OCinBuffalo

I've got three Uncles in Maryland all calling me yesterday/today and saying: "We robbed you blind, tee hee." To which I have been saying: "Make sure your coaches learns sign language and/or know how to write in BIG kindergarten letters - Willis the hole is over here!"

Why do you do this? If you haven't noticed we have tons of newbs lately - and these kind of threads mean endless yelling about nothing. Please let these folks get settled in before you start hooking them. Or, wait, well, I guess it could be funny.

Ah HA! The admins did it! Welcome anyway!

For the record I am not hyping Ron Dayne. Also for the record, I will be pissed if we sign that douche.

Are we ever gonna be done with that guy?

Oh yeah, I almost forgot, check my signature and click on the link for the Downtown Philly Bills Backers(there is another club too in the Northern Suburbs - but I guess they don't like us too much - maybe it's because we actually have fun) and tell your Son and Daughter to stop by anytime. We usually get about 30-80 screaming Bills fans - they gave us the whole upstairs(and, um, well the Eagles fans weren't happy with us making sooo much noise). It's a great group - and I think we are buying a bunch of tickets for the Bills game in Philly this year. If they wanna go - it's best to go with us - Eagle fans are ridiculous and that is no exaggeration.

Can't stand the Flyers because of the Fans and the mentality. Ok with the Eagles because I like McNabb(Syracuse) and Andy Reid. I live in Center City. I been a fan of the Bills/Sabres since I can remember - I actually got to see OJ play - when I was 5 or 6(my parents and I had just come back from Korea, I'll never forget how many empty seats were at the Ralph(Rich Stadium). And again, there are so many threads on Running Backs on this board, I am about to puke. It's almost like lobbyists, every day someone puts up a Marshwan Lynch thread, and every day someone puts up a counter like DT first, Irons in the second round - as if repetition will make it happen somehow. Just hang check this board for a few days in a row and you'll see what I am talking about.

Dude you are new so I'll give you a hint: it usually helps to check the threads before you post - unless you like incurring the wrath of some of the more immature around here. There have to be at least 20 threads each about Lynch, Peterson, Leonard, they guy from Arizona, hell even Penn State's RB is in the mix around here. All this wonderful knowledge is available to you if you simply scroll down. But seriously, Welcome! Edit: well with all the FU McGahee, I guess you will have to look at page 2 - hit the little "2" button at the bottom left.

GOOD! I had this guy, along with Addai in fantasy so obviously I paid attention to how he did all season - not great. The super bowl was definitely an anomaly.

I think this is a desperation move. The NYC press accused them of "Dallying" with Willis. This is a save face move. They think they are one player away, I don't think that one player is Droughns.

By the way that guy is a Jets fan(from Syracuse - what a tool - like the one guy in high school who was Dolphin fan to get attention). I'm sure that didn't factor into his comments. I heard that and he offered nothing of substance other than saying how we as fans should be bewildered - and then went on to decry a bunch of Donahoe moves. Thanks Jason, for once more telling us the obvious - Donahoe sucks - perhaps that's why he can't get a job in the NFL? Genius insight. I was close to emailing him and asking him if he was bewildered when JP threw a 40 yard TD at their place on 3rd and 2 last game.

As many of you know I have always been a huge McGahee fan. But here's the thing: early in the week I thought that I would end up being pissed about any trade involving McGahee. Turns out, I'm not. I don't feel bad at all. Now, I am also an optimist, to the point that you could call me, and many do, a Marv apologist.(not Donahoe) But I don't think that's it. To my surprise:I just don't really feel bad about it. When you take into consideration what we got, it's hard to say who got the better deal(for now, I think we did because we have options and are not on the hook for a ridiculous contract extension/holdout/pissing and moaning dramafest = issues a young team doesn't need). I have been thinking this morning, and have arrived at the following: I liked the idea of McGahee, the ultimate comeback kid, and then going out and kicking all that azz(stiff arm) in his first year back. It was fun back then to finally be able to talk schit back to all the fans of our division rivals, when we could say, "Guess who's back? Hope you had fun talking smack about how stupid we were because - OH! What a stiff arm!", and then watch as their smiles, their team's D, and playoff hopes(- the pats, but he definitely shut them up a few times), turned upside down. It was cool that once again we as Bills fans were collectively willing to be the better guy, give a guy a second chance, and then see that charity payoff in "Wham, another stiff arm!". If nothing else, we showed the league/ESPN that they were wrong, again, about this team. I hated the player that was McGahee. The dancing at the line, the goofing off, always being 1/2 a second behind, and knowing that after his first year he was only willing to run hard against the Jets - so he could talk smack to Vilma after the game. I hate the fact that, given the charity and goodwill we showed this guy, he acted like we were a bunch of rubes, and that he was entitled to it. This is not Miami and we are not the superficial, and to be honest, blatantly stupid douchebags that dominate that down(I've worked there for extended periods so don't bother with the "How do I know" - it's literally the only place in the country where I have been proofed for Coca-Cola, twice, in one week, at different stores - I have many stories like this one). I suppose that one could argue that it's not Willis' fault, since that's where he came from. But, when a team and a city goes out of its way to accommodate you, hell - take a HUGE risk on you, and all you do is pay lip service to that commitment, you're not representing your half of the "idea" that we all liked, and thought you liked. So I think that's why I don't care as much I thought I would. I feel like the guy could have been so much more had he simply acted like a man instead of a boy. It was a nice idea, but it ain't real. So, whattya got left? Just old Willy not knowing what down it is. After the draft, hell after the first four games, we'll see who got the better deal, but for now, I'm just glad to get this over with, and not have Rosenhaus and Willis drag this on and on all year = distractions we don't need.

As much as I hate to say it, I'm inclined to agree. I really liked Willis but I have watched a few games again and there is no doubt that he is near the huddle, but looking to the sidelines for the play, even as late as the second Jets game. I wonder if the Ravens know that he doesn't like to read the playbook?

Right on target. He would gain nothing out of this since he was the one who asked to be released in the first place - because of Maroney. This is just spin so that he doesn't look bad/not a team guy.

If player X was a running back, then you go with running back Y. This is not the case for other positions. It seems clear that RB is not the priority it once was(and still is in Fantasy Football) but there seems to be a real trend towards 2-3 guy committees at RB. This is smart because: 2 above average guys > one feature guy in case of injury 2 above average guys > one feature guy when it's time to sign rookie contracts 2 above average guys > one feature guy when it comes to FA 2 above average guys > one feature guy when it comes to the Locker Room 2 above average guys > one feature guy when it comes to ego management 2 above average guys > one feature guy one guy loses a step, you can get others to replace/compete with him, without losing total continuity on offense 2 above average guys < one feature guy if you get extremely lucky and pick a "special" player like LT or Walter Payton, just keep in mind that you are just as likely to get Herschel Walker or Ricky Williams. We got lucky when we had Thermal and Kenneth Davis in that we had a feature guy and an above average guy, right? Or, was it that we had a great line, and that these guys were simply above average guys that overachieved and benefited from being on a good team? In either case, we at least had two guys that were both versatile, but also had specific individual strengths.

If JP has a 2 TD to 1 INT ratio, and the team is minimum 6-2, after 8 games, I say JP.

Ok I've thought about it. And I watched the video. If Marv used bringing these RB guys in to smoke Rosenhaus out/make them accept the trade based on "we don't care what you say, we are moving willis and we're interviewing "old" running backs to prove it" - and proving to the Ravens that they were serious at the same time, wow - that is flat out Machiavellian. Very strong moves by Marv - if they are his moves and not coincidence. Hmm. That makes me wonder if the sudden "cancellation" of Dillon's visit was part of this-> the trade is now complete so why continue the smoke screen-> why do we still need to see Dillon? I like this Leonard guy and I am a "Paul Poz" fan -> I think he is better for us than Patrick Willis. Can't underestimate our need for a leader in the middle with better size/ability and = smarts to L F-B. So overall I like this plan. No matter what - as much as I hate to say it - the McGahee trade looks good right now because of the options it opens up.

Yes, I remember last year when we were talking about stats, etc., and I was trying to explain how I do part of my job. I believe you were using a model that is common in Psychology, and I was talking about - OH YEAH! I remember now - we were talking about Offensive Line day one draft picks, and I was critical(and right ) about how you weren't holding something constant, or something like that. Yeah self fulfilling prophecy problems - you conclusion was based on your variables, which were pre-disposed to your conclusion. Whatever, the issue was you were representing a correlation as a causation. You did some good work, it just had that one flaw, whatever it was.....I think playoffs + O line draft picks = good O line draft picks. Yep, of course making the playoffs means you probably drafted/signed good O Lineman, whatever round they were drafted. The correlation was good line = playoffs. We were saying - no schit. I'm not those guys so I don't care what they do - if it's wrong, don't worry about it because each of us that posts here is fairly capable of seeing that for ourselves. I just thought Holcombian Evolution was hysterical - that's it. Come on, you have to admit that was funny. In all seriousness, you always have something intelligent to say(and we know that) - it's just that every time one of these guys picks on you, you respond. Feeds the flames. I am as guilty as anyone on this, and if it really bothers you I will cut it out. (Until the next time you say Holcomb is better than JP of course ) Plus, with your handle, you aren't necessarily endearing yourself to anyone. Don't get me wrong, I respect that you didn't chuck your handle - I bet a lot of posters would have, but you have to expect some arrows heading your way. Thanks!? Not saying he is wrong about the one simple point he is making. I am saying he is only making one point, and a true solution requires a hell of a lot more than that. He has been screaming "Why am I wrong about this one point", and I have been screaming "I don't care about your one point - you have to look at things on the whole - it only solves things for some poeple". Look, he has already acknowledged that "adding money" is not the "only" solution. I'm taking that a step further and saying that I see the same problems in education, and I see the same dumb thinking, and I see the same non-solutions, and I see the same lack of accountability, and I see the same lack of communication, and I see the same lack of workflow management/issue resolution/analytic tools(and much more), that I saw in healthcare and utilities. Therefore the strength or weakness of his one point is immaterial compared to the holistic solution I envision. You know its getting to the point where I am tired of saying this. It's so obvious, and it's so obvious that some here are blinded by this, that I'm questioning why I should bother pointing it out. I mean - what good will it do? But it does make for some fun. We HAVE to go beyond this. It's not good enough to say: Talented Guy + Good Money = Results as Superintendent, because all of that assumes a POINT IN TIME, and, once the decision is made to hire the Super, the assumption is that it will remain a good decision OVER TIME. You know that is not the case. We need better tools to evaluate(well how about first we need tools to understand) performance of Supers/Principals/Teachers. We need a way to reward good behavior based on palpable results. (I'm not in the punishment business - I just advise clients to have short conversations with those who don't want to be accountable) There is a way to deal with all of this - that's what I do - it's merely a question of getting it done.

Right - I created a strawman.(How did I know you would say this? Could it be because you never address the issue in question until I "beat" it out of you?) I figured I would to a "tounge in cheek" to share some analysis I have done recently, albeit in a ridiculous light, to shed some light on how some of these people ACTUALLY think. You can't deal with the reality - so you blame the media? How does your post address the fact that you blamed someone else, this time it's the media , for the clear failure of "add money no matter what" liberal policy, rather than the policy itself for being flawed? Quick Hint: It doesn't. The only Strawman argument here is, again, your wholesale blaming the of media, rather than identifying why/what in the "always add money" policy works and what does not. Yeah it's all the media's fault - you sound like Rush Limbaugh! All I am doing is attempting to explain to you, but mostly others, how easily someone can be goaded into blaming others, post after post, like you have been, when you believe the things I posted that Liberals seem to believe. You can B word at me all you want, but you are the one who is 2/2 on blaming others when flaws in Liberal policy are identified. How else do you explain being so obviously predictable?

Please - read my last, not even close. "Getting the better" isn't why I post here - is that why you post here? I don't use this board to derive any personal satisfaction out of "being right". Do you? Trust me when I say that I get plenty of satisfaction doing what I do in the REAL WORLD. Do you? I post here because I get to see others points of view(which can be highly entertaining/intellectually stimulating) and respond in a forum that basically has no consequential effect on my life(other than the time I spend reading/responding to nonsense like this), ever! Let me assure you that people "getting the better" of me makes me more likely to be interested in this board than not. Why? Because I like learning new things, and contributing when I(think) know something. But I especially like it when somebody points out something I am wrong/didn't think about. Do you? Answer my questions truthfully to yourself and deal with those facts. I dare you.

Don't you think that the number of "tries" might be a hint that you are wrong - or at least not seeing the issue 100% clearly?. You seem completely unable to see beyond one, mind-numbing, conclusion: Good talent = Good money. I have news for you: there are plenty of people who have lots of "TALENT" that purposely CHOOSE jobs that don't necessarily have big $ attached. Conversely, people who have little or no talent MAKE BIG MONEY. Why? Any number of reasons: they might know somebody, they might be some WASP who has gotten lucky with who Daddy is, they might be a minority who was "affirmative-actioned" beyond their capabilities(and before you start yelling please know that a black guy just SUED his employer because of this last year) , they might be part of, or left over from, someone with real talent's baggage train, and many, many others. MONEY != TALENT in every case, actually this is quite common. So here's the real conclusions: For some people: Good talent = GOOD MONEY For other people: Good talent = BAD MONEY For still other people: Bad talent = GOOD MONEY You seem unable to grasp the simple fact that there is more than one relationship between talent and money. Correlation is not CAUSATION. There may be some correlation between money and talent, but tell that to the Harvard MD I met last week who works for a non-profit. I guarantee you he has a TON OF TALENT, but he only makes paltry money by anyone's standards. There are TONS of examples of people who forgo big $ for other things in life(kids, passion, boredom, etc.) So let's take my third conclusion, and ask a rational question-> How would your proposed "adding money" plan MAKE a guy who simply got his job because of Daddy(or the other examples?) more EFFECTIVE? Short answer - it won't. Moreover-> How would your proposed "adding money" plan motivate a Superintendent who was already INTRINSICALLY motivated - because they feel their job is super important, or because they know no one else is willing to do it, etc., more EFFECTIVE? Short answer - it won't. I am not arguing most of your points, which are firmly WITHIN the first conclusion. Yes, for people that have Talent and desire for money first, Money can be a motivating factor. And yes, limitation of money for a certain job, like Superintendent, may limit the talent pool. Great job on the analysis of CONCLUSION 1 . I'M NOT ARGUING THAT! GET A CLUE! My problem with your conclusion is that you are offering it as the ONLY conclusion, when clearly it is not, regardless of what you are posting now -> that is what you are saying. I am saying that you are, like most liberal thinkers, MASSIVELY OVERSIMPLIFYING THE ISSUE. As far as the left and the name-calling thing, How do you resolve the fact that they have, 90% of the time, said nothing of substance other than the equivalent of "Bush Sucks"? Do you really need me to show you examples? Are you that blind? Look, I'm not necessarily a big Bush fan(based on poor results - not blind ideology), but that doesn't let Michael Moore, Howard Dean, MoveOn.org, Dan Rather, KUCINICH and the rest off the hook: they are doing exactly what they accuse the President of - lying - ALL THE TIME! How does one resolve name calling and stretching/spinning the truth? Simple. DECLARE YOURSELF SUPERIOR, and now everything is ok for you do to. That's what I see: Liberals think they are better - it seems merely because they are liberals, therefore they are entitled to do whatever they need to ensure that they are in power, no matter how intellectually dishonest, or morally vacuous, or bad for the country, that their tactics are. I also see: Every time a liberal policy doesn't produce results, or produces unintended consequences, it's ALWAYS SOMEBODY ELSE'S FAULT, never the fault of the liberal who came up with it. It's circular reasoning at it's best. And, before you start, I would be just as pissed at Republicans if the situation was reversed. As far as you need to know yes, I guess I(and others and soon to be many others) own a "business"(Not making fun of you it's just funny to hear it that way - it was exactly like that at one time). And yes, your example is correct, but once again, your LEAVING OUT parts of the reality. It's different for Educators for two reasons:(I assume you mean teachers - not administrators - but I will cover both) 1. Teachers cannot be fired if they have tenure, Administrators require long term contracts that have huge no-cut consequences(means they get big $ if they are fired) - I can fire anybody I want any time, for just about anything, since we only do non-"At-Will" contracts for very few people(and that you don't need to know ). So the "market" is automatically skewed. I can "upgrade my roster" any time I want with whatever money I want to spend, where that simply does not exist in the land of Educators. Moreover, Administrators are hired by a School Board(bunch of politico wanna-bes IMO), not a company Board of Directors, - and I can absolutely guarantee there is a large difference in the TALENT level there. 2. The Feds, States, and Local communities REGULATE this so-called Educator market to the point that it cannot be classified as a market at all. Why does this matter? Because IF I had to pay each person on one of my teams a fixed amount, I cannot reward TALENT. Nor can I identify specific goals for one individual, and base their salary increases on their performance, since I am required by law to have that person in the first place/have to through hell to get rid of them/have to pay them the same as everybody else regardless of their performance. If they know that(which they do), it puts me in a one-down position at negotiation time. Under this same example, don't forget that there are lawyers circling around me just waiting for me to mess up on just one of these regulations so that they can sue me for millions. No, the Educator "market" is no market at all, so your rationale, based on normal market-based tendencies, simply doesn't apply here AT ALL! Edit: Maybe that is too strong - how about "It's application is SEVERELY limited". Fine, you aren't saying it's the only solution. Good, you are saying that there are other options. Ok, why can I "blindly dismiss" your "adding money" strategy? Because after DECADES of being told that if we just "add some more money" and doing that over and over, without clear results, it clearly ain't "adding money" that solves this problem. I am saying that there has to be something besides not "adding enough money" that is the ROOT CAUSE for the issues we see here. NO, for the reasons I have already stated, you have posed a false choice -> geared at simply "adding more money" to this situation. Until the "Educator Market" actually acts like a market, market-based solutions do not apply, and therefore, yes, I can easily dismiss them. For the record: I love market-based solutions as much as I love Government based solutions, or any combination of the two, PROVIDED THEY GET RESULTS. The difference here is that you are trying to put me in a box(market-based) and I don't fit in your, or anyone else's, box. Market-Based is superior for some situations (privatize social security), not for others(EPA, DOD). What I don't like is the transaction that substitutes reason for ideology/cheap vote-getting. And in this case, you seem willing to cash that check blindly without consideration of other aspects/rationales. Now, for the good news: We(and yes I do mean me as well) are working on this. We have already proven that there is a root cause for this that has nothing to do with $! I ain't gonna tell you about it because I would be sued by my own company! But yes, I am on this now, right now, and having done the unbiased, objective research/analysis I do, same as on every job I have ever done, therefore yes, I am dismissing your opinion. I promise that if we decide to go forward(not 100% in my hands and because it's a huge investment for us), what we have in mind will help immensely - or it will fail miserably , but I think it's worth the effort regardless - if nothing else to learn what not to do - based for the first time on empirical evidence rather than emotional pining. It will be fruitless and dumb, just as this argument been proven to be so for DECADES, because there is no way to measure what money, where, and when, actually produces a result! But don't worry, there is a better way to allocate these resources, and based on sound principles and methodology - for once, the result may come out that in fact more money is required, but this conclusion will be, for the first time, based on reason and reproducible data - rather than emotion. And yeah, I really want to apply what I got - I think it will help a lot of people. But of course, I could be wrong - we start two proof-of-concepts next quarter. Yes for all the reasons I already stated - there may be a CORRELATION here, but certainly no CAUSATION, and you can't create, well responsibly create, FISCAL POLICY at any level, based on a mere correlation. Why? Because you can't control all the variables, in an effort to "PROVE" a particular approach works. Ask Holcomb's Arm about correlations - he loves them and thinks that they rule the universe - but that is why he keeps coming up wrong on so many things.

Whaaaaa! Please don't apply me or my posts to your standards of "intelligent" debate - it is too funny.

...not things like "throw it out".

Can't be a bust - we got three draft picks for him. We didn't get schit for Mike Williams = bust.

Now that would be funny...."Coy wire out of the backfield, over the left side, goes for the stiff arm on Zack Thomas...and fumbles the ball! Well, Phil that was a great stiff arm, but Wire has to remember that his first responsibility is to hold on to the ball, then make the stiff arm." Brilliant. And hey! We are just having fun here! Nothing wrong with a little creativity on this board. We have plenty of Frankenstein Football/Bill Parcells Fans already.