OCinBuffalo

Neither of you understand the concept of Free Speech. Free Speech means free, as in: without consequences. If I can't say whatever I want, however offensive or misguided others think it is, because I have to fear what you/they might do about it, then I am not free. Period. Unpopular speech is exactly what must be defended, for all speech to be considered free. Free Speech has nothing to do with job performance. If Schopp were to be fired, it would be due to the latter, and only because the bosses at the station own the format, and determine what is acceptable performance. They are free to do what they want with their business. This has nothing to do with those external to the business, preventing/changing/cooling the speech they don't like, via a boycott. You can't claim to support Free Speech, but then also support totalitarian/mob rule tactics whose sole objective is to curtail it, like boycotts. Pick one or the other.

The only reason I can think of is exclusivity. You trade for a player now, you don't have to compete for him later. Of course that depends on existing contract(years left/salary). It may be a better deal to trade for a guy you know the Bills are going to cut now, and keep the current deal, rather than having to compete, outbid--> overpay later. But, other than that, you're right. How was I supposed to know you're lactose intolerant?

Please refrain from co-opting my thread. I don't agree with boycotts, and I never will. My old signature was something along the lines of "You are as entitled to your opinion as I am to mock you mercilessly for it". We shouldn't be looking to kill piss poor free speech. Instead, we should be looking to come back at it with better free speech. Schopp has a God-given, not man-given, right to free speech. Or, if you're not into the whole God thing: man isn't allowed to take away rights, merely because they don't like what others do with them. That's what inalienable means. Boycotts are an attack on free speech. Period. The object of a boycott is to either remove the speech we don't like, or the speaker. That's crap.

As predicted: GG: You have literally failed in every way to both understand the concepts here and use them properly in a sentence. In every post I have refuted what you have said, leaving you with only the personal attack route, which I literally predicted. If anything, you've proven that I am a great big analytics guy, after all. Now, once again: you've had your analytics lesson for today, and, I've even added a few add-ons at no charge. I'm sure there's some Wall Streeting for you to do, so how's about you get to that, and stop polluting my thread?

No I'm not. Are you celebrating Obtuse Day? Cherry picking: if there were 5 polls and I only took the results of 2 of them, I would be Cherry Picking. I don't know how one goes about "cherry picking"...a single poll(EDIT, or the only available poll at the time). This is 3 times in a row now that you've proven you don't get the concept, but are happy to use the words. What's next? Are you going to go back to telling us that you know the sample size is wrong/skewed...because you say so? Or, should we look forward: to you misusing yet another concept? Here's an idea! I will explain a concept BEFORE you misuse it. This will save us all time. The concept is: "mutual exclusivity". It means if one thing is true, another cannot be true. Example: Wanting TT to start, is not mutually exclusive of wanting EJ to get a chance with the 1s. These things don't have to "square", because they are not mutually exclusive. A fan wanting EJ to get a chance with the 1s could just as easily be saying "Tyrod looked good, so today I want him to start, but I also want to see if EJ is better" as he could be saying "Tyrod is the answer, but, I don't want EJ cut, so give him a chance", as he could be saying "Tyrod is the answer, play EJ with the 1s so he screws up, proves me right, and we finally put an end to all this". EDIT: (Let's call that last one the Metzelaars_Lives summation ) One poll has no relationship to the other. And, if I wanted to follow your example in this thread and cast silly, fact-free aspersions: I could say "All the fans that voted in the new poll are just butthurt people who didn't like how the last poll went". But, no different than everything you've posted thus far: that would be based on either nothing, or a poor understanding of how all this stuff works.

You should have waited on this one. GG is way off here. The fun thing is he has no idea why. But, he'll do his usual thing and start personally attacking me, like he already has. In all cases, you won't be seeing any clarity from him here.

No I'm not. I gave you the exact example above where polling respondents can be biased, and where you'd be right: by introducing an arbitrary, non-related, limiting parameter on the population == putting the poll on Martha Stewart's website. Do you not understand the concept that EVERY poll/marketing survey is solely comprised of those who "took the time to respond"? Every single poll/survey projects the views of those who "took the time to respond" onto the entire population. This is true regardless of whether a poll is scientific, or not. Some dudes don't answer the phone, some days. They might care a great deal about this issue, or not, but for whatever reason: they didn't respond. What makes a poll scientific is not whether everyone in the entire population responds. It's whether the sample size is enough, and if it accurately represents, in this case, Bills fans who listen to WGR. You are claiming that some Bills fans aren't being represented, or is it, Bills fans outside of the listening area? My question: how would Bills fans outside of the listening area know about the poll, unless they were...listening/attending to WGR? See? This is WHY I charge guys like you, and why it's worth it. You endlessly befuddle yourselves. Usually, the FAIL genereated by your befuddlement, and cleaning up the mess, becomes part of my scope. Moving on: you have no evidence to support the claim that this poll's sample isn't indicative of the population. Even if you did, it wouldn't matter. Why? Because I am NOT using this poll to make a point about ALL Bills fans. I AM using this poll to point out that a clear majority of Bills fans, who are also WGR listeners(key parameter there), do not agree with WGR's analysis/conclusions regarding EJ. This is a poll about a specific issue, that a specific set of fans care about. And 60+% of that group says that WGR's conclusions are wrong. The only people who matter, are the people making the claims that WGR is biased vs those who aren't. That is the point of this thread. The people who don't care? Don't matter. They aren't listening. They aren't responding. Whatever. They matter exactly as much as Martha Stewart.

Nope, that's still not the right use of the term. And "basic data validation"? That's not the right use of that term either. Validation has to do with collected data passing business rules. What we do with it if it does/doesn't is workflow. Once again: you've probably been to the meeting, and heard some of the words enough times, but you still don't know what they mean. I know. You don't. There is nothing wrong with using that poll. Your "elected to respond" is true....for every poll there is, and ever was. Same thing for every marketing survey ever created. According to you: unless polling data is collected by compulsory polls, that automagically means the method/results are flawed? No it does not. If we put this poll on the Martha Steward website, THEN, and only then, would your objection be valid. Why? Because we'd be reducing the population of respondents to only those who both are interested in the Bills, AND, Martha Stewart. This poll is about a WGR topic, on WGR's website, where any Bills fan may or may not go, but certainly those who are interested in this entire discussion WILL go, without restriction == no methodology problem. Thus, here ends your great big analytics lesson for the day. You're lucky I'm not charging you.

Yeah... And I'm smiling, because Mike Schopp was forced to go on air and call his own show a disaster, and, it only cost me 15 minutes to write the OP. Given this, let me clarify: You have no idea what I am doing. I doubt you ever will. Your aggravation is noted. A nice side benefit. Is it possible for you to consider that mine is merely a reasoned response to unreasonable behavior?

I'm using what we have. Clearly you don't understand the term self-selected. That's because you're not a great big analytics guy. Did I create the poll, and then select it? No. Hence, you don't understand the term self-selected. Show me some more data about this subject, and I'll be gald to use it. And here's strike 2: I am a great big analytics guy. Which, is why I wrote this thread in the first damn place. We have nothing empirical from these clowns, all we have are impressions, and interpretations. Now, if you want a real example of self-selection? Asking/framing a question of a coach, and then claiming to be "only going by what the coaches are saying". THAT is self-selection. As a great big analytics guy, I'm hyper-attuned to bias. I know it when I hear it, and after so many years of doing this...I NEVER know the exact reason why(anyone who says they always know, probably hasn't seen much, or doesn't actually do this job) without getting down into the problem, conducting interviews, doing the job, etc. However, I cannot unknow what I do know, merely for your convenience. Thus, here's some quantifiable data for you: When I hear 4 distinct fallacy arguments in 24 hours from WGR? There's a high propensity for bias.

Christ all Friday, so do I. But that's not what we get there. We get the meat draft. Every single time, in the last 10 years on this board, that I've seen somebody write up a content-heavy, Xs and Os post, posters here are all over it. In utter and ironic contradiction of that reality, we have been told, repeatedly, by WGR, that Xs and Os are "boring" and that if they did that, they'd have no show, and no ratings. When they try to be insightful, they end up being obtuse, because they simply don't know the game. Then, along comes Sal Capaccio, and suddenly, because he does Xs and Os, he's now a regular contributor. People are all over his content. How does that resolve itself against the notion that Xs and Os are boring? Perhaps some critical analysis is in order?

Reading is fundamental. If you go back, and read, you'll see it. If you're too lazy? WGR did a poll and found that 60+% of their listeners, etc. Perhaps not exactly 2-1, but certainly not 50%. In all cases, it's the only quantifiable piece of data in this entire mess.... ...that isn't based on "reading tea leaves" or "what the coaches are saying(after we ask them a question)" or any other impression/interpretation. My so-called claims are doing just fine, thanks. Yeah? While I'm doing that, you guys can look up the words "substantive argument". Make one, or get out of my thread. Once again the irony abounds: I point out the consistent use of fallacy by WGR...and then, in their defense...you give me non sequitor? We should have an irony sound effect for this board. Yeah, and of course, this thread, with 4800 views in < 24 hours, I'm sure has nothing to do with that. ----------- No no no....I'm being "manipulated"! I should "seek counseling"! Schopp didn't call his own show a "disaster" yesterday. None of this is happening! And why? Because all data that doesn't support the EJBad choice...must be ignored! Anyone that dares to point out that WGR's last 48 hours points directly to obvious bias? Personally attack them! Must...press...the marginalize...button...on OCinBuffalo...before...it's too late. Sorry kids. You're ship has already been blown up, and pressing the marginalize button was never going to save you. But, by all means keep trying. I'd love to see your next example of unintentional irony.

Yep, this one's headed to the data warehouse. Every stupid post/thread/article ends up there. For later use....

I've been to 2 practices and was at the first game. But, your argument here is irrelevant: we are talking about specific, observed behavior by WGR. They've said it, and I'm nailing them for it. Interpreted opinion <> empirical data. Whether or not they are biased is its own, standalone issue. # of times at practice has 0 bearing on bias == one may attend 0, 1 or all of the Bills games and practices, and be biased, unbiased, or somewhere in the middle. Thus, your argument is irrelevant. Easy: nobody I know of is claiming either one of those things. If they do, by all means, squish them. The customers, by 2-1 want to talk about EJ, yet, because BrooklynBills and the minority don't want to talk about a topic, the majority has to put up with that? Um, no. That's not how life works. And, again, nobody is forcing these people to work at WGR. How can they claim to be impartial, competent observers and then throw a hissy fit, at the same time? Again, that's not what this thread is about, and, again, I don't see only 2 ultimate outcomes here. There's a time for absolutes, and clearly, given "tea leaves" being involved here, this is not it! Yeah, that's what happened. I believe there's empirical evidence below that directly contradicts you. But, I don't want to spoil the surprise. I will say: nobody gets more butthurt than WEO when I write thread a lot of posters like. Um I specifically said there is no massive conspiracy. Nobody cares whether you, or I, like Schopp or not in this thread. It's not what it's about. I don't have to like bad behavior, because I like the person responsible. More incoherence: you're defending bad behavior with a strawman. Nobody here thinks that if EJ fails/succeeds, it will have anything to do with Schopp. Christ, when will the incoherence end? Ah HA! You've caught me. Yes, one of the hoped for outcomes of this thread...is precisely what you've identified. I was thinking it would come out later, actually. But, yeah, there is great irony here. Whining about doing a job you get paid to do. Whining about EJ supporters, and then ignoring every bad thing Taylor does. Whining when objective analysis, using WGRs own words against them, reveals a whole new level of irony. OH NOES WEO! Yeah, I'm the one being manipulated here. Once again we see that it's the other way around. No. I've found on 3 separate occaisions, when I go all out, "college thesis" style (If they only knew, right PPP?) on WGR...that there are instant behavior changes. This is merely the 4th time over the last 10 years. I didn't even listen today. But, that was intentional. Why? Because I KNEW something like the above would be posted, and that I could use it. It's merely the same pattern as always. I haven't looked at this board all day, and didn't start writing this until midnight. How's that for predictable, WEO? You keep telling yourself you're flying above everybody on this board...in your helicopter. Meanwhile, I'll keep flying above you in my jet. Funny. I don't feel hot or bothered. In fact, once again, I'm LMFAO. Once again, you have things exactly backwards. All I have to do is write a 10 minute, albeit "college thesis" style post, and I can force WGR's capitulation. Let me say it correctly for you: They know all of us are listening, and if they behave poorly, any of us can write a thread that forces them to correct, provided that thread is quality, and THAT is all that matters. EDIT: They are reading what we say here, just as much as we are listening. They are able to get what they want, sure, but, so are we. ------ For the rest of you keep these 3 things in mind: 1. I specifically said "I'm not sure if WGR's coverage is biased". I haven't attended them enough. However, a large group of fans have paid attention to WGR, and have drawn this conclusion. What I do know: WGR's responses to that conclusion in the last 48 are typical of those who are, in fact, biased. I've lived this. I know it when I see it. 2. I want the Bills to win the SB. Period. However we get there is however we get there. I root for the side of the helmet, not the back of the jersey, just like the vast majority of Bills fans. None of this has anything to do with recognizing a wacky pattern of behavior from the media. I haven't been able to change my avatar for years, which annoys me, because I KNEW the day EJ was drafted that we'd see a ton of wacky behavior. When it ends? I can go back to having fun with my avatar. 3. You don't have to be an EJ supporter to recognize that something wacky is going on. I am a Bills supporter, and will cheer for whoever the QB is. I trust the coaching staff/GM of this team fully(finally, after many years). They have earned that trust: Jerry Hughes trade anyone? Trust is not about me expecting them to be perfect. Trust is about knowing that they will recognize their mistakes when they make them, and move quickly to rectify(such as bringing in Cassel and Taylor) them. WGR is currently(or was) doing the opposite: refusing to even consider that they are making mistakes, blaming everyone else, and/or trying to pretend that they are beset by conspiracy theorists, when in reality, they are only beset by their own bad choices.

I have listened to WGR very sparingly over the last week, however, each and every time I have I heard the same 4-5 statements made by multiple hosts, with regard to their coverage of EJ this preseason. These statements are either bereft of logic, or, on par with the whining of a 2nd grader. Once again I heard Jeremy White re-hash this crap this morning, and normally I wouldn't care, but, enough is enough. So let's get to it: 1. "We have been getting emails and tweets that our coverage has been biased against EJ" You don't say? Well, this morining Sal Capaccio said "We aren't as bad off at QB as was expected. It's a tribute to Greg Roman being able to get these QBs ready to play....EVEN EJ." Ah, when you say schit like this, what, exactly, do you expect listeners to conclude? Hey WGR? Fans have observed a clear pattern of behavior from you. Why the F else are you getting the response? Mass Hysteria? A conspiracy to troll you? No. You are causing this problem with comments like that, and instead of introspection, it's blame the fans? I literally heard...what you say you aren't doing...in 2 separate instances this MORNING!, never mind this past week. I like Sal, but, Sal? You chose those words, not the fans. Why throw in the "...even EJ"? Greg Roman has done a good job with all 3 QBs. Well, that is supposedly Sal's premise. Greg Roman is being paid a compliment...so why is the "...even EJ" necessary? It is not. It's totally irrelevent...so why say it? Answer: bias, supporting the choice, made long ago, that EJ == Bad. 2. "Either we are liars, or, we don't know how to do our jobs". Holy drama batman. Yes, arguing to the extreme isn't a logical fallacy or anything. Follow that link fellas. Nobody is accusing you of being liars. Some of us have been accusing some of you of not doing your jobs for a decade+ (anybody want to have a meat draft? ) so this is nothing new, and not specific to EJ coverage. The simple fact is that these aren't the only 2 outcomes, and to suggest otherwise is childish. There is all sorts of research that shows the influenece one person or group can have on others. Both confidence bias, and choice-supportive bias are very real, every day occurances that are much more likely to be the culprits here, than intentional deceit, conspiracy, or staggering incompetence. Groupthink is also infinitely more likely, especially in this case, since the QB issue is so acute. Everyone knows the problem, its importance, and thus fears making a mistake, and its consequences, as both will be maginfied. It's much safer, and natural, for everybody to run in the herd together, and nobody strays too far away. This is prime Groupthink territory. Do the reading. So, please, enough with the incoherent emoting. Nobody is accusing you of anything...other than not seeing your own bias. And that's perfectly normal. IF you could see the bias, you wouldn't have it(unless you really did have an agenda). In ALL cases, liar/incompetent aren't the only 2 possible outcomes. I'm not sure WGR's coverage is biased, because I haven't listened enough. But,it sure smells like it given what I've heard in the last 24, especially the statements I've bolded. 3. "We do this for a job" What are we doing? Running through EVERY logical fallacy? Now it's Argument from Authority? Thus, this thread is necessary. Do you really want to have this conversation? How about with X and Os, or draft, or other heavy content posters here? Why is it that every time I write a heavy content post here...my topic is discussed by WGR the next day?(Most recent example: 1985 Bears-->46 Defense == WGR articles and air devoted < 24 hours after my post.) This is 2 Bills Drive, and I have news: WE do this for a job too, often 2-3x better than you, and have for years. The only real difference is that we don't get paid, and we aren't "required by our job to watch the Jets game where EJ was horrible". We'd do that anyway. The WGR host/reporter/contributor who thinks they can go toe to toe on Bills Football with any heavy duty poster here is fooling themselves. According to some respected posters here: WGR has an anti-EJ bias. These people have a long history of being right about this team. WGR is just starting to get some football credibility with Sal Capaccio(ahem, see? I have no bias), who actually knows the Xs and Os well enough to discuss them(unlike others at WGR who refuse to learn the game, and defend that by telling us that Xs and Os are: boring...to Bills fans, of all people. /facepalm Hint: This is not Miami.) WGR: You have a problem. Stop blaming others. Don't argue from authority. Especially when you haven't earned said authority. Your work has been shoddy at best...which...is WHY 2 Bills Drive exists. 4. "This is coming from some weird place amongst the fans". Um no, the reason fans are saying WGR's coverage is biased: is because it's empirical. Get over yourselves. Fans simply don't care that much about WGR. The notion that this started in some evil little corner of the internet/twitterverse, dedicated solely to the downfall of WGR, is patently retarded. The fans are responding to: you, WGR. If you don't want to hear the calls and see the emails? Simple: clean up your act. Be conscious of the feedback, aware that you DO say things like "...even EJ"...and make the necessary corrections. Realize that people aren't pointing this out because there's something wrong with them. They are pointing it out because there's something wrong with you. As soon as your behavior changes, the response will change. I am tired of the whining as well. You ARE getting paid to do a job. We AREN'T getting paid to listen to you. I am sick and tired of hearing you B word about doing a job you signed up for, and all that comes with it. Keep your whining to yourselves, look inside, realize you are the cause of your own problem, and, how's about resolving to do a better job? Beats the hell out of more incoherent/weak arguments and whining. 5. My personal favorite "We are reading the TEA leaves from the coaches/We are merely reacting to what the coaches are saying" Q1: Who asks the coaches the questions? A1: The media. C1: What the "coaches are saying" is driven mostly by the media's questions and how they are framed. QED. The notion that the media is merely reacting in this situation, is patently retarded. Especially when we consider the fact that "reading the TEA leaves" is the basis for most of this analysis. WGR: You are telling us that most of your work is based solely on interpretation....EVERYWHERE! Interpretation of what you see on the field, interpretation of what the coaches are saying, interpretation of how EJ answers the question "How do you expect things to go at your next team?" (No bias in that question at all) NOTHING here is empirical. ALL is based on interpretation...and WGR people are trying to tell us that there's 0 chance for bias? Here's what I do for a job: tell people like WGR that they are the opposite of right, because this environment is the MOST likely to produce bias. Enough delusion, dissonance, problem denial and shifting the blame to fans as though they are the cause. Enough whining and blaming fans for merely responding to what they can clearly see is broken.

Some of my firefox security plugins hate this....so I switched to IE.

I'm stuck on "loading draft data"...working on it.

We know. And, many of us have said so in this thread. Unlike most of our trouble with leftists in general, and in this thread, the problem in this case isn't that they are denying reality. This time they aren't even aware of it. Appropriate mandatory requirement for public office: Has taken and passed Macro and Micro Economics. As I said 10 pages ago "If your curiosity about basic economics == half of your curiousity about kiosks, this thread would have ended 10 pages ago".

71% of the ENTIRE budget is spent on entitlements. Medicare/Medicaid/SSI. Fraud, make work jobs, and massive waste is rampant in all 3. ....and....we're talking about what to do with the other 29%? How stupid. How literally stupid. The entire military budget fits inside the 29%! So does literally everything else the Feds do. Imagine what could be done if we moved the needle from 71% to 61%? 10% going to everything else == a 25% increase in our "run the country" budget. Imagine all the additional "Smoking is Bad" and "Global Warming" studies that could be funded! Imagine all the Solyndras that could be started! Imagine all the Cash For Clunkers! Free Sex Changes For ALL! The possibilities for wonderfully.....idiotic liberal spending would be nearly limitless. Great. But, clowns in this thread, Bernie Sanders, and almost every D has been unwittingly supporting what the power Ds have been doing since 2006: A mass distraction to avoid entitlement/tax reform. They know it is a losing issue for them. They know they will have to admit that FDR/LBJ were wrong. They know that they will have to admit that creating long term policy, when the rest of the world is still recovering from being bombed to hell, and pretending that it will work long term, will be exposed as either stupidity or deceit. The good news: the left has run out of side issues. #blacklivesmatter isn't doing much. It is the latest distraction, but it is clearly backfiring. Global Warming's relevance has come and gone. Same with Gay Marriage. Entitlement reform, tax reform, and economic growth are all #1 priorities that the left can no longer distract/put off/avoid. It's time to pay the piper. Keynes(where all of this FDR/LBJ crap begins) said: "In the long run, we're all dead", and used that as a central argument. The trouble? While that was a great argument 70 years ago, for them; we are alive, and dealing with their mess. I fail to see how "protecting the legacy" of people who purposefully set out to F us over makes any sense at all.

Christ Point Per Reception(PPR) again? Do we HAVE to use this? Everything else is fine, but PPR makes a guy like Julian Edelman == Megatron, or Sammy(we pray). Just my opinion. I can play it either way. EDIT: Here's an example: 1. Typical Edelman Day = 13 catches(13 pts) for 70 yards(7 pts) = 20 pts 2. Typical Megatron Day = 6 catches(6 pts) for 140 yards(14 pts) = 20 pts Double the yards. Same points. If Edelman averages 1.5 TDs, and Megatron 1...Edelman is a better WR option than Megatron? WTF? Moreover, we know that Edelman is very likely to catch 10 balls a game, even if he only gets 20 yards. Edelman has the equivalent of a 100 yard game, every game, not due to talent, or even effectiveness, but due to scheme. This is fantasy football, with fantasy meaning create the best set of players based on individual talent. It does not mean reward dink and dunk offensive schemes, and their players, by default.

Read: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/science-isnt-broken/ Play with toy near middle of article. Find out that when you include all terms BUT GDP, Democrats are terrible for the economy == 0.01 p-value. Realize GDP is a dumb term because a) it's going to rise regardless of who is in office and b) flipping it off/on creates such a wild swing in results that there's something amiss here. Read rest of article and realize that you're an umitigated moron, because all of your tweaking around with the terms of the raw data merely proves that, like I've said so many times on this board: In "analytics", if you go looking for a pattern, you're probably going to find it, but, 95% of the time it will be false. Real analytics is about letting patterns come to you. Ultimately put 2 and 2 together: Science has a problem. This guy is trying to explain it objectively. He explains the gay marriage paper factually. He avoids the implications of that influential paper. He also avoids the fact that he's identified a problem across disciplines, and, that its legitimacy has been established: one journal has accepted the problem, as a problem, and is responding to it. Why? Because this is yet another CYA/spin job for a leftist blog. Equating/excusing "fraud", with "hard"? You know that's wrong. Given the current state of affairs: 1. Who wants to continue using science as the sole way to win the argument? 2. Who wants to continue to demand that we blindly listen to scientists...because they are scientists? 3. Ultimately, which of you idiots wants to contine pretending that all science is infallible? (While laughing at religious people? Irony.) Given the gay marriage data-free paper, who wants to continue to pretend: 1. That there are no leftist agendas in science? 2. That a "consensus" can never merely be a political agenda en masse? Rather, isn't it most likely that any time we hear the word consensus, in science, it almost definitely reflects an ulterior motive?

Since we are doing colors now, I said Manny Lawson in the next paragraph, dammit! How the F should I know about which interior lineman does what? Or who is playing where? The best part is, like you said, I don't think the other teams are gonna know either. Yeah, the depth is huge. Subbing in, and keeping things 1v1? Both concepts working together, I believe defeats the "getting tired" point. Out of the box, or in the box. Standard 3-4 man, 46, 4-3 zone? IF we can do all these with the same personnel, but also, no matter who is subbed in, that's downright scary. Sure to all of this, espeically Bradham. Like we've both said, it takes all 11, and there are a few potential stress points. Bradham I can see. Brown not as much. Especially not after I saw him running step for step against a WR and make an INT 25 yards down the field last year. But, that's sorta the beauty of this, you can present what they think is a weakness...then shift, and make it into a strength. I think the major difference with Pettine was that we couldn't stop the run...largely due to not having 2 run-stopping LBs, and, many of his plays were all or nothing, which meant nothing if they ran it. With the 46, and this unit running it, I don't see the big, frustrating, up the gut runs Pettine's D would give up at least once a game on 3rd and long. I don't know either. But, we do have S depth it seems. This is another potential stress point. But, if Williams keeps on his upwards trajectory from last year, we may have a Gary Fencik/Doug Plank hitter in him that nobody knew about, until the 46 gave him his shot. I seriously doubt we see 46 next week, and I will crap if we do. 46 against Cam Newton is like calculus for a Kardashian. No way they get it, but, sometimes the answer actually is 2. Or 3.5. I see 46 as minimizing the impact of losing Byrd. All you really need back there is a guy like Corey Graham. He can cover, he can hit. He's smart/not gonna bite. No. As I said, this thread serves 2 purposes: to get posters talking about the chances of the 46 actually being a real thing, and, to do something useful with our time, instead of yet another Qb discussion. By all means, take it. I'll take premature cream in pants over more boring crap from mouths every time. What if we really can play 46, with this team, in 2015? I don't know, it may be more likely than we think. Much depends on how the stress points we've talked about above fare. And injuries(wood being knocked right now). Yep. That's why I think drafting Darby and Graham to FS are all indicators pointing towards 46 at least some of the time. These pieces seem to fit. Whatever. You know what I mean. Running QBs and little turd Rbs coming out of the backfield require delays, reads, etc. You stand around/move laterally against the 46 and that's an injury waiting to happen. Like others have said, the West Coast is the best way to beat it. But, you leave your QB open for a free run on just one play and any of our front 8 hits him? Dink and dunk is awfully hard to do from the hospital. That's the thing about the 46: it creates unblocked, free runs at the QB much more than most other Ds == get the meat wagon. Same thing for WRs. We set up in what looks to be a 46, but is actually a zone...the WR runs the checkdown rout, and gets destroyed by a not-blitzing LB when the ball gets there.

I like it. The key is: WTF are we actually doing? With that personnel, you can make an argument for either, so, we aren't tipping off the O to anything. And, if they audible to run, it's not like you're in big trouble. That is the main objective: be unreadable. However, if we can run put the standard 46 with the standard guys on the field, against a 3wr set, and kick asses against that, then that generates a lot of fear/late nights/time kills for opposing coaches. That's the other thing: there are only so many hours in a day. The more the other side has to prepare for, the more they are likely to gloss over/miss. A 46-capable D puts the fear of God into those coaches, and now? Everything else loses time. Constrast that with preparing for Dave Wannstedt. Film work was done by Wednesday, and opposing coaches got to work on their golf games. You're welcome. How about this: The 85 Bears scored more than the opposing offense 3 games in a row. They beat Dallas 44-0 in their own stadium. And in response to Chandler's: They did that to Dallas without McMahon. In fact, here's the story: http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/cs-111885bearsdallas-story.html And some key lines from that story? Like I said, if we can run the 46, for real? We're going to be laughing about these QB posts by week 6. EDIT: And, in that article, I'm not sure how you can be fair-weather and have a beloved team, at the same time.

Nobody in the world can do more with a typo than TSW. In fact, TSW is recognized around the rest of the NFL as one of the most typo-capable boards.

While I see the logic in the link, I also see the other side: excessive click-whoring by the credentialed press. A fan, as demonstrated daily here, can be just as right or wrong as a reporter, and, merely feels a need to post what s/he saw. There is no pressure to generate 10k page views for fans, so, there's no pressure to distort a simple "QB X dropped a shotgun snap" into "QB X is going to be traded/cut becuase he dropped a shotgun snap". I've been saying for years that the internet is the best thing that has ever happend to journalism, and free speech, because it has removed the gate keepers, those who routinely use "what is news and what isn't" as an excuse to propagate their own biases and agendas, from power. We are in a transition period. Uprooting the established media has left a hole, and whole bunch of idiots, and a whole bunch of solid people, trying to take their place. The established media is now trying the old National Enquirer business model. But, not for long. Just like with every other disruptive technology-driven change: things settle down, and get better. Journalists need to calm down. Open-source software had the great effect of moving the programmer to the front, and the organization, if there even is one, to the back. Programmers are what people look for, and they are buying a who, not a brand. No money is wasted on people who don't add direct value to the software. This is also largely true on the App Store and Google Play. Soon, the best journalists will be moved to the front, and the results will be the same.