OCinBuffalo

For the last time, the pipeline doesn't run to China. It runs to Louisiana, where most of our refineries are. So WE will be selling the refined crude. IF you can't even be bothered to know where the F the thing is being built, or where it goes, what are you doing? Seriously. And, as Tasker said, there's NO EXCUSE for us having to import a single drop of oil. We can and should be exporting it. Never mind using OUR cheap oil to fuel new manufacturing jobs, here, in this country, where we CAN compete with China on cost, IF we spend less on energy. The Chinese people aren't going to put up with $.30/hour and having to don NBC gear(gasmasks) just to get a cup of noodles forever. There's already entire books about this. They've already had 2 full-on Billionare flights from their markets because those guys thought "the end has finally come = the currency manipulation has finally killed us". It's just a matter of time. And, when that time does come, the entire world better have enough oil on hand to sell them, or we're talking war. They already have 50 million men with 0 chance of getting laid. You add economic chaos to that, and then add the people being knowingly exploited for all these years? We damn well better start building things here again, otherwise, it's likely, never mind possible, that we return to the 1930s, while China gets all medieval on their own asses. Dude, I have 0 reason to insult you. I'm merely trying to help you get your head out of the ass of the non-fact brokers. EDIT: Oh, and unfortunately for you, you're going to have to choose a side. Either you're with the unions, or, you're with the environtologists. There will be no Henry Clay to come save your asses. Not when we are talking Democrats, and Power.

Which, is why the Democratic Civil War, that has already begun(I would say we are comparatively right around the time that Lincoln got elected) will be bigger and bloodier than the pretend Republican Civil War ever was. Look, we already have the "Middle States"(analogy) wavering over which side to choose. Chuck Schumer just played save ass on Obamacare. You think if somebody ties the pipeline to manufacturing jobs in Upstate, he's going to fight for the environtologists? Hilarious. It's not going to take much for more many "middle state" Ds especially those in Appalachia(including Mark Warner, who just squeaked by) to play save ass on Tasker's point above, especially once the unions start throwing their weight around. Surprises will abound. Watch for Dick Durbin(IL) suddenly being a pipeline supporter! The 2 sides: Unions. Consisting of mostly white males. Last I checked white males are leaving the D party in droves. If the unions want to retain their political power, they can't afford to "find out where their people are going, so that they can lead them." Vs. Environtologists, Hollywood. Last I checked these people are calling for moving the party even further to the left (WTF?) and to "purify" it, as if that isn't precisely what they've already done over the last 10 years, and "throwing $ at" that goal (the VC who dumped all that $ on the D Senate to block the pipeline, remember?). Yeah, a purge is the last thing the D party needs, but it's so apropos isn't it? Leftists sending each other to the gulag...is pretty much what leftists do. At some point, somebody is going to fire on Ft. Keystone Pipeline. And, that's when the "phony war" will begin. Phony war meaning the 8 or so months where everybody is waiting for the other side to blink, and pretends that the war isn't coming or real. Sooner or later, the troops will be put in the field, the cannons taken out of the armory. I'd say that's right around a year from now, when Obama is a lame...micro-organism...that lives in some duck's ass. Somebody has to control where the D party goes next. It will either be the unions, based on the promise of more manufacturing "good jobs", "middle class", etc. Or it will be the wingnuts, with the same old tired-ass 2004 global warming scam rhetoric we all know by heart. Either way, as Tasker says, the D party has about a 60% chance of destroying itself, and that's with good leadership(meaning not Obama, Reid or Pelosi). I'd move that number to 85% if they have bad leadership. Not 100%, because: things like the Chia Pet actually exist in this world, and if people can buy that.... It is possible, and I say possible, for "middle state" unions to end up allying with business-oriented Republicans, against the Environtologists. You want to see a civil war? That's a civil war.

Names. Still wating for you to make "name" plural, as I've already proven your "switcheroo" to be, well, exactly what it is. You know what else is funny? I just proved that this is the GreggyT Tangent, and you've just confirmed it. IF you aren't talking about firing Marrone....then basically, WTF are you doing in a thread entitled "Marrone and Hackett Seal Their Fate", and telling other posters they are "on a tangent", at the same time? Buddy, you stepped in it. No amount of dissembling is going to get you out of it. After all, you are dealing with OCinBuffalo, this handle is(in public) a pitbull, and you know that. But, go ahead, try some more dissembling. I've got about 30 more minutes here before I hit the sack. The real me has a real meeting in 4 hours.

I already asked: what does "benched" mean specifically? Benched for the season? Benched for a game? Come on. You know what? Forget it. I'm not gonna bet you anything. I'm just going to sit here, meditate, and try to convince(BS) myself that Kyle Urbik is a actually a competent NFL guard. Somehow you've been able to accomplish that. I want to figure out how you've done that. Besides, I'm interested in pushing my BS tolerance, which I'm told is very low, to a higher level. Perhaps some day I can aspire to be at your level, but I know it will be a long, hard journey. After all, it's guys like you that are always clamoring for more tolerance, right? Mike Vick's Culture. We should be tolerant! (Now how's that for a tangent?)

Jesus. Do you not even read your own posts? You didn't ask me where you said Marrone should be fired, you asked me where you brought up Marrone not playing players. Now, you've conveniently jumped from one thing to another, and are sitting here all "Who me? " As I said, cut the crap. You brought up Marrone not playing players....in response to me telling a clown that marrone has nothing to do with getting players. I expect the "out of context" excuse in 5...4...3...Oh wait....that's what this already is, isn't it? This entire thread is about "fates being sealed". That is the context under which we are currently operating in this thread. By definition, if you aren't talking about firing/not firing Marrone, then you are on a tangent. (I love it when they walk right into it. Entirely too easy this time GreggyT) So, remind us all who is on a tangent here? If you want to start a thread about not playing your favorite player, Mike Williams, go elsewhere and do that. I don't think anybody will care, but, hey you never know.

I don't want to take your money dude. I already have more than I will ever need. How about pushups? We can do the honor system, or, we can use youtube? And, what's the actual bet? Urbik has to ride the pine all 3 games left, or he finds himself there for the first quarter next game, but makes a triumphant return, when whoever he replaces Fs up even worse than he did today? You seem to be missing the point: 7 weeks ago not starting Urbik was considered by some to be proof that Marrone was a bad coach. Today, that looks awfully stupid. We need 2 competent guards, and we don't have them. Period. It's not like we didn't have a plan: signed a FA, drafted 2 O lineman. The plan didn't work. Exactly none of that sticks to Marrone. Yeah. That's right, just like in the other thread. You're out of options/talking points, and this is what your argument boils down to: "SHOMER SHABBAS!" Same old, same old.

In a pigs ass. Look, I gave you the links, if you are having trouble with reading comprehension again, that's not my fault. The fact is the OP is the one who said Marrone should be fired for "not getting the right players". I corrected him, and then YOU started talking about not playing the right "players". Still waiting for another name that turns Mike Williams from "player" into "players" and you can't use Urbik, as I already debunked that one. But, I suppose, like in a specific thread on PPP right now, you'll ignore the response and just repeat yourself.

Oh, so is it that we should fire Marrone for playing Urbik, or fire him for not playing Urbik? This argument keeps getting more hilarious....for me. Urbik got a holding penalty, got blown up 3 times that I can recall on running plays, and should be washing Fred's car this week because Freddy saved his ass on a 3rd and 1 where Urbik was abused, but Fred squeaked by anyway. Spare us the Urbik played "well", because it makes....some point....somewhere...that somehow overrides the point that Marrone caught hell from the nonsene brokers on this board, that not playing Urbik = mortal sin. The fact is today demonstrated very clearly why Urbik found his ass on the bench, and why he will soon return.

OCinBuffalo, on 07 December 2014 - 09:18 PM, said: The coaches aren't responsible for getting the talent. That's the GM/Scout's job. GreggyT, on 07 December 2014 - 09:20 PM, said: And Whaley has -- but there's no accounting for Marrone's decision to keep proven playmakers inactive. OCinBuffalo, on 07 December 2014 - 09:48 PM, said: Names. Dude, it's not like this is a 40 page PPP thread. You said this 2 pages ago. Now cut the crap. You brought this up, because I was making it clear to the dolt OP that it's not Marrone's job to put players on this team. Own your own tangent.

By the way, where are all the "Can't believe Urbik was on the bench for 7 weeks" people? That guy absolutely sucked today. Was Marrone keeping Urbik on the bench a bad coaching decision given today's "effort"? Yeah, there's another "name" for GreggyT's "The Quest for Guys Marrone Should Be Playing": Urbik. We should fire Marrone because he didn't play Urbik, because not playing Urbik is yet another indication that "Marrone is in over his head". (Want more silly arguments from 7+ weeks ago? Many posters on the main board are lucky I only have a database of posts for PPP. Perhaps I'll begin one for here...) As I said, pages ago: this thread is emprically obtuse.

Yeah, I asked for "names" not "name". So, your point that Marrone is sitting "players" he shouldn't be, is actually "player", now isn't it? You pretend like there was this whole string of Pysk's, and Grigerenko's and Armia's sitting down on Buffalo's bench, while we are playing Benoit, McCormack, and Flynn, and if the coach was only smarter, we'd be winning every game because he'd be playing the right "players". Sorry, but, the only tangent that's going on here is yours: there's no way in hell Marrone should be fired because one player isn't playing(and even that is questionable)....when the other starting ~30, on all 3 units, are doing more than any other Bills units have in 10 years. Try again. You raised this entire line of discussion. Now you want to call it a tangent? Fine. But it's Greggy's Tangent, not mine, and all you have is Mike Williams.

But that's totally subjective, and with 0 frame of reference vis a vis the playbook, calls, QB's preferences, etc. That's all I'm saying: we can't KNOW the answer here, until somebody walks up to Marrone and asks him, on the record, why Williams has been benched in favor of Hogan. No one has asked that question. IF Jerry Sullivan was half the provocateur/hard hitting columnist he wished he was, he'd have asked that question 10 weeks ago.

Now that I think about it, Williams not playing could be something as stupid simple as: he can't get on the same page with Orton, but Hogan can, and Orton told the coaches he can't play with Williams. Now what the F are any of the coaches supposed do? Play Williams because....? EDIT: see, I can do the conjecture thing too!

How exactly? I'm not the one going to practice every day and coaching this team. If I was, I'd have the exact answer as to why Williams is sitting and Hogan is playing, and I'd give it to you. (If we had competent media here, we'd have known this answer long ago, or, they are deliberately covering something up, because either they want continued access to the team and asking that question shuts the door?, or, the best thing to do for everyone involved is to leave this one alone?, or, perhaps they don't want to embarrass Williams? Who knows?) But, here's the thing: you aren't coaching the team either. You have no idea what the actual plays are, and who is executing them the best in practice/games. Nobody does, and unless we obtain objective evidence(um, like a playbook, the playcall, and an all 22 account), we never will. Everything else, is and always will be, by definition, conjecture. I don't see how putting yourself in an all or nothing position, with odds against....automatically = not trying to win.

No. Let's put this in Princess Bride terms. (In my job, I find that when statistics/math/facts/logic/left brain stuff doesn't reach people, going in the completely opposite direction usually works.) If we punt it, we are mostly dead. "There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive." If we go for it and make it, there's a chance we won't be dead, but, if we go for it and don't make it, we're all dead. "With all dead, well, with all dead there's usually only one thing you can do, go through the pockets and look for loose change." The point, put simply is: no matter what, we didn't want to put ourselves in an "all dead" position.

Um, what was the final score, and, how many TDs did we have to obtain to reach that final score? This is ridiculous, you're assuming everything good, and ignoring the fact that any small thing, like a bad snap, or a open WR dropping/fumbling the ball(um do we remember last year, similar situation? Do the words Stevie Johnson ring a bell?), completely F's us. I understand the temptation to go for it. But, I also win more than I lose at poker. It's called: managing temptation. Reality: Hogan had a Red Zone TD last week, and a lot of other good plays today. So, what do you know that the rest of us don't? Reality: Do you honestly think any manager, whose ass is on the line, even if he hates the employee, wouldn't put his best guy on the job, and would put his lesser guy there, just to prove something....to someone....somewhere....I have no idea what the rationale for that is.... IF that is what Marrone is IN FACT doing that(fact meaning you can prove it) then yeah, that's a problem. That's weak leadership. Hell, I'd fire him tomorrow. But, it's not fact. Once again, it's conjecture. Mike Williams is not playing because......(we have no real idea why). Chris Hogan is playing, and I remember a certain Minnesota game...where Hogan literally won the damn thing with a circus catch, which was only necessary because of a badly thrown ball. I don't see how it's Hogan's fault, or Marrone's, that he is playing and Williams is sitting. I don't see Hogan being any sort of reason for doing anything, other than playing him every week.

WTF are you even saying, if we turned it over on downs there, the game, not the season, was over. What? The context of the game being played? Give Geno Smith the ball on our 20 yard line, he kneels it down 3 times and they kick a field goal...the game is instantly over. We had to completely stop them from scoring another single point, or the game was instantly over. That is the context in which the game was being played. But Denver scoring was, and remains, the worst thing that could have happened. And, thank you for the new TBDism. Likely Hood. He's Robin Hood's cousin. He steals reason from otherwise rational Bills fans, and gives it to no one. He just keeps it, down in a cave, next to his JP Losman Jersey, signed Mike Mularkey Bills hat, and his "we should have never drafted Gilmore posts". Not at that spot on the field. You're giving the game away immediately, and making the time remaining irrelevant, if you don't get it. We had assets: time left to score 2 TDs, and a team full of players who were capable of pulling that off. We don't make that 4th and we are literally taking any chance our D had of stopping them, or our O had of scoring. That's not good leadership in anything. You're putting your own "wisdom" ahead of your people's ability to do their jobs, and essentially telling them that when it comes down to it, you basically think they all suck at their jobs. Good coaching my ass. Don't forget, part of my job is leading people, and has been for 20 years. What evidence exists that proves Hogan(um last week Red Zone TD) is a worse choice than Mike Williams?

Buddy, you've contradicted your own thread title 3 times in your own thread. Get a F'ing grip.

No. Once upon a time there was this little girl, I mean mod, named simon. He routinely got his ass kicked on PPP for years, by me and others. He was a laughing stock. He would get back at us by giving us invisible warning points, complete with no explanation or PM, and then we log in, and presto! Banned. So, some of started posting only on PPP, and we even started a football thread there. This way, no more girlish games(what else should we expect from the left?), and we still get to do what we do. This is the third time in 7 days I've been told to post more on the football board. Seeing what I have these last days? I can see why. Oh, and little kitty simon has gone bye bye, and we all lived happily ever after. The End. Right. But using that "logic" Marrone doing nothing, pulling the team off the field, getting on the bus, and trying to get home earlier, would also be a good move, because...they lose either way. Names. And you can support that conclusion with what exactly? That's what I'm seeing over and over on this board: pure conjecture, and then "I'm never going to admit that my conjecture is wrong, not ever, fire Marrone! He can't coach!" "Shomer Shabbas! Shomer F'ing Shabbas!" This post is an embarrassment. We are relevant for the first time in 10 years. We still have a 41% chance to make the playoffs. But, in absolute value world....this year is exactly the same as the year we started JP Losman and Mike Mularkey had Cheeseburger night! "Shomer Shabbas!" Ok, how about I be generous and give you 8 out of 10, or, 4 out of 5? Next, my friend has a Desert Eagle. Which is is .50 caliber, 5 round revolver. Let's play a game: I will load it with 4 rounds, spin it, and point it at you and pull the trigger. Wanna play? Why not? You have a 20% chance of being right, just like Marrone had a 20% chance of being right by going for it on 4th down from his own 20, and the exact same consequences for him...well, professionally.

Then you disagree with fact, because that is the worst thing that could have happened*. Great. Guess what? I disagree with gravity. That's right. For today, gravity simply does not exist, because I disagree with it. * Bon Jovi being the new owner remains the worst thing overall, that could have happened. Hehehehehhe. You just don't like it because I apply the same exact method to football as I do PPP, and once again, you find yourself on the schit end of that stick. I present the real facts, not the made up/wishful/suit my agenda facts, and then construct logical arguments based on them. It causes clowns to lose many arguments to me, like you are doing, right now.

So, does throwing for 355 yards against at top 5 D, seal his fate? Does Hacket calling the plays that produced those our offensive stats: 415 total yards, 4.6 yards a carry, 5.4 yards per offensive play, even though his QB threw 2 awful INTs, seal his fate? What the F is going on here? Show me a JP Losman stat line, or a Mike Mularkey trick play for -20 yards, and then you can talk about fate-sealing. M-kay? Which by definition means they can be used to support logical/correct arguments, like mine above. See it? I see, we are now blaming everybody else, as well as the coaches, in a thread that you started called "Marrone and Hackett Seal Their Fate"? I wonder: did the ref who first called a head shot on Gilmore, and pussied out with a ridiculous PI call, rather than picking up the flag, seal his fate? The coaches aren't responsible for getting the talent. That's the GM/Scout's job. Jesus. For those of you who didn't know what the words "empircally" or "obtuse" meant before reading this? Well, now you know.

No. The worst thing you can do is give Peyton Manning the ball on our 20 yard line, and have him score another TD, or merely a FG.... ...which would have sealed our fate... ...regardles of the time on the clock.

So, this thread is entitled Marrone and Hackett seal their fates....but maybe now it's just Hackett and Orton Seal their fates? Dude, shut it down. WTF are you even doing?

No. The difference is I know football. Especially today's football. You are talking about screen plays as if they all sucked....when the reality is we exploited the screen over and over against them. What the F game were you watching? We chucked in to Fred on screen/chip and go for 2 3rd downs in a row! We did find the weaknesses with our game plan: how many misdirection runs/pass plays did we have? How many times did we set up for a pass and run a counter? Better: how the F did Kyle Orton throw for 355 F'ing yards, if we didn't find any weaknesses in their D? Given this post and my last one, I've now made your entire argument empircally obtuse. Try again.

Right, and if we don't make it the game ends right there. It was the right call. You never push all in unless you have a made hand, or you know the other guy is a fool. John Fox and Peyton Manning aren't fools, and going for it from our 20 is like tryng to fill an inside straight with one card left in the deck. Idiocy. It's as simple as that.