OCinBuffalo

Just don't forget about the "high caste" Indians. According to a few of them I've spoken with, apparently they believe they are the solution. As more of them get into powerful roles in this country, they fully expect to turn it around, and save us from ourselves. I'd call them libertarians because that's the closest thing to call them, but I can't. Anybody who retains belief in a caste system, and thus predicates their solution on it? Ain't no libertarian. And, 3 times now I've caught Indians playing the caste game in projects I was on/around. But I schit you not. There are more than a few "high caste" Indians who basically think they have a duty, never mind a right, to infiltrate all levels of business and government for the greater good. Cheifly because: by their own self-definition they are superior. Circular reasoning at it's finest. It's even worse than: "vote for me, I'll give you $, so you don't have to work, and this will make the economy grow, because you have $ to spend, so vote for me again!". I was gonna start asking the last guy about "racial purity" but it was time to get off the plane, and I was afraid to hear the answer. It's not something to worry about, but, they are out there, and they do think this.

Reading through the last few pages of this thread, I realized that I was more interested in cabinet making/fine furniture/Maine/Delaware than the ACA. The hilarious part is they really think continuing to lie about the ACA, or deny their own utter failure, or defend a system design that now anyone can see for themselves is flawed(5 years ago you had to be a designer/have health care/insurance knowledge to see...which is why I have been calling BS for 5 years now).... ....is somehow "working". It's going to "turn things around". They keep digging. The shovel should've been put down, and the climbing out of the hole should have started, 18 months ago. Once again, they think that their election/marketing = governing = actually doing the job, not talking about the job. The Democrats have hitched themselves to a Marketer-in-Chief. The wise among us know that we have to keep marketing/sales on a short leash, or they will run wild and over-promise. Barack Obama is what happens when you let marketing/sales become CEO. It's the Barbarians at the Gate story all over again: a great sales guy is great, but never let him be a CEO. A more updated version, in 3 words? Steve Ballmer Microsoft. The guy that made the thing is who you want, not the guy that talks about the thing. And here's my 2 cents on Delaware: There are 0 taxes in Delaware, not low taxes. Delaware is like a giant Indian Reservation, with better stores. It's 20-30 mins away from Center City depending on traffic. And, having lived in Philly for a cumulative of 5 years? Winter is a F'ing joke in Delaware compared to living in Buffalo, or really anywhere in NY. It's more like an impression of winter. I would talk about the packs of hotties running around all over Delaware, especially Dewey Beach, but...with a wife....not relevant. At least I hope it isn't.

And on the same page, below the article? This: NOW WATCH: Icelandic Commission Confirms That Video Of Mythical Sea Monster Lagarfljótsormur Is Actually Real Which is simply another story about using a small set of data to prove a myth, or a lie, or a scam. Take your pick. In this scam, it's not about getting free government grant money while producing 0 results(see: EPA grants)/blackmailing corporations/chasing ambulances(which is what most of the professional Democrats do when they aren't working on campaigns). Rather, this time it's about tourism $. In both cases, we have people trying to make money based on a myth. The difference is, the lake monster people don't run around calling other people names, when they are the ones...if you don't like lying, then let's try: dissembling, falsifying data, forging documents, and demanding massive government action = lining their pockets. And, yeah I can post a link for every one of those charges, if not 10. Can you post a single link that shows a single climate skeptic doing any of those things? No. You cannot. I love it when you post. It gives me a chance to practice my irony observation skills, and you are always good for some irony, b-dog.

I have a purely speculative take, but it's based on some truth: Premise 1: The Secret Service is around/hears what's happening in the WH 24/7. Premise 2: Given only what we know...."what's happening"...has not been good, by any objective definition. How many times can one Secret Servce agent go to the golf course, while having been raised, educated, and then trained their entire lives...to protect, and serve, and most of all care about this country, before....? Premise 3: The Secret Service is comprised of human beings, and, no matter how well you condition a human being, or how many rules/processes/procedures you instill into them, sooner or later, they will always revert to their own judgement, or "the truth" as they know it. I've seen this happen with every company I've helped. There is always a timer running on people willing to continue living the "company line", when they know it's a lie. When it runs out? That's it. One of the toughest things we have to do is to convice people that the lie is over, and to start a new timer for us, to prove it. Assertion: Given 1-3, the psychology of protecting someone who, in your judgement, isn't worth it, will eventually lead to contempt. Sloppiness. It's simply a matter of respect. If you don't have any for the protectee, no one can be expected to work for that long, day after day, without eventually slipping up, because their timer has run out.

Conspiracy requires secrecy. The media's liberal slant is a matter of proven facts, and consistent statistics. There is no secrecy. Only a moron/hack refuses to admit they are biased. The media is, and has been for decades, largely controlled by people who are motivated, in order, by: 1. Self-aggrandizement/enrichment (Hence, why the Clinton thing happened the way it did. #1...is #1) 2. Pushing a liberal storyline on eveything, downplaying every time the right proves to be right, provided it doesn't infringe on #1 3. Pretending they are asking "questions people want to know", when largely, they are asking questions nobody cares about, chiefly due to #1, and #2. And, they never define "people". The entire media is guilty of using undefined "people", instead of saying things like "these 3 polls, averaged out, show that a majority of registered voters don't/do agree with you on X, what do you say to that?", which, by definition, is a question people care about. How about an example question for Mr. Obama? "Mr. President, Climate Change is now ranked 45th, or the lowest, in every poll that asks what issues concern the American people the most. Given that, why do you still see it as a priority, and, shouldn't your administration be focused on the issues that are in the top 10?" Asking that question would be the media doing it's job, and properly using its 1st amendment rights. The problem is: the media itself is an accessory to the Global Warming Scam...and don't forget #1 above. Thus, it is a fact to say that the media is biased. You will NEVER hear them ask this question, unless of course it's on FOX. Until that question, and ones like it, are asked of liberals, by the liberals in the media? There is no conspiracy....this is simple corruption, based again, in order, on #1-3 above.

And you don't find anything ironic, hilarious, or hacked beyond all recognition about this? The "lone voice of reason"? Yeah, this isn't a Hillary infomercial at all. The really funny part: there are dopes in your town that actually think this is going to work. Unmitigated morons. Let me be the lone voice of reason for them: "What difference does it make?" on one 20 second ad, is worth 10x the entire production value of this TV show. Americans will never accept leadership cowardice in the face of the enemy, while troops at the front are fighting a heroic, but losing battle. Never. That has become the history of Benghazi. No amount of spin is going to change this. Not saying Hillary loses because of it, because there are many other factors, but, the blatantly obvious approach here is to lay this off on Obama, and try to re-make Hillary the "lone voice of reason" that night. It may work, but it probably won't. Why? Because "What difference does it make?"....t-shirts, signs, posters, chia pets, videos, and on and on.

Did you wonder why my original response was so gracious?

Per the yahoo recaps(which are almost as funny as GreggT's): "The 53.00 points by the RBs on DeathDealers was the season-high for combined points from the position." EDIT: and I had Sproles in for Ivory, which I knew was stupid, but I thought Sproles would catch SF on a fluke TD or something. Anyhow, if I had Ivory in there, it's 57 points. So, there you go. Also, I like this little tidbit: "With 20.60 points, Jimmy Graham had the fourth-highest TE score of the week and the 10th-best TE score in the league this season." and, this one is just to rub it in: "The 16.90 points scored by Rueben Randle, who DeathDealers picked up this week, beat his projected point total of 12.25 by 38.0%." I realize I would have lost to other posters, however, I did have my top 2 WRs on bye. And, again, all I'm saying is: I'm working on it.

This is precisely what it is. Of course, with the requisite character/plot changes necessary to convince some that this is just a coincidence. Why not National Security Advisor? Why not female head of the CIA? Tell me that wouldn't be interesting. Hell, NCIS had a female Director for a while. Actually, the most interesting would be a female head of the operational side of the CIA, who proves that some jobs, especially that one, require a unique sort of brain, forcing gender into being a distant afterthought.....but....Tom Clancy already did that one 20 years ago. No. All this is: try to make some microdemographic of targeted female voters "identify" with how hard and difficult, and "boy so much travel", the job requires. Man, Hillary must have had her hands full....traveling and accomplishing so much, like when she.... Well, time for a commmerical. But no matter. Mission accomplished.

Except when you base an entire industry, an integral part of political party's platform, funding grants from here to eternity, a chance to demonstrate the terrible consequences of capitalism, and the paychecks(some larger than others, Al Gore) of hundreds of thousands of people... ....on one side of that coin. Then? You will catch hell if you flip that coin. Merely suggesting that the coin be flipped, even one time, makes you a "denier", since, "everybody" already "knows" which side always comes up. In Hillary Clintonese: "You're right to be concerned, but, it's already settled KTF. See, really there's no reason to flip the coin. Best to put it back in your pocket and let the enlightened people handle this. They already know the outcome. They know the outcome because this has all been modeled, over and over, and every time the coin always lands the same way. So, why don't you be a good little taxpayer/home owner/car owner/parent, and simply accept that things are going to cost more, and you're going to get less? You don't want to be the cause of a global catastrophe do you? If that catastrophe were to come, this willl be 100% your fault, not China's not India's, yours! It's much easier than us calling you names, and think of the children! You don't want to be responsible for messing up everything we have planned do you? That's right, put the coin back in your pocket, and please take this free cell phone instead. We'll be sure to check back in with you if we hear...I mean...if we think you might still be tempted to flip that coin".

Nice work. My take is: there's a hell of a lot of variables there, and that's just talking about sea ice. Too many variables, with too many disparate trends, to call anything "settled". You don't have to be a scientist....you can be in a number of vocations, and recognize "too many variables" when you see it, not like any of it, and say it's time for a better plan. Clearly this isn't something we should base our future economic plans upon. As far as the bolded goes? "EVERYTHING that doesn't support AGW is an anomaly"....is otherwise known as: a tautology...for AGW people. The real anomaly? Getting an AGW cultist to admit anything that doesn't support their faith is not an anomaly. Hell, that would be news. Look above, and there's all the links to the fudging of temperature data by NOAA, and now, the Australians have been caught doing it as well. I know, I know, more anomalies.....

Sorry dude. It was a reasonable offer. I appreciate it. But I just can't do that one, largely because of what I think will happen with the RBs I have.

You may want to check again. Bowe is no longer on this team. Neither are a whole bunch of other people. I've been doing the best I can with an auto-drafted team that didn't pick a RB until the 3rd round. It's my fault they were auto-drafted, but, last week I managed to put up this league's biggest blowout thus far on the board, and that's including overcoming Matty Ice's 29 damn points. I'm not saying anything, other than: I'm working on it.

This is my least favorite part of the week. 12:30 pm on Sunday. I'm in Bills hell, Fanstasy Football hell....and I've just about had it. And people wonder why I drink....

There's definitely a history of a Bills game being a great QB's last due to a crushing hit. I think Brett Favre was the last one. This is perhaps the biggest story in football: the total destruction of a great football team by the ego of it's coach. But, you'll never hear it. I think I've read maybe 2 articles that objectively call out Belechick for bad drafting/FA moves. The way I see it, in terms of how we got here, 2 things happened. 1. Belechick inherited Bill Parcell's draft classes, and got extremely lucky with drafting a HOF QB in the 6th. 2. There was a reason why Mel Kiper declared after the 1st Belechick draft that the Patriots would "lose all 16 games", and then they went to the SB. Kiper was fooled, because he looked at what the Pats D had been, looked at who they drafted, and it didn't make any sense at all. Reality: almost every other team in the league was running 4-3. Belechick wanted a 3-4. This meant that the best players/FAs for his system, were literally falling into his lap in bunches. He was getting guys in the 3-7th round, that, if everyone else was running 3-4, would have gone in the 2nd, at least. "Tweener" LBs that were useless as 4-3 DEs....were All-Pros as 3-4 OLBs. Big, but slow DTs, who were useless to the Tampa 2, because they couldn't get upfield, were perfect for NT/DE in a 3-4, where their job is to stay put and take up space. And on and on. At every position, it was like Belechick was drafting in the first round...for his scheme. He was able to build a killer D, immediately. But, everybody figured out what was happening, and a bunch of teams went to the 3-4(shamelessly copied the Pats), suddenly, Belechick had to draft like everybody else, and every year since, has been exposed as not being very good at it. Add to that, Belechick has been pissing off/away the awesome D that he built one player at a time, sometimes 3 at a time, and replacing them largely with FAs(Seau, the great Adalius Thomas Fiasco), because the D guys he has drafted rarely, actually, almost never, pan out. That and the guys he drafted when it was only him drafting for 3-4, got old. Today, with the hybrid Ds, things have only gotten worse. When the Pats try to switch into 3-4, is it any surprise that 265 lb, #1 draft pick DE Chandler Jones gets rag-dolled like he has been the last 2 weeks? I said that pick made no sense when they made it, and it still doesn't. Now it's like the Pats are playing this "already broke" hybrid D....which is why Miami rolled them so easily in the 2nd half of that game. Imagine if Adrian Peterson had been able to play against the Pats this past weekend, instead of the Vikings trying to outpass them? 90% chance that's a different game.

It's hilarious how, after numerous posts defining the very simple fact that a BOATLOAD of variables combine, per season, and sometimes, per game, to make ANY "top 10 QB" into one, and I'd say about 40% of those variables having nothing to do with the QB himself.... ....some are still struggling with the cause/effect here. Terry Brashaw. Top Ten QB? In that league, at that time, with those rules? Still...no way. I suppose we could always make up special Terry Bradshaw "analytics" rules now too, couldn't we?

Ok. Right, which, means....what, exactly? We should talk about EJ in absolutes? When I just said, we shouldn't? Got any more "zingers" there Dibs? You're beginning to amuse me, and that's hard to after 8 hours of drinking and then 4 hours of watching Netflix/posting here. By all means....give me all ya got. I might actually not fall asleep in my chair, like last weekend.

Yawn. In NFL football English, ask any player/ex-player: EJ is still a rookie. Christ, Steve Tasker said it, I've heard a boatload of other players say it/something similar. Now you're telling me they aren't fluent in their own language? And, really, the dictionary thing was for PPP people....not for you.(Notice I directed it a Rob, a PPP veteran) This dictionary thing, is an old thing, that really has nothing to do with you. You've already declared my argument "valid". Great. You concede the content. Now, you want to make a big deal about the process/play thesaurus/dictionary police, or whatevertheF you are doing, I couldn't care less. I'm done with it, largely because, again, it has nothing to do with you.

Fine. Factor that in. But, that works the other way as well: we can't compare "EJ's rookie year", to another QB's "rookie year" who played in all 16 games, either. As you said: It's a big one. Largely because: it's the ONLY one....that matters. Whenever the EJ haters/apologists get done with twisting the data through their "only apply to EJ" rules: The fact remains that we shouldn't be saying anything at all until EJ plays 16 games, and we shouldn't be talking about EJ's draft until after next year.....just like we have ALWAYS done with every player. It was, is, and will continue to be friggin preposterous to pretend that the "NFL has changed" in terms of Rookie/2nd/3rd year of starting(happy?) QBs. Dan Marino went to the SB his rookie year. He never went back(largely thanks to us.) Did the NFL change because he had a good rookie year? No. The NFL has not changed. That was a nonsense story, and it remains a nonsense story: Anybody watch Kapernick's 3 picks? How about Wilson's lack of effectiveness? What's Andrew Luck's team's record this year? Anybody ready to call BUST! on any of them? Why not? RG3? You take the data from this weekend? And by the hater's rules? ALL of them are busts, especially Luck, as a #1 overall with 3 picks in 2 games? Look: even lowly JP Losman got his 3 years. WTF is anyone doing talking about EJ in absolutes?....before he even gets 2? Enough is enough of this nonsense.

What mistake? Again, I ask: what's the alternative to calling EJ a rookie until he completes 16 NFL games? Again I ask: 6 madden simulations? Listening to Mike Schopp tell us what would have happened, given EJ's Yards Per Attempt? You have no logical alternative. Therefore, there is no error in what I am saying. You're the one that bolded me saying "NFL football English" above. Why did you do that? I could have just said "English". But, I said "NFL football English", didn't I? Think that was a mistake? EDIT: Oh, and I am certainly not acting. When it comes to what is currently being called "analytics"(merely the lastest marketing buzzword for what has been one of my areas of expertise for 20 years)? I've been superior, for quite a while. And, when the word for "analytics", or any of the other things I do...changes yet again? I'll remain: superior. I'll make you a scary prediction: sooner or later, somebody is going to realize the "value" in applying what some other superior people around the world, and I have been working on for the last 10 years or so, known as "real time analytics"....to the NFL. Right now the "sports analytics experts" are only at doing what I was doing ~15 years ago(ouch, now I feel old). IF "real time NFL analytics" were ever to be implemented by the same media jokers/amatuers that are f'ing about with the old stuff today, it's quite possible that a black hole of idiocy would be created, that none of us could ever escape. ....and that, is why I write these posts. Think: nothing but Dan Dierdorf absurd analysis, or, perhaps more likely, Joe Buck/Joe Theisman "praise whoever is winning, right now" analysis and/or "praise whoever the analytics guy tells me to....until he tells me not to...I don't care if I just contradicted what I was saying 3 minutes ago: IT'S REAL TIME ANALYTICS!" analysis 24/7. Nightmare, isn't it?

I'm still shocked at how many on this board don't...now...see Trump as the stalking horse he most certainly was. (And I told you as much) Non-Jovi et al was a serious bid. Well, it was a poorly led, disorganized, shambled and leaky ship, but the true intent was there. OTOH, Trump was doing the NFL a favor. Clearly. And, he's following that up, by making sure that the focus stays on him, and not the NFL. Honestly Greggy T, have you heard one person anywhere say anything about the NFL's motives/position on this? Why not? Because Trump has been right there, dropping a new sound bite/quote, every time the story turned that way = lightning rod. He's laughing at every "I hate Trump/Moron/Egomaniac" post in this thread, and every similar comment everywhere, because that's the exactly the response he has been trying to get from day 1. Trump operates in a world very few understand. We'll see who is calling him a moron...when his favor puts him first in line for one of the 2 NFL expansion teams(if not 4), or let's him buy the next team up for sale. Consider:..no, really...stop, and think: Trump still had a beef with the NFL due to his USFL lawsuit/shenanigans. Did he not? Now, he's done his penance, hasn't he? He's gotten the NFL exactly what they wanted: A record price for an NFL franchise. From the outset, Trump was in place to ensure that the Bills weren't sold for under $1 Billion, thereby screwing the valuation of the other 31 teams....many of whose purchases were finanaced by debt. IF those team valuations were to dip, many owners would be in serious trouble with their banks. As I said: a world very few understand. Jerry Jones may have priced himself out of his own market...etc. EDIT: The Pegulas, if they do in fact mostly pay cash for the Bills, as expected, are best thing that could have happened to the other NFL owners, because now it gives them the upper hand with their banks. "$1.4 Billion...cash! For the Bills, in tiny little Buffalo? My team is in {insert city here}, which means my valuation is now ($1.4 Billion + X), which means I now have Y-hundred million more in equity in this team, and your loan represents Z less % ownership. You either lower my interest rate, immediately, or I take my business elsewhere!" And, if nothing else, this entire episode puts Trump's name right back where he needs it to be: in the headlines. This entire thing was a no-lose situation for Trump. But go ahead, call him some more names! I don't have a problem with it, given that, in the big picture, it's entirely irrelevant.

Beat me to it, as per usual. Looking at that map, I was thinking....there must be like one dude, named George, from Cincy/Tenn that runs the 1 CBS affiliate for that area, who wants this game. Basically he has his own DirecTV. Got his Bengals jersey on, six pack ready to go, all by himself in the one-room TV station. Let's Go Bengals! Seriously, I thought each local, non-designated "home market" TV station had some say in what game they show each week, since they buy the games from the network(sorta). I've heard of people merely calling up and bitching to the local affiliate/cable company, and if nobody else cares, they show the game you want. So perhaps these Nother Idaho/Eastern Washington/Western Montana people are wiser than we thought: they saw this NE/OAK clunker coming, and opted for the better game? Or....there's always a Bills Backers club/Sports Bar. However, be careful which Sports bar you choose. There tend to be no shortage of d-bags, especially d-bags who are losing bets against the Bills, because they don't know the aggregate history of the Bills beating the spread.

Horsecrap. 16 games started is the only real measurement we can use. What's the alternative? Running Madden simulations for the 6 games EJ didn't play last year? (You know it wouldn't surprise me...) Letting yet another "sports analytics" clown fail at doing my job, causing me to have to post, yet again, another long refutation of their idiot methodolgy? (Past examples: "Road Wins Against Playoff Teams" , "Yards Per Attempt" ) Ridiculous comparison. Was Aaron Rodgers starting games those 3 years? No. In fact, you're proving my point for me: any analyis of a drafted-->starting QB is relatively pointless, even after 16 games, because of the plethora of variables that cannot be accounted for in a SANE manner. Why is it that for last 20 years, we have always reserved "bust" status until 3 years after a player was drated, and rarely declared someone a bust until they demonstrate absolute suckitude consistently? Because that's the rational approach. Suddenly, due to a few outliers like Kapernick and Wilson, we are supposed to throw away everything we know about the college-->NFL transition? Who the F gave that order, and why the hell are we following it? Again, there are FAR too many variables(like, um, the strength of both SF and SEA defenses?) to pretend we know a damn thing about Kapernick or Wilson or EJ so far. Question: How much is EJ been benefitting from our D/ST(like Kap and Wilson have) thus far vs. how much is due to EJ himself? No one has any idea until we get more data. I'll use our current game plan over the last 2 games as an example: Would this be the gameplan GB would have used Aaron Rodgers in his post-Farve start? Of course not. So, does Aaron Rodgers first 16 games have much chance of telling us anything in relation to EJ's first 16 games? Not a chance in hell. Using statistical analysis requires precision, it also requires knowing WTF you are doing. I've seen very little precision, all sorts of confidence bias, and hardly anyone demonstrating proficiency in this new "field" of "sports analytics" thus far. Football Outsiders and PFT are the only people "doing it right" and even they have flaws in their methods. The difference? They are competent enough to know about these flaws, they admit them, and they are trying to fix them. QBR is flawed as well, but, ESPN has decided that this is the best that can be done given the resources they are willing to put into it. Fine. At least it has a reasonable methodology. In comparison, I hear morons talking about YPA, without even demonstrating the slightest correlation, never mind finding a propensity %, to winning/making the playoffs, not even a relationship to offensive proficiency/efficiency. Why? Because they haven't even bothered to set a F'ing baseline for these things. Yards Per Attempt sits there like a burning pile of schit, and we have moronic "shamans" howling at the moon and dancing around it, and getting the same exact results in terms of predicting future results. Here's another interesting, QBR-like approach to rating players. Methodology here: http://www.numberfir.../info/glossary/ First let me say, this is at least a competent effort. The problem is, just like with QBR, and to quote the method explanation itself: The "at least once" part is the issue. Using historical data in this manner doesn't account for deltas in team defensive schemes, or offensive schemes, nor does it account for individual opposing player's strengths weaknesses, nor does it account for time of game(or perhaps it does, but this doesn't say.) This is why PFT's rating schema is superior: it compares player v. player, every play, all game. (But it has other problems that I won't get into here) While it's fair to assume that "rare" plays, of the "at least once" variety have a reasonable chance of remaining "rare", how does it account for something like Converting a 4th Down and 32 with an inside handoff? That's an pretty rare/large achievement, and either indicative of one hell of a RB, or O line, or, indicative of a terrible D. Or, maybe it's merely a scheme thing? Time of game? Score? While, throwing for 6 yards on a slant, on 2nd/3rd and 5, all over the field, any time of game, happens all the time. Thus, you're bound to have a bias in "expected successful outcome achieved" in "most common situation". You're going to see the pattern you are looking for(otherwised known as confidence bias) in the most common situations, precisely because they are so common, and precisely because teams use "common" approaches to solving "common" problems. Almost every QB in the league is capable of converting that slant, and they do, lots. How therefore does any of this distinguish one QB from another? It over-credits QBs for making that play, and over-punishes QBs for not making it. Now, consider the fact that 12 years ago, nobody was running the read/option, and there were very few true "running QBs", therefore, no LB had to account for the QB(except for a very few) taking off. Now, many teams are designing runs for QBs(The Dolphins designed 2 runs for Ryan F'ing Tannehill last game). Thus, the run action is making the passing game easier for those QBs who bring that threat to the game. (Ahem, look at Wilson, Kapernick, and to a lesser degree, EJ) This is where QBR-like approaches fail. It's the threat of the run that they simply do not take into account. They try to measure and then weight a QB run as more equivalent to the pass, but only AFTER the fact. Passing will, in the aggregate, be better for all QBs who can demonstrate both a competent pass and run threat, especially for teams that gameplan that very thing, thus causing defesnes to respond with appropriate gamplans. But, data from 12-5 years ago doesn't take that into account, does it? EDIT: At the very least, you've got one skew here. Maybe more than a few. In closing, this methodology is well thought out, and is a responsible, competent effot. But, clearly, so are my criticisms of it. The bottom line: proper weighting of the raw data, BEFORE it's put into the algorithms, is required to make this method more accurate. Either that, or somebody simply needs to show me the alogrithms, or, somebody simply needs to tell me that the alogrithms have taken everything I've said into account....and make me believe it(tough gig).

Or, this could mean that our 2014 season means we will be drafting @ 14. This is like the Jack White, "Red, White and Black" thing. You know, that this particular color combination has a sort of inherent power. (Coca-Cola, Nazis, etc.) I would argue that Red, White, and Blue, over time, has had quite a lot more power. The British Empire, us, etc. (The French exception proves the rule: just because you copy other people's colors doesn't make them yours.) Especially given the # of times the Red, White, and Blue has defeated Red White and Black, especially in underdog situations. Altanta has worn Red White and Black for years, and while they have been a powerful team at times, they've always been defeated, by the underdog...especially when they were "supposed" to win, just like the Nazis. The only thing that doesn't "fit"? The Bills have an all time 4-7 record vs. the Falcons. However, consider the Ottawa Senators. They say one of their colors is also gold, but, I've only seen Red, White, and Black sweaters, and, nearly identical story as the Falcons, right? Now, if we could only get the Jets, Dolphins and Patriots to change their colors....

One hell of a way to create an alibi.