man has real talent, other than the talent of a great entertainer = that was supposed to be the media's job. But I hope for all our sakes he does. If he ran most of his campaign, and wasn't merely "handled" then I think he has a lot of ability, but, once again, due to the media, we have no idea who did what.

Jesus H Christ! More evidence of a thought I have had for a while now: the concept of something being "out of context" no longer has any meaning whatsoever. In fact, I highly doubt that you could get 2 in 10 Americans that even know how that concept was originally defined, or what it actually means. Hint: out of context does not mean, "way to get out of saying stupid schit yesterday", or "I didn't say what you just saw me say on video tape, that was some other guy", or "you didn't play the entire interview = the part where I said "America is an evil country" was explained in the part you didn't show"(as if we really want to hear their explanation of that nonsense). Every time some idiot says something stupid now, out comes the "out of context" excuse. The PR/PC people in this country have successfully killed off the meaning of another construct in our language. However all is not lost as long as there are some of us who still know what it actually means. So here's a real example: P1: Bob told me the other day that, although he was unhappy with his job, he was happy about his hot-ass boss. If I say: Bob said that he has a hot-ass boss, and he's happy about it, that IS NOT taking Bob's statement out of context. If I say: Bob is happy about his job because of his hot ass boss, that IS taking it out of context. The point: the first statement doesn't reflect Bob's whole sentence, but it does accurately reflect his meaning. The second does not. Now, watch the video tape again. How many times was Barack's MEANING changed? Exactly 0. The only MEANING changes here are done by Barack himself.

How exactly? Most of what I have been doing since I have been here is telling the far-left people here that they are largely full of it, and that not everything bad that has happened is Bush's fault, which is true. All they have been doing is whitewashing everything, including me, and justifying it because they lost in 2000. Obama has portrayed himself as a centrist. You may not believe him, but he deserves the chance to prove it at least. He also deserves, as DC_Tom has said, the respect of the office. The same respect that Bush deserved, and did not get, from the loons that frequent this board and elsewhere. You may think that it's not fair, and I would agree, but we can only control what we do, not what idiots do. There's no reason for us to speak/act at their level. So, here's an opportunity for you to show them how a classy, mature and reasonable person responds when his or her candidate loses, they could certainly benefit from your example. I certainly don't feel I have lost anything, except, hopefully a vast range of excuses. Yes, I do feel liberated from all the excuses I have had to listen to for the past 2 years re: the worst Congress in the history of the country.

Nah, you aren't even close to characterizing what I think properly. Party? I don't have one, unless you count me looking out for the Army and those in it. I only talk about the surge as a singular issue, primarily because I was in favor of it: hell I was saying it before there was a surge, partly because I actually know something about how to plan a war, and partly because I kept seeing posts here that stood against all reason and military logic. We never committed our Army fully in Viet Nam. We did in Iraq, and you see the results. Once and for all: You simply cannot half-ass a war. All that does is get more people killed, and history is filled with examples that underscore this truth. Iraq was made right, after being initially a failure, same as the Civil War, by using almost the exact same tactics. But mostly I supported the surge because: I want to win the f'ing war??? Is that so hard to believe? I hate losing, and I really hate my country losing, in anything? That's the beginning and end of why I talk about the surge. I threatened the idiots here that there would be significant political consequences if they didn't get on board, and especially recognize the reality of it working: and what do you know? Even Obama said: "It was worked beyond all expectation". So that's it. I use The Surge to remind some of the less-than-able thinkers here of their inability to see reason/reality due to their endless need to attach politics to everything, and the fact that they apparently would rather have our soldiers die, or lose a war, than ever end up "being wrong". So you sir, like I said, have me 180 out.

...a holes to be tolerated, as in the Democrats after 2000, and pretty much the last 8 years, who cannot get over the results of an election. Obama it OUR President. Everybody's, and he at least deserves a fair hearing, and a fair shot at managing most the problems we face. Exactly nothing will be served by doing what the far-left has done for the last 8 years. We need to support what Obama thinks, for now. Obviously, if he screws up, then he faces the consequences. But, that is for 3 years from now, not starting tomorrow and going on every day until then. We simply can't afford more of this partisan bickering, and even worse: bad, weakly formed ideas that result from weak-minded compromise. And, now the Democrats have no excuses left. The Senate and House, MUST get things done. The days of blaming everybody else for their failure or inactivity are officially over as of today. Their approval rating has been, is, and will continue to be worse than GWB's from 2006 until the end of this term. They are easily the worst Congress we have ever had. To reasonable Democrats(I don't waste time with far-left people, other than to make fun of them/expose their stupidity): I don't want to hear the whining about not having 60 senators. If your policies are sound, you should have no trouble convincing a few Republicans. If your policies are stupid, you won't get anything done. But, now your party will pay the price if nothing continues to get done. I hope you recognize this status change, you're hosed for the next 20 years if you don't. Finally: The Democrats have been telling us that "If only we were in charge..." rather than, "here's the modifications I want to the current Republican plan..." for the last 8 years. They have not compromised, they have bitched. They have said that this was because they can't compromise with foolishness. OK. Fair enough. Now it's time to see what the supposed opposite of foolishness is...good luck! We need to get things right and quick! Because, like I said, fair warning: all you have done is complain about not having power, and have justified that because W was so bad. Well, now you have the power, he's leaving, and there's no one left to blame if you fail. Thank God at least one thing can no longer be justified: Excuses by Democrats. I am not sure whether I expect Democrats to recognize this and deal with it, or if I expect them to continue making excuses for failure. I really don't know. Edit: Lord know the media will have no shortage of excuses, just like they did for Clinton from 1992-4, if Obama steps on his crank. But we know BS when we see it, so it won't matter.

These are the two perhaps most important, points in this thread. First of all Congrats to Obama. Nobody thought he could pull this off without serious help, and he proved many of us wrong.

Never before in the history of man has someone stated the obvious in more grandiose fashion. Great Job! What's next? Are you going to tell me The Surge worked? Cause that's just as obvious now too....just ask our new President-elect. What other staggering analysis can we hope for? I can't wait..... I'm just playing around, but come on already...a whole thread about this????

The time for posts like these is over and done with. This post is precisely the kind of crap that Democrats pulled after GWB got elected and this country can't and shouldn't tolerate this kind of baseless, emotion-driven nonsense. You sound like those cry-babies who still won't let the Bush wins go. Barack Obama is our president, he got elected. Fairly or unfairly doesn't matter now, because it's over and I highly doubt that with a 5+ mil cushion, recounts are going to change anything. So face the facts: Obama ran a good campaign and he won. Now, he did have a massive amount of political capital handed to him, that he didn't earn, but he did use it to great effect in the end, and ultimately that's all that matters. First and foremost, he is OUR president. That includes you, like it or not. We all need to support him, no different than we support our country in general, unless he gives us reasons to stop supporting him. If he blows it, then we get rid of him 4 years from now. Those are the rules, and the reality. If you haven't noticed, we have a whole host of problems to deal with, now is not the time to start acting like the cry-babies I mentioned. I hope you are at least better than that. Now is the time for us to expect to see/hear the beginnings of answers/results, and to do whatever each of us can to help.

....just like it has been for most of my time as a Bills fan. This year is NORMAL! That's right: Normal...For me, and for most of the Bills fans who were alive/able to go to games without mommy in the late 80's/90's. In NORMAL times, we are always in a fight for the division until the last 1-2 games, and we usually win or come close. That was reality from 1980-2000, in general. Usually the AFC East is better than the rest of the league, and, usually every team has at least a shot mid-way through the season. Of course there were exceptions, Pats and Jets were really terrible at times, but still, they always tended to play us tough. The AFC East has always been the elite division of the conference, if not the league, and things are headed back there, where they belong. So let's see, halfway through the year, and nobody in our div has a losing record. Once again, that's NORMAL. Think, and I mean it, think, about the last time we were 5-1. Yeah, it was 1992-3 and that team had already been to the SB.... I mean seriously WTF? The Pats* being dominant? The Dolphags being awful? Those are the exceptions, certainly not the rules. We had to beat Marino, the Sack Exchange, etc. to win division games, get to the playoffs and SBs...not wipe the floor with 1-15 teams-->that's largely the history of the other divisions in the AFC. So, like I said, enough of this NONSENSE. There are no amount of Madden ratings, FA, (insert player here) posts, or Fantasy Football ratings<-- again, nonsense, that = solution to our problems. And certainly not this massive amount of negativity I have seen the last two weeks. We need to clean up our act as fans and get behind this young team, who will make mistakes, but is also damn exciting to watch(um, Derek Fine for example). Enough of this lame "cool kid" crap = calling people "fanboi". Using that term is infinitely more retarded than whatever the person it's directed at is saying/doing. Our team merely needs to clean up its act on the field, take it to the other teams, and be tougher/faster/better than the other guy. Period. Just like the old days. It's 0-0 and there's 8 games left. We go 5-3/6-2 and we should win the division. Oh, and, NEWSFLASH: that requires that we LOSE 2-3 MORE GAMES<--added for the idiots, the weak, or the instant gratification crowd.

So is it safe to assume that you "got it" when Clinton did it? Or are you actually trying to be objective here? HA! Buddy, Clinton's pardon list was the all time worst of the 20th century. Don't bother, because you ain't ever gonna win on this one. If anything all you are going to accomplish is remind everyone how bad Clinton's was, so I'd leave it alone. Any further discussion from you on this and you risk turning this thread into a "Steely Dan Rettata Revival". Absolutely. Talk about "the shaft", a "giant dick-over"...even Al Gore supporters know that this is worse.... Yeah, but you are forgetting, it's your pal who started the distraction....so? Where's your acrimony? I know, it's all my fault, right?

Given the way that current press has treated "Mr. Wonderful" what in God's name makes you think that they will actually do their jobs now? Moreover, now that the people they have clearly been in the tank for this whole time have a decent chance of taking even more seats in Congress, what makes you think it won't be "party time", softball questions, and softball in general in DC? Look, there is exactly 0 so-called reporters in this entire country that can claim to actually know Barack Obama. And that comes from the NY Times, of all places. I am holding out hope that if he gets elected, he lets Iran know who their daddy is right out of the gate, because they will be gunning for him... If I was an 18 year-old, now would be the time to get into journalism, because there will be so many real news stories that are either suppressed, or ignored, that I could make my whole career on simply doing my job properly. Even the slightest objectivity, and a marginal amount of work, could win me a Pulitzer. Actually, I have such a low opinion of that "job", perhaps I will give it a shot on the weekends and see if I can win one working 3 hours a week. If I do, I will buy every poster here who has at least 1,000 posts a shot, and, I will host a public burning of that award on Youtube, because if I can win it...

You Tube, because it beats the sh_it out of MSNBC.

Then again, thanks a lot for the imagery on that one. This was the furthest thing from my mind, until you brought it front and center. Anyway, regarding Fowler, "Can I get a Hallelujah from the choir?"

Mort is to the Donahoe issue as Obama is to The Surge issue as Bush is to the (insert a lot here) issue. All are emotionally, not logically, invested in "being right". Look, I don't blame any of them for being loyal to their constituencies, Mort's is obviously to his buddy Donahoe, Obama's is to his leftist pals, Bush's is to his terrible staff. Loyalty is normally a good trait and should be admired. However, and I am speaking from personal experience here, blind, stubborn loyalty usually ends up getting you into trouble. There's a time to simply put the shovel down, because you are never going to dig yourself out of that hole. I think Obama has clearly dropped the shovel, especially during his O'Reilly interview, which was smart. Bush finally fired Rumsfeld. Mort, in his infinite silliness, promises us to write a 1,500 word essay on "My Buddy Tom"...someday....<--That is probably the silliest thing I have heard all month, and I work in IT! Mort: let it go. You cannot undo what has been done. It's far past time to move on. The collective consciousness of Bills fans are never, ever going to forgive Donahoe for taking our signs away, the draft picks, the QBs, or neglecting our O/D lines, all of which were the reasons he was fired. This is America, and you normally do get fired here for only doing a half-assed job. Edit: Unless you work for the Teamsters or Microsoft. In the final analysis, I would give Donahoe a 60%. And, the last time I checked, 60% is not 0%, but still a failing grade.

Congrats on joining the ranks of project managers. Remember two words: "it depends". Union people aren't easy to deal with, not even kind of, but you must have gotten the job for a reason. You can look at this as a positive: you get to work on your communication and management skills, and, at least your resources don't go anywhere else. You might be stuck with them, but it's better to have some, even if you hate them, than to suddenly have less or none, because another PM swiped them and your boss went along with it. Then again maybe you can lose them, and in that case, the pain hasn't even begun yet. Enjoy The only thing that will "save" NYS is, unfortunately, union busting. Most of these unions are way, way to far gone to be brought back into the fold. They are living in fairy land: it's still 1960, manufacturing and shipping are the keys to the NY economy, and you can't hire a worker in China, ship his product here and sell it, all of 1/4 of what you pay a union worker. I wonder if this economy will finally break them, now that Wall Street's endless flow of money has been cut off. Perhaps...we might get lucky and some real re-organization or reform, but I doubt it.

Right about what exactly? And sorry for being late, I was busy with female company. Now, I told you flat out they couldn't stop our O. So, remind me exactly of what stopped our O? Because from where I was sitting, our O stopped itself. I fully disclaimed the "fact" that the only thing that could stop us was ourselves. What, exactly, did we do besides that? Come on, you know damn well that without those 3...that's right...3 turnovers, none of which were caused by Miami, we would have killed them. As evidenced by: the flat out whipping drive we gave them at the beginning of the 2nd half, and the next 2 drives after. And, what did Miami do with our 3 bad plays? Scored a total of 5 whole points. Here's where I was really wrong: Miami beat us deep on 15 yard passes but 30 yard Rac or Yac or whatever, and that is flat out terrible. I guess it doesn't matter if Pennington has a pop-gun arm if you can run 30 yards after you catch it. And that's the only reason they were even in the game. OMG, I'm actually saying this: we missed Youboty bad this game, and his ability to cover the slot/skinny post. But please, we beat ourselves on bad playcalling = QB Sneak? WTF? with Lynch and Jackson on this team?, and, Jesus, I don't even know how to describe Royal's "fumble to nowhere" or how Jason Peters and Derrick Dockery both get beat by one guy. Seriously, what, exactly, did Miami do to beat us in the second half that we didn't hand to them on a silver platter? The point is that I was wrong about going deep...because we never really did it, and I was wrong about our guys being able to stop all deep plays, but Penny didn't throw one over 16 yards? Moreover, our D held them to 5 point off turnovers in the 2nd half. Our O made JV mistakes, and we simply could not recover from them. And finally, I was ultimately right in terms of my OP. Ronnie Brown, meant exactly nothing in this game, with his 43 yards and 3.07 ypc average. This game didn't even come close to being decided by Ronnie Brown. It was decided by stupidity by our players and coaching staff, and if Miami thinks they "won", great, because that means we will smoke them when they come here. You take away any one of the 4 massive mistakes we made in the second half, and you are sitting here telling me why I was wrong because it wasn't a blowout. We played a game that we gave away, and Miami just happened to be on the other sideline.<-- and that's the only fact that matters.