OCinBuffalo

What part of "this is what I'm told, by the people I've been working with for 10 damn years now, who define themselves using very strict, yet confusing rules, and more importantly, often refuse to consider others as Orthodox, based on said rules" did you not get? My definition? Given WTF I just said? How in hell does it matter? Are you retarded? As if they would ever give a rat's ass what I think about who is Orthodox and who is not? These are people who still maintain a tribal culture, literally. Many times I've heard "Well, hey, that guy is/isn't in my tribe, so...", and you expect my definition to matter? Hilariously retarded. The good news is: you've given me a unintentional, hilariously ironic story to tell my Othrodox partners. "Yeah, this one guy online asked me for my definition of Orthodox Jew". They will certainly get a good laugh out of that....and still not care what my definition is. They might ask me, and since they are clients/investors, I will merely say "good, innovative business partners"...as I was trained to do. They like it when I call them innovative. It makes them feel: unorthodox.

Hahahaha....awesome. Apparently this woman has never been to spring break. I'm guessing that's because: none of her friends wanted to go with her. Who wants to go party on a beach with someone who yells "oppressor!" every 5 minutes? Look: I've been to the bar in 30 states, exactly, and 5 foreign countries. I believe I've seen enough "circles of guys" of all colors, dancing, badly, around girls of all colors, to last a lifetime. Hell, I can go out to 100% white bars tomorrow night, where I am now, and see that. What an ego: as if she's the only woman who's ever been treated like a zoo animal, and it's because she's black? She doesn't understand men at all. I'd pay her, and buy all her drinks, to spend 2 hours at a Tejano bar, laugh my ass off, and post it all on Youtube. EDIT: That's because she would get harrassed by the women, not the men, and told to GTFO! And, as if no Asian man in history has ever gawked at a black girl and asked "what's it really like to dance with a black girl?" No, only white guys do that. Yeah, no black man has ever asked the same question about white girls. Christ, entire rap songs have been written about this topic, mostly by black women who want black men to look at them instead!. I love how her personal experience, like you said, is evidence that she can read minds. Enough F'ing about: this is about culture. AMERICAN culture doesn't accept cat-calling as appropriate. Hang around Italy/Greece/Spain/Southern France or any Mediterranean culture: the women are insulted if they DON'T get the cat calls. Btw, those are white people. American Feminist Hell: a week's vacation in Naples. I'd pay for it, as long as I could post the video on YouTube.

I said it. Miniscule. As in: I work with them on a weekly basis. Who do you think owns most of the health care facilities in the Tri-State area? The Presbyterians? What you may think is an Orthodox neighborhood, apparently is not, according to them. Look: I could write you a book post to prove it, and as a troll. But, now you know better, and it wouldn't work. Suffice it to say: is it really a surprise to you that the Orthodox like to disqualify some of their group as not-Orthodox? It is a surprise that there are purists among Orthodox people? Thus: based on my experience, miniscule is the correct term. They are great people, especially since I've convinced them that St. Patrick's day is holiday for me(which is only fair, since they have so many damn holidays where they are unreachable) that means I'm unreachable during that day/day after. They think it's like their Purim....which is pronounced: "pour em"...which is hilarious because Purim is the one time you'll see these guys get hammered out of their wits.

TTYT: your method here is fine with me. Let me know when we get to the metrics part. I'll be sharpening my axe while I'm waiting.

George W Bush created the opportunity, the conditions, for the Democratic wave. It was Rahm Emanuel who created both the strategy, recruit moderate, reasonable people and run them on winning issues, and then executed the tactics: Iraq War opposition, environment(back when Global Warming was taken seriously), and since the economy was doing wonderfully in 2006? We could afford to spend more on "the poor". All reasonable things to say, especially to independents, given the time. Almost all of Rahm Emanuel's House candidates were wiped out in 2010. All but, I think 1-2, will be gone after today. The Senate people who are vulnerable today, are the ones who rode Obama's 2008 coat tails, and who also ran Emanuel's successful gameplan from 2006. Kay Hagan(NC) and Mark Pryor(AK) are prime examples You act like all this happens by magic. No, it doesn't. It happens because elite political operatives-turned candidates, like Rahm Emanuel, make it happen. Paul Ryan is like Emanuel's opposite #. You want me to predict something? Paul Ryan has been saying very little publicly, and spending tons of time in poor/urban areas. I'm not talking about campaign stops. I'm talking about hard work. I'm talking about developing a real understanding of the problems of the poor. He's meeting with rehab/prison transition people in many states: Michigan, Illinois, I know for sure, and apparently lots of places. My prediction: Paul Ryan is going to bring properly functioning, business-oriented poverty/education/job training legislation to the House, it will breeze through the Senate, and Obama will be forced to sign it, or again, be the President of No. IF Harry Reid were to retain control of the Senate: none of that hard work--> solution would ever be voted on. Hopefully you've learned something.

Ignorance is your reply. How typical for you. More than 60% of those bills were passed with bi-partisan support. So, now, via your ignorance, apparently house Democrats are now anti-abortion rights and anti-health care for the poor. Can you not see that we have a plethora of problems, right now, today, that are causing suffering, waste, and idiocy? The 300+ bills address all sorts of problems, beyond your ingorance, but none of that matters, because no matter what the House passes, Harry Reid won't bring it up for a vote. We'll never know. I can't predict the future with 100% accuracy, any more than than I can postulate how things would have happened in the alternate universe that would have been created had those bills passed(if you subscribe to that theory). What we do know: we didn't even have a debate on those bill in the Senate, so we don't even know where our Senators stand on them, nor was any Senator allowed to improve the Bills with potentially better ideas/ways to get them done. That is the opposite of how Constitutional Democracy works. Congratulations. Here's what I know for going forward: With any complex problem, one can rarely guarantee an outcome by responding with a complex solution. What we can do: truly understand the complex problem first(a step that the entire left of today never bothers with, because everyting is politiical for them now). Then, break those complex problems down into smaller ones, and try to deploy solutions that we hope will fix the small problem, and doesn't create problems/bottlenecks elsewhere. The left has tried to deploy extremely complex solutions to complex problems, ALWAYS without a proper understanding of the problem or a didactic understanding of the relevant material required to understand the big picture. This is how Obamacare became Obamacare: NONE of its designers have ever created a health insurance product in their lives....yet....we are supposed to believe that they actually took the time to understand the industry before they began their work? It's the same thing everywhere you look in this debacle of an Administration: massive, sweeping, complex solutions that no one truly understands, rammed through Congress from 2009-2010 with most of the Ds there not even bothering to read the bills. Then? Nothing, thanks to Harry Reid. That is your record. Congratulations. Once again: THAT is the biggest reason Obama is failing, and the average person, without any training in problem solving/critical thinking, can see that for herself. Once again: let's put aside the Ds awful motives for a second. Focus on their methods. They suck. Period.

Like the 300+ bills that are currently passed by the House and waiting for a vote in the Senate? Mitch McConnell is going to be very busy....doing all of the work in this term, AND, all of the work Harry Reid should have been doing during his. You really don't know that Harry Reid is the reason nothing has happened in Congress all this time? Really? You really don't understand that Reid's entire gameplan, first, was a gameplan, and now, is a failed gameplan? You really don't realize that he has spent 6 years "protecting" vulnerable Senate Ds/vulnerable Obama...by not allowing any of them to cast a vote or sign anything, by never allowing anything important the House passed after the 2010 elections to be voted on in the Senate? Harry Reid has prevented every single D from having a record to run on this year. Thus, the only thing they can run on? Their votes from 2009-2010 "97% voting with Obama"...which caused an R wave election in 2010. It's made it extremely easy for Rs to hammer them, because there's NOTHING else to talk about. Harry Reid has prevented the immigration "Dreamers" from any vote on anything immigration-related. In doing so, he protected vulnerable Rs every bit as much as Ds. The worst is: Obama is the one catching hell for that now, from his own party! Do you get it yet? There will be a plethora of legislation coming from this R-controlled Congress. If for no other reason: than to weaken Obama further. Every time Obama vetoes/pocket vetoes something: he's going to take 100% of the blame, because the people elected this Congress to put that legislation in front of him to sign, not veto. It's a damned if you do/don't for Obama. Christ: If I were the Rs I'd be sending 5 small bills a day, and come out screaming to the media every time Obama vetoes one of them. I'd never relent. I'd beat him down with bill after bill and make him quit: it's like a punishing running game when you're up by 2 scores in the 4th. This is precisely how they should dismantle Obamacare, and replace it with something reasonable. EDIT: I'll try one more way to explain using Napolean: "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake". The Rs have been doing exactly that since 2012, they have not interrupted Reid or Obama, and both have made one gaffe/mistake after then next. Consider: IF they had done what they are doing now during the Clinton/Lewinsky thing, Clinton would have had to resign.

Could be. However, I do have to correct one thing. The term now is: Climate Chaos. Much more marketable, don't you think? This way, whether it's unseasonably warm, or cold....it's CHAOS! Don't be scared. This is just candid shot of some EPA employees at work. I prefer to quantify my answer: of the 300+ bills the House has passed since 2010, and the 0 Harry Reid has allowed to come to floor for a vote? I would guess that Obama will "have" to veto 80% of them "to save the country", or some such nonsense....right after an election whose intended result was to literally save the country from Obama. How's about we set aside R/D for a second and look at this objectively? Obama's 2 years of unfettered power from 2009-2010 produced horrific results. Example: The Solyndra Stimulus, which Paul Krugman was against because it was too small....because Keynesian Krugman knows a non-Keynesian, green energy, VC startup fiasco when he sees one, began this clown show. Krugman wanted more, because he wanted a real Keynesin stimulus: which was not what Obama asked for/got. Krugman wanted the real thing, in addition to the unicorns and rainbows. Of course the unicorns and rainbows failed, and of course Krugman got to say "I told you so"....to the idiots who don't understand economics. Thus, job #1 for the Rs that were elected in 2010, was to stop the Obama clown show. He ignored that and continued the show. He delayed Obamacare, so that he wouldn't have to face evaluation of his "signature issue" until after the 2012 election(boy, that's leadership, accountability and transparency for you! ) So, in 2012 the country once again presented him with a R House, and what amounted to a 2nd chance...largely because a bunch of Rs didn't vote for anyone. Obama won by default. With that 2nd chance, instead of attacking issues like the economy, which he could have easily gotten help on from Rs, and mended fences/began building a relationship with both parties in Congress, he immediately wasted our $/time on an uber-polarizing issue: gun control. Pure idiocy. If for no other reason than it made the red state Senate Ds, who will be defeated tomorrow, instantly vulnerable. (Agan, far left/done right/put them in charge of the opposite) That was sheer leadership, political or not, incompetence. And it was Obama, nobody else, who made that decision, and it was made out of petulance. It's been leadership incompetence, and unaccountability for mistakes, or worse, covering for corruption, ever since. This is about results, not Ds/Rs. Obama is now approaching Jimmy Carter status, if he hasn't already passed him. The Rs are being elected to STOP OBAMA AT ALL COSTS. It's not a matter of a Democratic president. This has become a matter of an Obama president, and also a matter of punishing the Democratic party for allowing itself to be highjacked by extremists that are 10x worse than the TEA party. Unfortunately, after tomorrow, the only elected Democrats that will remain so: are the extremists. That can go 2 ways. They'll either destroy the party, or they will wise up, and tell some of their wingnut campaign contributors that it's time for all of them to grow up, and put an end to the magical thinking. I'm betting on destroy the party. A guy like Rahm Emanuel only comes along so often. The creator of the 2006 D Congressional Wave, which was based on MODERATE Ds running for office...is about to see everything he worked so hard to design and deploy, utterly destroyed. And he was right: "That's F'ing retarded".

Where is BillinNYC when you need him? He used to post here all the time. He would get a kick out of this article. What a stupid question. If this was done in Brooklyn or the F'ing Bronx? Answer: It would be worse, and it would still be largely done by non-whites, you unmitigated moron. Exception: Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods, which are a miniscule part of Brooklyn. But this schit goes on: 5th avenue, Park Ave, and everywhere else, on a daily basis. I've seen it, and I've even intervened a few times because the girl in question(usually who just moved in last week) was scared out of her wits. It ain't the construction workers. That's outdated. Today, those guys are way too busy for that. In thinking about it, I may have seen 1 white guy cat-call a woman for every 50 non-whites that do, and I would bet $10k Bill would back me up on that. This moron seems to forget what happened to literally "dozens" of white women in Central Park not so long ago. Remind me: what was the excuse for 50+ white women getting their clothes torn off/attempted rape on Puerto Rican Holiday? Was Central Park ever a "black neighborhood"? Plus, the notion that Harlem means Black or Puerto Rican exclusively today, like it did 20 years ago, or means poor(um check the rents in Harlem now) and therefore, that this video is somehow targeted towards non-whites....is preposterous, and written by somebody who hasn't been to NYC in a while, or ever. Again, you walk on any busy NYC street any time of the day, and if the woman is a 4 or above, you will hear the cat calls. Put it this way: You feel sorry for the women that DON'T get them, because it's so noticeable when any woman doesn't.

Wait....you mean that was you, dressed up in drag? Jesus, do you have any idea of the trouble you've caused? Leftist assclowns, otherwise known as bloggers and pundits, have begun a "sexist" vs. "racist" war with each other. It's mass chaos. We have people telling us that beng a white women walking down the street is being racist, but only if you do it in black neighborhoods like SoHo and the Village. (For the NYC-deficient: Soho/Village are both white-dominated neighborhoods.) I swear, this video has generated more leftist absurdity than the The Surge in Iraq. Article after article of hilarious irony. The group that made it, which was trying draw attention to sexist behavior in order to stop it, was forced to apologize for making it....by feministas! :lol: So, we should accept sexist harassment, only if it's done by black/brown men(who were, by the way, somehow "set up" by the video's producers) in white neighborhoods, because....Racist! I hope this goes on for a long time. Each new article from the left about this is a gift for me: an amazing contortion/bastardization of logic. It's fun to watch stupid people try to squirm out of their own awful premises and contructs, that they've been demanding we all attend to for years. Could be that there is some uber-troll behind this? I doubt it. But, if that is what this is? Intentional or otherwise: this is some of the best trolling known to man.

I'm writing this now, not 2 days from now, because I've had thing thought hanging around in my head all weekend. Really, regardless of the outcome tomorrow, I don't see how any of what I've written below changes that much. So, I'm writing it now. I can't help feeling like President of NO = the next 2 years. And, despite the blatant irony, the Democrats are actually going to try to make the case that having no ideas, no agenda, and saying no to every bill that is passed...is a reasonable position to take...after spending years calling Republicans the Party of No. Why? Because I don't think Obama/Democrats are psychologically capable of dealing with what is coming. I see tons of denial and projection. I don't see introspection. I see petulance. I see a group of people who can't accept that "the one they were waiting for", and in some cases fainting over, who once stood in front of front of Greek columns...was merely a product of their own self-delusions. I don't see Obama respecting the judgement of the American people delivered by this election, largely because I don't see him having much respect for any non-celebrity/wealthy American. He lives in a deluded state that says he can't possibly be to blame for anything that has gone wrong, he's too smart. And, he lives in a deluded state where everyone loves him....because he only interacts with those that do. He supposedly brought in "people that disagree with him"...but, it seems that was more about providing a sparring partner for his own intellectual entertainment, than it was about learning anything. Look at the Middle East mess. Did he listen, or merely spar, and then go do his "red line" thing on his own? But, this is the question I keep asking myself: can we really blame him? Who is responsible for creating the conditions of the delusion where Obama resides? My answer: Lots of people. First, the mass of ignoramuses who can't be bothered to read and learn anything on their own, and get their "news" from outlets like Jon Stewart. Certainly these folks, who would rather tweet the word "racism", than read a book about the subject, are partly to blame. Every time Obama showed up, there they were, proving to him that he was the "messiah". Next, the professional Democrats, They knew better, but were afraid of being called racist, or something. They enabled this mess from day 1. Now they write articles and go on TV lamenting the damage Obama has done to their precious "activist government". Yeah, like it was impossible for them to see that damage coming. This is what these people do for a living. They deserve some blame as well. And, of course there's the people who voted for this clown because he was black. (These tend to be the same people who militantly support gay marriage). These folks don't care about anything other than: self-aggrandizement via demonstration of their moral "superiority". They couldn't be bothered to check out the man's qualifications. Not when there's self-congratulation to be had! And finally: there's the pathetic media whores. These people who were once call girl-types, have now reduced themselves to road whores. They are to Obama what the $10 whore is to a truck stop/crack house. As long as they can keep hanging around, they'll do anything he wants. It's hilarious, because the most vociferous, and noticeable leftist media pundit right now is Bill Maher. Bill Maher is getting more attention than any other leftist media person: and all he is doing is telling the truth about Islam! Every other loud mouth leftist is hiding under their sheets with their blankey. It's amazing how they've lost their "certitude", isn't it? We've gone from leftist "certitude" on so many issues, to them hiding out on every issue. It's amazing to see what this board looks like now, given the abundance of leftist "certitude" that was here in 2006. I wish I could go back to Center City Philly tomorrow night, just to walk around the bars, say nothing, observe, and smile. There's definitely a ton of blame to go around in that town. Thus, if Obama is to be the President of No, given the 6 years enabling, and all the "certitude" that once surrounded him, I don't think it will be entirely his fault. There are plenty of clowns, here and elsewhere, that deserve some of the blame.

No. The really big change is taking away the excuse you and every other leftist clown has been using since 2010. The real queston is what are you/they going to do now? What are you going to post after such an obvious repudiation of your ideas by a plurality of Americans? You can no longer blame the House for "blocking due being Republican". Which was always absurd, since they aren't the ones doing the blocking; but that absurdity ends tomorrow. You can no longer deny that Congress could have been doing all sorts of things, once Harry "Obstacle" Reid is out of power, and all sorts of things end up on Obama's desk. But let's get down to the real point here: Why has Harry Reid been blocking legislation this entire time? Answer: first, to protect Congresional Democrats from votes before the 2010 election, then, to protect Obama and all elected Ds from tough votes in 2012, finally to protect them from tough votes before this election. All this blocking and protecting....and what is it going to get them? The exact opposite of what they want. Once again, if you want something done right, put the far left in charge of doing the opposite! The reason the "s/he was the deciding vote on Obamacare" charge is still working...5 years later? Answer: Because the Democrats haven't voted on anything important since! Their record is comprised solely of "I support Obama in all things, or at least 97% of the time". How is anyon supposed to run on that? If this election is about nothing....that is because Harry Reid has brought NOTHING to a vote! Do you now see how Harry Reid(on orders from Valerie Jarret, I almost guarantee) has screwed you in the long run? Do you see how inept this entire strategy was? Or are you too dim? Come on. Think objectively. Not voting on anything in the Senate, not even passing a damn budget, has left every Democrat exactly where they were in 2010: with Obamacare hanging around their necks, and literally nothing else to talk about.

My thoughts exactly when I saw the thread title. While I'm waiting for the popcorn, I'm sharpening my axe for when the nonsense statistical analysis begins.

Yep, and I'm willing to bet Orton can make use of that info, to some degree.

I just think of the number of other ways losing Pettine could have gone. Even with getting Schwartz, it could have gone differently than it has. Therefore, we have to give some combination of Marrone/Whaley, and Schwartz himself credit for the outcome we did get, don't we? The other place that is often overlooked, imo, is the effort by the LBs this year. With Kiko out? (Imagining what next year is going to be like with Kiko back is something I'll be doing in the duldrums of July). Preston Brown, the "inside LB who can't cover" running step for step down the field with a TE...and was covering....to the poin that the ball should never have been thrown his way. Same guy making tackles at the line. Nigel Bradham(minus the penalties) has been "re-born, hard" The Spikes get by Whaley was a good one. All of this with losing the best LB the Bills have had in years before the season? I mean Rivers isn't on the field much, and he was supposed to be a starter? That also has to be mostly due to coaching and effort by properly picked players. The D line is great, but the LBs seem to be holding up their end as well.

Nice work. But, keep your head down. There are bound to be posters who will not like this thread one bit. Especially the part about the Bills only scoring 4 point less than what your efforts in this thread have defined as rational expectations. You can take comfort however, in the key word in that last sentence: rational.

Essentially, this is what I've been saying regarding every analytics based thread post here. And, the notion that Bill James created anything with regard to advanced statistics is patently false. He merely re-applied what has been going on in management consulting/WW2 since the 1940s. If you want to know where all of this began look up Robert McNamara/bombing of Japan. The Air Force was responsible for all sorts of analytic and workflow concepts. Hell, IDEF was still in use in the late 1990s, and it may still be(but it shouldn't). And, the fact that Viet Nam went the way it did: merely validates what Bill James/many of us who work in this field say on a daily basis. Over-reliance on analytics is dangerous(hence the complete FAIL of the "body count" metric in Viet Nam used by McNamara). Also, use of analytics by the untrained/those with average intelligence? Like handing automatic weapons to children. This is right....almost. You're forgetting one thing: the relational aspect of the data. The data of offense and defense combining, and that combination's historical propensity to predict outcome. What's being said by Billick is that having a D that gives up few big plays, gets few big plays, and also having an O that generates few big plays....is less likely to succeed that other combinations. It's the combination of these things, adding the differentials of the O and D. That is predictive. In other words: the Ravens of old were so good at making big plays/generating turnovers on D, that the fact that they had Trent Dilfer at QB and won the SB.....was an outlier. Or maybe it wasn't? If the differential on D was enough to overcome the differential on O on that team....then perhaps the Trent Dilfer/SB winning Ravens follow the model as designed? We could say that having a D with a high differential propensity tends to put the O in better position to make big plays....but...consider the field position of our last game. We didn't make most of our "explosive" plays when we started at the 50. No. The big plays came on drives we started on ~our own 20. Besides, when you get the ball at the other team's 10 yard line, you are, by definition, automatically prevented from making an "explosive" play, because the most yards you can gain....are 10. EDIT: So, was the Bills D the cause of the explosive plays by the Bills O, thus making this model not very predictive at all(is this circular reasoning)? Not really. The "explosive plays" by the Bills O stand on their own 2 feet as independent data, just like the Bills D "explosive plays"/turnovers stand alone as well. Combining these two sets of independent data = "toxic". Thus, there has to be some correlative effect here, that is predictive. The question is, as you point out, how much prediction is occurring as a function of hindsight/circular reasoning? EDIT: I'd argue that throwing around confidence #s like 80% and 95%....when perhaps as much as 40-50% of the 80% may very well be due to a factor like a top 5 QB...is, as you say: silly. Forget grasp of probability. The correlation that deserves your attention is between successful people and their aptitude with their own business processes. Nope. Almost the entire sports media claims expert status, but the only thing they are experts at? Playing save ass, bet-hedging, and click generation. Best example: a certain Buffalo News columnist "reserving the right to change my opinion"....yet never being accountable for the original awful, and emphatic, opinion he has reserved the right to change. Once again: MOST media is now about click-rate(wawrow NOT included). They will say anything, however speculative/wrong, for clicks/likes/RTs, and then play save-ass...hopefully for long enough until the next Ray Rice story breaks. Then it's on to their other favorite activity: hypocritically calling out stars/some politicians, not others/athletes for not living up to their public responsibility. As if the media themselves are holding up their end on public responsibility. They are a joke. I won't be surprised to wake up one day and find out that the Bills/Seahawks were considering trading Kyle Orton for Russel Wilson straight up.....if LaConfora, some Seattle reporter, or the rest of the click-whores thought it was worth the clicks.

Yeah, I'm sorta taking the "yeah, but, given the Jets propensity to screw up the obvious/destroy players, even if they do get one of these 2 guys....." approach. If IBM is where good software goes to die? The Jets are where good, head-on-straight, college players go to turn into Keyshawn Johnson. Or, the Jets are the NFL's version of the Toronto Maple Leafs.

Keep in mind this is a mathematical model. Which means it's supposed to be objective. It's not power rankings, which are by definition subjective. If you look at the power rankings thread, you'll see posters correctly finding all sorts of silly faults. There's 100% chance of that with subjective modeling. Here, if there are bad conclusions, the hope is: at least they are consistent bad conclusions, and can therefore be corrected. NFL models are extremely difficult to create, because there are so many variables that are bound to be left unaccounted for....and are therefore error waiting to happen. Example: no model could predict 6 TOs for the Jets, and 0 for the Bills, given the kind of raw data that existed, and was used by this modeling methodology, leading up to that game. Geno had spent the last 8? quarters without a turnover, and the Bills had had multiple turovers every game Orton had started. That raw data does not suggest the outcome. It's always a matter of improving the raw data/getting the best/most accurate data....and making sure there aren't any accidental, or worse, intentional biases/errors in that data(ahem, like with climate data), before it's anything else. Analytics, for all their power, are only ever as good as the raw data that is used to create them. Then comes methodology. In fact the type of raw data needed to properly predict the turnover ratio last game? May never be able to be gotten: how do you go about collecting what's in Geno Smith's head/understanding of the Bills D before the game? How do you go about collecting what's in the head of the Bill's defense, individually, and collectively as a unit, based on film study, before the game? After the fact, the Bills defense stated that they had Geno absolutely wired up. They knew what he was going to do before he did. They did so well, they sorta screwed themselves because they forced Vick into the game, and weren't prepared for that...in the 1st half. They made the corrrection at half time. Given that: 6 Turnovers sems obvious. But...how are we supposed to model any of this? Answer: you can't. Therefore, the grain of salt we should take with any mathematical model depends upon the ability/motivations of the modeler, then the raw data they base their model upon, and only then: method.. Never underestimate the Phillp Rivers : AFC leader in Choke/FAIL :: Tony Romo : NFC leader in Choke/FAIL analogy. It's practically attained tautology status. If there is something we can get away with judging purely subjectively, this is it! I subscribe to the going "3-1 for November does us just fine" theory. I mean, every game amongst the current AFC contenders this month is going to radically alter this model and all others, becaue there are so many contenders/outcomes. Looking at this week by week? That's a prescrpition for insanity. I'm not saying you're wrong. I am saying: look at the month, not the weeks = less stress. Aren't we, the AFC East, playing the NFC North this year? Gotta straighten this out before this can make sense, but I think I see where you are going. One thing I can say for sure: the NFC, despite the yearly inherent media bias to the contrary, once again sucks. The NFC on the whole can't play defense this year. NFC East teams playing each other is a fantasy dream. The entire AFC North has a winning record for the same reason.

I'm starting to wonder if it isn't Cam Newton that shuts down Kelvin Benjamin, and himself, which is why I didn't start Cam again this week. The only thing that shut down Sammy against the Pats was Orton/gameplan. It certainly wasn't Revis. I don't want to look too far ahead, but, the last game of the season, after so many games for Sammy/Kyle working together? We'll see about Revis.

Of course it isn't, on the scale you've defined. It wasn't designed to be. The rest of the PPPers seem to get it. You should too. (Well, except for PPPers that are still butthurt over a whipping I've given them in the past. They showed up like the drones they are to insult me here, because really? That's their best work. But, that was expected, and worked as expected.) Noooooo. They're on to me! Actually, I would define this as: anti-trolling. The trolling was done when the trade was made, and the premise I seek to eradicate was born. It's continuing to be presented as anything other than absurdity? That is trolling. This is better considered as: trolling vaccination. Neither can I. This handle is specifically designed to eradicate bad behavior and/or attack nonsense. It is designed to encourage people that might be fearful of taking on "doctrine", and those who would stifle debate via PC name calling, or just regular name calling(and both of you have seen it do that here, on many occasions, don't lie). It has been highly effective: compare PPP today to what it was like in 2005, and tell me this handle wasn't part of that. The handle says things nobody else would, or, says them in a way that is sure to draw out and expose the nonsense-brokers, and the REAL LAMP people. It's been working great. I see no reason to change it. Now we're getting somewhere, finally. Don't you see it? The premise I defined in the OP and the continuing arguments based on it ARE ALSO NOT designed to create dialogue. Many have only run with this due to an ulterior agenda. Who...honestly...says "we missed out on a 1st round QB" after drafting a sure winner in Watkins, with the intention of creating dialogue. Come on. No friggin' way. The intention is to criticize, and never be called out on it, period. They say it from their pulpit of daily Bills disdain, with finality. Safe in the knowledge that yet again, somebody in this world, in this case the Bills FO, is worse than them, and boy are they going to lay into that FO this time.... Have you considered that there is a "Bills can do nothing right" industry/people who derive benefit, which may come in various forms($, a relief from their own self-loathing, etc.)? Look: I know all about wrestling with pigs = all you get is dirty and pig likes it....but, I also know that if the pig has learned how to throw mud? We've lost our choice to avoid them, because we're still getting dirty, and the pig is loving it. Somebody has to go in there and kick that pig in the nuts. Hence, this post. Agreed, but sniping at the Bills FO, and Bills fans, who were genuinely excited by the trade, from day 1 until now? Spreading FUD(fear, uncertainty, and doubt), because of an ulterior motive? ' That takes even less guts. We are in less than zero guts territory with these people. Oh no sir. As you will see, this thread isn't quite over. In summation: Raise your hand if you think we are going to hear this premise written/spoken again. I don't. At the very least, it's going to be challenged every time it is raised again. Thus this thread has worked, so far, as designed. Now we can say /thread, as it has served it's intented purpose. That is, unless somebody wants to state the obvious, about this handle's style, one more time.

Yes, but is it made with organic, free range pickles? Are the pickles treated humanely? Are they produced by the local food collective, but also produced in a way that does not create an "unfair" advantage over competing pickle producers in the 3rd world? I have it! Are they produced locally, by people from the 3rd world? That is the ONLY way you can be fair Chef. Any deviation, and you are oppressing a person, place, or thing.

As long as Google and Amazon exist, continue to be lead by liberals, continue to play politics, and keep spending campaign dollars on this, net neutrality will be the Rasputin of issues. Net neutrality will last longer than Global Warming, IMHO. This thing started in earnest in 2001. As for the rest? What is Obama's approval today? 41.2% Given that, and the fine work of Sean Trende I've already posted in this thread, which culminates in this chart: We can expect between 9 and 13 seats going R, with 11 being the most likely outcome.

Yes, I believe good rettatta takes 45 minutes. I bet California Chef doesn't even use pickle juice. Too much sodium. So he replaces it with organically raised, gluten free, fat free, free range, fair trade, pressed whogivesaF?-bean oil from a 3rd world country....because...fair trade.

Watch the video. This is the reason why TV overtook print news. There was no mistaking what he was saying, or the look in his eyes. In fact, IIRC he said something about anyone discriminating against women going to jail, or being fined. There was no mistaking his response, and, if this was a wrestling match, that was a near-fall take down = 4 pts....in one sentence. That you have to use yet another logical fallacy = arguing to the extreme, to make your point, tells us all we need to know. And, btw, which party's foreign policy agenda for the last 10 years has been coddling the people involved in the only REAL war on women on this planet? Which party's president bowed deeply to perhaps one of the biggest perpatrators of that war? It's hilarious that you would bring up the Taliban, and Islam in general, when you and your party have been telling the rest of us that we should be tolerant of this ridiculous cult, and culture of violence....as yet another person is beheaded, and yet more women have their clitorises removed.