OCinBuffalo

Marrone and Hackett and Pettine/Schwartz have made the Bills relevant in December(and we still have a 41.6% chance if we win out) for the first time in 10 years. And that means they've sealed their fate? :lol: Yet another dude trying to disprove the "Bills fans are the most knowledgeable in the NFL" adage. Seriously. The go in as 9.5 dogs, and not only cover, but make it a game after making all sorts of execution(not coaching) errors, and you're talking about 4th down calls? If Chandler goes up and gets the ball on 4th and 6? This is a different game. That was a great call, and we have to expect Chandler to make that play. Meanwhile with the game on the line, you want us to take a chance that if we miss, we have 0 chance, rather than punt, and still have a chance? We scored a TD right after punting. So tired of this broken record/non-thinking about Marrone/Hackett. The man has done a hell of a job with at best average(right now) QBs and losing both his stud RBs for much of the season, and is playing WRs who haven't played for 3 years(used to be the rule that it takes that long for a WR to learn the game). I don't know where in WNY this non-thinking originates, but if I find it, I will respond. Perhaps I will pay a farmer to drop 1 ton of manure there. This is what I mean when I say "The Bills are not your problem". EDIT: We go in and give the best team in the league, and the best QB to ever play the game, hell, and his worst rating in 6 years, and that seals fates? Patently retarded.

Horsecrap. I outlined the benefits in detail(detail, because this way you have nowhere left to go) above. You have yet to refute any of the benefits I've listed. That's largely because I seriously doubt you have a proper understanding of the material necessary to understand these benefits. As many here have said: Oil is a market. If you don't understand how markets work, and, if you don't understand economcis(the subject, not Keynesian Eonomics, the doctrine, which only represents one school of economic thought, and has been proven to ineffective on multiple occasions by the other schools), then there's little chance you are going to understand, never mind accept, the benefits. What you are basically doing in this thread is repeating the same false premises, framing them as "questions", and then ignoring what is said that refutes pretty much everything you are saying, and asking the same false premise questions over again. Now, I'm not saying economics is a sure thing, and, I'm on record here saying every school has been proven to be effective in certain situations. But, what you cannot deny is that for 80 years Democrats have been screaming "infrastructure = economic success". The pipeline, by defnition, is infrastructure. So, your choice is now: 1. Hyporcrisy 2. STFU and build the damn thing

I think this system accounts for the nearly asssured Tannehill, TanneFAIL. Think about it: TanneFAIL should have lost Miami the last game. TanneFAIL will probably lose games for them going forward against better teams. Hence, Baltimore losing now is better. But, yeah, it's a tough call. This is about past performance though, now that we are this far into the season, thus, it expects Miami to lose games they shouldn't.

Fine, have it your way, dude. Flo is a benighted hag.

My Standard Caption: Benighted Hag.

Last year somebody asked for a "who should we root for" Bottom Line thread. It seems like once again, this will be useful. First, like last year, let me remind you that this is the Bottom Line Thread. That means that once again, I have gone here: http://www.sportsclu...st/Buffalo.html and used this as my source material. These results are produced by math, not opinion. So, if you want to have discussions about who you think will win, rather than which team winning gives the Bill the best chance to make the playoffs? This thread is not for you, and I will remind you of that as we proceed. On to the goods(first team listed is home team, bold is who we want to win, and I didn't bother with ties, but, in every game but the Jacksonville/Houston and Cleveland/Indy game, and obviously our game, ties are the best thing for us. Now, let me be clear: that's because of the math, which takes the entire conference into account, not just the Bills. Clearly KC losing is better for us, and this is the Bottom Line Thread. So really, don't pay attention to ties.): Denver vs Buffalo(Duh) +14.3 Arizona vs Kansas City +1.9 Miami vs Baltimore +0.3 San Diego vs New England +0.3 Jacksonville vs Houston +0.7 Cleveland vs Indianapolis +0.1 Cincinnati vs Pittsburgh +0.1 Feel free to take umbrage with how these games were picked(ahem, please feel free to read up on how these game were picked, BEFORE you take umbrage ). But, based on millions of simulations, these outcomes give us the best chance to make it.

Beat me to this thread. Yeah, it seems every game we do damage. This can be for lot of reasons, but most likely it has to do with our guys being in better shape/stronger/faster. That, and we are getting leverage on almost every play. Leverage means different things for different positions on different plays. But ultimately it means our guys are putting themselves in the right position to make a play, which means putting the other guy in an awkward position, and when he tries to compensate, or is run into by his own guy who is also being pushed around, injury occurs. You take the facts that we are in better shape, have natural born hitters, and that the entire team has a high propensity for getting leverage/in position/has better individual skill.....the other guys are bound to get hurt. It merely becomes a matter of statistical probability.

Obama and his cronies absolutely deserve blame for implementing a not-Keynesian, $1 Trillion Keynesian stimulus. All that did was funnel $ to, and delay the inevitable failure of, Democrat-controlled states and cities, and we still got the failure. Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan et al, STILL had to buckle down and reform their systems which needed to happen anyway. Christ! Mario Cuomo comes out and says "we're #1 in spending and # 23 in results in education"? Even New York and California had to change, and the stimulus solved none of this. The rest was blown on "green" venture capital, which is the exact opposite of how a Keynesian stimulus is supposed to work. If you want to retain any credibility as a financial/economics expert here, you have to agree, because them's the facts. Now, these people have the temerity to talk about the state of our roads and bridges? When all they did was pay local D politicians to keep their machines running, and called that "shovel-ready" jobs? O'(*^*&%^$^#had to come out and admit that the failure of the stimulus was directly due to D state/city machine malfeasance "shovel-ready wasn't as shovel-ready as we thought"....like he didn't know how things run in his own F'ing city. Even Paul Krugman knew this wasn't going to work, because he knew what would happen when you hand machine Ds free $ = nothing. That's why he wanted a $2 trillion stimulus, $1 trillion for what did happen, and another for an actual, by the book Keynesian stimulus. Which allows Krugman to once again claim that he was "right".

Speaking of screaming things for 5 years: Is Obamacare destroying the Democratic party? Apparently even the NYT is finally getting that there have beeen oodles of white papers/statistical analyses that prove the "demographic inevitability" theory as utter BS. When you lose whites nationally, who make up 70+% of the electorate no matter whose model you use, by 3-5? When Hispanics and Asians aren't as "auto-Dem voter" as you thought? The ass falls out of the whole thing....like I've been saying for 5 years. He is still clinging to the "growing demographic advantages" part. But, at least he now sees the reality when it comes to whites. And, understands that the only real democgraphic advantage remains with blacks, like it has, since LBJ. So really....all that's happening here is: Democrats got their asses kicked for pursuing far-left policies. And, the "demographic advantage"....is actually the "Obama advantage". Leave it to our current media to F that up. It will take the NYT another 5 years to figure that one out. It doesn't matter what color you are: bad performance is bad, but, charismatic Obama is good. When you put Hillary up there, with her Secretarty of State record, and she starts doing her awful Bill Clinton impersonation? Well, bad is bad.

Net Neutrality has had its own thread. Many times. The issue is clear as a bell for anyone who has bothered to familiarize themselves with the material, therefore, it's hardly worth discussing. But, if you want to start yet another thread, and decry poor Google's position that they deserve more for less. Go ahead. I will bring my axe. The very notion that Google is now building it's own ISP infrastructure? That should tell a person of >= average intelligence the following: 1. The status of the Net Neutrality law = never going to happen 2. Google's goals haven't changed, they are merely changing tactics....because of #1. 3. Because of #2, Net Neutrality's entire reason for being is clear beyond all doubt. They tried to pass a law to rip us all off, they failed. Now they are doing what they want the harder and more expensive way. 4. By creating their own infrastructure, they hope to compete the existing ISPs out of business by providing content, via software that is only accessible using their infrastructure(that's why software always rules, no matter what hardware companies try to do to lock you in. In the end, software people(like me): circumvent. See this: http://phonegap.com/ We've been using phonegap for years, and have contributed code and testing to that project. More importantly we deploy real-world architecture using it, which lends them our cred. And....so much for Apple's app approval process = so much for hardware lock in.) But despite all of this, they will ultimately fail, just like NFL Ticket failed to make DirectTV dominant. Once again, the internet doesn't take kindly to any company trying to dominate it, and Google is going to learn this lesson when their supposedly ISP-only content is either hacked, converted, or integrated and then web serviced to the other ISPs....most likely by some free-to-pay services. It will be PhoneGap all over again. Thus, what's left to discuss? New thread? I'm just going to cut/paste this into that new thread.

Or, is that what we are supposed to infer?

Then poke. Make no mistake, I'm not arguing for or against Schwartz. I simply haven't heard enough reasonable arguments for Harbaugh. If he's pissed off people in his own organization, what exactly prevents him from doing the same here?

Which....is bascially what we have to look forward to for the entirety of 2016. As I said when it happened: "I can't wait for the "What Difference Does It Make"?" Chia Pet in 2015-6. This is why I doubt Hillary can win. All she's been doing since her campaign began(and make no mistake, it began with her book tour) is self-destructing. Add that to her inexorable link with Obama's Administration(um, she was on the damn Cabinet, as Secretary of State, not Interior, or Labor....try to spin your way out of that!), and it's a losing proposition. Massive change needs to occur for these fundamentals to change. Or, the Ds can always run Warren....(please! please! please!)

That's what I'm saying. We are talking frictional not structural here. If the energy guy who is out of a job, gets one at the factory that now exists because of cheap energy? If somebody, anybody realizes the wisdom of Bill Clinton's adult education programs(which basically meant increasing the supply of workers who can work in high tech....otherwise known as supply side economics )? Thus again, I don't see inevitable, always bad all the time consequences here. Yeah, I can see some problems in 2015. But, I don't see companies betting against energy prices being low. Besides, there are tons of plans/expansion that has been on hold for years now, all due to the anti-business environment created by Reid/Pelosi/Obama. Some of these bets may look more tenable now. But, as you say, who knows? Politically, a rough 2015 hurts Hillary, so I don't see where the political will from the reasonable left comes from to stand in the way of tax reform. Thus, I don't see how the offshore money doesn't come back in 2015. The offshore money alone would abate whatever losses the energy vertical suffers. Actually, that offshore money could easily create a boom. EDIT: Upon further review, I supposed all of this is dependent on the size and dispostion of the "reasonable left". It may very well be that there aren't enough to save themselves, and by proxy Hillary, from a bad 2015, and therefor a worse 2016. The funny part is: they've been relying on the stupid, and dumbing down the conversation for so long, that it may be impossible for them to leverage any of this.

And as long as he/you/the rest of the patients keep their mouths shut? The free market you've created will prevail. There are literally seminars being offered right now teaching doctors how to run this model. Right out in the open. Many docs and patients have lost their fear of the "law", largely because it is a lawless law, that has been enforced lawlessly. And, I'd like to see HHS come and try to shut your doctor down. The PR cost alone means they don't have the balls. Besides, these are largely nutless wonders anyway. The massive Medicare fraud proves that. No one fears them, and without fear, this form of "law" is doomed. As I've said many times, ultimately Medicare will fail because of things like this: http://thegreenhouseproject.org/. I went to the home of the doctor behind this in 2003. He had a server stack in his basement(right next to his dog's crate...yikes!). He had an underpants gnomes approach geared towards doing what we already were: 1. Spend $20k on hardware 2. ? 3. Collect all data but only deliver the relevant little bits in real time. He was greatly disappointed when I responded to his "original idea" with my software, already in production. But, he got over it. He's a smart dude. Guys like this is why Medicare is ultimately doomed. If you can spend $150-300/month on your mom, she gets better care, lives with 8 people, and never wants for anything? Again, free market.

Yeah, but it's like any other emerging line of business. In the late 90s there were 25 "business intelligence"(what is currently called analytics) software companies. In only 18 months, due to competition and acquisition, there were 3. Then, like everything else IBM stepped in and bought up what was left/open source companies emerged, and the market stabilized into niches/models....along with new thingers doing new things, etc. Who is to say that the $42 barrel guys won't make enough to buy their neighbors out, and the American price settles down to around $60, with 3 companies competing with each other, and OPEC? And, who's to say that this new Congress won't override Obama's vetoes, force the EPA back into their hole, and keep prices down? You can sure as hell count on many, many votes on this in the Senate, and Ds who are up in 2016 being forced to vote without Harry Reid protection. This will also kill filibusters. The line is simple: "This vote is about providing cheap energy which creates jobs". Good luck fighting that with "but....Global Warming". Thus, I don't see this industry taking a serious blow as inevitable. (EDIT perhaps short-term, small one?) Not only that, but, if we can maintain the current momentum in energy, now that Obama has been reigned in, and, if we can get reasonable tax reform done? All the offshore money comes back. That $ almost instantly turns into energy demand. I realize there's a lot of dependency there, but, also realize that in terms of % chance, a lot of these are 50/50 if not likely.

Well, I can try and help you understand why a guy who has worked for decades as a health care administrator would say something like the above. They spend years eating the cost of the emergency room for free health care plan. Now, somebody, anybody, else has to pay. Not just pay today, but pay for all the years these administrators had to stare at their spreadsheets and say "no fair!". It's not hard for them to take the next step, and say "everybody has to be forced to have insurance, no matter how stupidly the program is designed....because now I get my way!". That's how we get the "black Friday" argument from him, in its ridiculous entirety. See, I know these people very, very well. After meeting thousands of them, I've identified the patterns in their "thinking", and I use that term loosely. The specific one here is: "We've been suffering for years due to our situation, so we DO know better: it's somebody else's turn to suffer". But, as my sig says: most of their problems are self-induced. THEY are the ones who allowed the government to dominate their industry. They are the ones who gleefully took the insurance $ from the gold-plated plans for years, which over time allowed the insurance industry the same ability to dominate their industry. In essence, they've been crack whores for years, and instead of getting off the junk, they keep coming back for more. There are wise doctors(some of whom I know personally), who have basically kicked both the government and insurance out of their businesses entirely. They do it all on the down-low, but they do it. They are making more $, their patients are paying less, getting quality care immediately, and....of course the government and insurance companies are doing all they can to shut them down. One guy in particular is starting his own down-low hospital. Obamacare et al is yet another example of the folly of giving an order you know no one will follow. Common sense says don't do it, and, you spend more time/$/effort trying to combat the ways people get around your order, than if you had just kept your mouth shut. In the end, Obamacare/health care, and artificial raising of oil rices will all be resolved by the ultimate judge/jury/executioner: the free market.

Then why is he being canned? I will give you effort points for at least trying to quantify some of this. (The "he is good with QBs" argument is the opposite of objective, quantifiable argument....because um, John Gruden was "good with QBs" as well ) Lets put this on a number scale, with 0 being an 7-9/8-8 team, -5 being the worst team in the league, and 5 being perennial playoff team. Where were the 49ers on that scale when Harbaugh took over? Where did he get them? Now....where were the Lions on that scale, and where did Schwartz get them? Yeah, it's not even close. You take a team that's at -5, and take them to the playoffs(Schwartz)/hovering around 4 vs. a team that's floating around between 1 and 2, and get them to 5? That's my quantifiable, objective arugment. Poke holes if you can.

.....with the obligatory "But, I may still be right if he doesn't sack Manning, Rodgers, and Brady at least 3 times each. Thus, I reserve the right to crush Mario if I am right, and can point to this article if I'm not" caveat at the end. This is save-ass behavior, and it isn't even very good save-ass behavior. This guy, like most reporters, thinks he's smarter than he actually is, we're dumber than we actually are, or both. This is why he thinks he can get away with adding said caveat, and that none of us will notice.

If we have to get rid of Marrone(and have yet to hear a convincing argument...that isn't based on some subjective crap), why wouldn't we go with Schwartz? What specifically, performance-wise, right now, is Harbaugh doing better than Schwartz? As I said, I think all of this is a pointless exercise, but still, how is a fired coach better than a coach who is, again, currently, looking at setting team and NFL records with his D? Seems like we need a TON more info(you know, like the rest of this season playing out) before we start making wild conclusions.

Ah, I see we've moved forward from calling the climate scientists who were stuck in the ice that, according to them, wasn't supposed to be there...."adventurers"...to what they are: climate scientists. In an instant, Yahoo prints the actual truth, after having lied, like its nothing? Not a thing about "we assisted in propagating the adventurers cover story last year". Hilarious. Yeah, and given that the LA Times is one of many media outlets who also ran the "adventurers" story....it's hilariously ironic that they are bemoaning the "different sets of facts" as if they aren't directly responsible for creating a slew of non-facts and printing them for 10 damn years. When the Chairman of Ethics in Science gets cold busted(by a timestamp...still hilarious) forging documents in support of Global Warming, in a lame attempt to discredit an organization who was set up for the very purpose of being a watchdog to monitor the "facts"? When his colleagues, rather than ostracizing him, do a better job of closing ranks around him than any corrupt police department protecting its own ever has? When the head of the IPCC writes a book that clearly demonstrates his delusions of grandeur....and the LA times responds to these facts by acting as if psychological problems exist equally on both sides? Pardon me if I don't take the "consensus", this story, or the fact that it is sourced by a guy "working towards his marketing degree" very seriously. You're damn right LA Times: we do have 2 sets of facts. The ones you manufacture and then toss in with the real facts. Thus, we have to routinely go through the exercise of extracting the manufactured crap here, on this board....which is why these threads always last 80 pages. Here's an idea LA Times: hire some F'ing editors that aren't "narrative seekers". And while you're at it? Stop pretending like common sense is a psychological disorder. The FACT is that it's far past time for your employees to do some introspection, and come clean on your decade of psychological commitment to this "story". Now, I wonder: in which pile of facts does this story belong? How are my political leanings effecting my ability to comprehend that there's more ice than normal in the Great Lakes this year? I mean, after all, there must be a psychological reason for my belief that there is more ice this year. It can't be that there's simply more F'ing ice this year. Now you can see how desperate they truly are. Once again: behavior. "Our lies aren't convincing people, so, they must have a psychological issue". Hilariously: that is the textbook definition of projection.

Just got back. Man. What a game. But, it would have been a lot different without the efforts of many Detroit people. Hotel people(especially the guy that held the cab for us at the Crowne Plaza), bartenders, cab drivers, the Lions employees who helped us sort out the tickets(didn't scan, had to get new ones)/kept something that could have easily been chaos under control, and pretty much every Detroit person we met, they all were excellent. The Detroit fans at the game were cool as well. That radio "Go Green" thing...never materialized. Not as far as I could tell. And, all the talk about hooligans and trouble in the stands? If there were any, they didn't act like it. That was a fun time. Oh, and I do apologize for the only person I saw who puked, but he was a Jets fan. Jets fans really need to monitor their drinking. I think the league may need to get involved. Godell needs to make it clear that this behavior is not acceptable. Perhaps they need to change their parking lot rules. And finally, we got a chance to show the rest of the NFL who "the greatest fans in football" truly are. But, we couldn't have done that without Detroit's help.

Why? See the biggest...either honest misconception, or intentional canard, the left has is that somehow the right doesn't want clean water, air, etc. Who wants cancer water? Not me. Do I not understand the concept that pouring chemicals into water makes cancer water? Of course I do. I do my own thinking, every day, for a living. I do not require assistance from the left. The false choice that the left has been operating on for 10 years: Either you accept as gospel everything we say, even when your own common sense prevents it, or you don't care about the environment! That is precisely why I liken these people to Scientologists, hence, environtologists. Both use the exact same tactics. IF you cronfront either about some blatantly idiotic part of their ethos? Both will come at you personally, and call you evil/ a criminal/ etc. People who are secure in their argument don't need to do that. But, when you are dealing with a cult mentality, which we most certanly ARE(and I have proven it countless times here) in the case of both Scientology and Global Warming? You always see the same BEHAVIOR. Behavior. That's what I've observed. We can talk about computer models forever. It's the behavior that makes it so obvious to me that this is a scam. EDIT: On a medium level at least. I'm sure ther are some honest brokers, but they are also likely to be naive brokers.

You should be every bit as skeptical of us, as we are of you. Partially because many claim to be us, that aren't. Partially because you're usually lying about a lot of things, and often don't even realize it. IF we are telling the truth here, so be it: We don't live to serve you, no matter what the partners/marketing people say. Rather, the good consultants live to solve problems, first, help people, second, and think of it that way. The greedy and the nerdy eventually get tossed out and wind up in lesser jobs. We see them as they are. If they were us, they'd know that. They were never us. Few are. If you have problems I'm interested in solving, great. Get out of the way and let me solve them. Hint: I wouldn't be here if you could do it yourself(unless your firm's officers are using us to cover their asses. Worst case: We take the $ we can get, and the blame....did I mention take the $?). Get in my way on purpose, and you better have your resume updated = my personal experience. In that experience, there's a 90% chance you aren't very good at doing much of anything...other than half-assing your piece of the current business process. If it came down to you suddenly coming up with an original, ass-saving, thought? 5% chance. That's why we're here. One of 100s of real world examples: I once asked 12 accounting department heads for the current documentation of their business processes. 1 guy out of 12 was prepared for the meeting a week later. They rest sat there like lost children, some were faking that, some weren't. These were adults, with 100+ direct reports, none of whom have the foggiest idea WTF was going on in their unit, other than some pathetic spreadsheets...and you're talking to me about ways to limit my effort? What happens when I'm 1 of only 2 people in the room, who can demonstrate any effort? We exist for a reason, and 9/10 that's because of a general lack of competence/waiting for retirement/save and kiss asses/risk aversion by people who want the title/$/authority but don't want the responsibility, promoted for non-merit reasons, etc. in an organization. We exist, because you exist, poorly. And, if and when we want to get out and work on the client side? We get the job, and you don't. Every good(otherwise known as not fired), real, consultant Partner or PM controls the scope of his/her engagement completely and with skill. If you think you are narrowing/expanding the scope? That's probably because that illusion serves the Partner/PM's current needs. Really? What happens when the CEO pulls his consultant out of the meeting, and explains that the reason his VPs all just sounded like morons, is because they are morons, he inherited them, and he'd like a recommendation on who to fire and who to keep by COB next Friday? What is the consultant supposed to say exactly? Since we are talking professional experince here...that, or something similar, has happened to me many times, sometimes by my design, sometimes not. I suppose I was specific...fire this dude, keep this lady. But....WTF are you talking about? I mean: organizational approach? When a real project manager shows up? We are the organizational approach, or we soon will be, and you'd be wise not to test that. That's what the words Enterprise Consultant mean. It's as I said above: we see things as they are. Thus, also as I said above: CEOs routinely use consultants to cover their own asses. That's what is occurring here. Most CEOs would call this: competence. If you were me, then you'd know that an incoming CEO only gets 1 chance with a new organization....and s/he can F things up permanently, with people that aren't replaceable, before they even know that, fairly easily. So, rather than walking that tightrope, my phone rings. We will "assist in the transitition" etc., etc. BS. Basically, we wll ensure that the new CEO takes no blame for the usual early missteps and F ups/things that might piss off irreplaceable assets. This is especially true when the CEO brings along a dumbass or 5, because they know them, and said dumbass(es) is a lock to piss people off. Even if the new CEO orders us to do something directly, we make sure that it never appears to come from them. This way, over time, the CEO can build solid relationships with his people, quietly get rid of dumbasses, and all the bad sticks to us. When we leave, we take that bad with us, along with our fees . It's a simple arrangement, but it takes real consultants, with real skills, to pull it off. If there's anything to be skeptical about: its whether the consultants engaged are real, and have those skills. As I said: many claim to be us, but few are. It's relatively easy if you know WTF you're doing. I've done something along these lines many times. Think: how hard is it to take blame, rather than avoid it? Nobody wants it, so they are happy to give it to you. You basically just have to write emails correctly, and make sure the CEO's assitants don't do anything stupid. If things get out of hand, the CEO can fire us, or more likely, we realize the CEO is a cowboy/girl and we walk. Either way, we make 1 chance into something else, and at the very least 2 chances. That about covers it. Sorry, but that's the way this world works, and I get paid to tell the truth to people that don't want to hear it. Hilarious. My mere existence disproves this. I love when this happens. When I am taking a dump today and flush it, remember that said dump, down in whatever sewer, also proves you wrong.

Oh man....now you've done it. All I can say is: Prepare. Incoming is headed your way. I mean, I appreciate it and all, but, you have no idea how much this post will annoy certain posters here. Which is of course, hilarious for me....but potential trouble for you. Fair enough? As far as paying attention goes? You're doing better on that metric than most here. Paying attention...is what I do, and that is precisely why some posters will be so annoyed. My paying attention...has lead to many beatings for them, almost exclusively on PPP. See?