OCinBuffalo

What in the end, did Manziel do, besides get his picture taken? Where was/is the story? We could ask ourself the same question about Sam. Where was/is the story? I grant there was a new draft day image...that was unique for that 15 minutes...but, that nobody cares about today. I mean, are you going to have that screen shot of "Sam gets the call!" hanging on the wall of your office? See, I used Manziel for this very reason. Other than the "Worldwide Leader in Sports" suddenly, for reasons passing understanding, trying to compete with TMZ, where the F is the meat on these bones? Nowhere! No. The ONLY thing here IS agenda, and then, projection. The average football draft afficianado cares about a DE, because maybe his team needs a good one. He rejects the Sam story as meaningless to his analysis of his team's needs...and suddenly he is projected as having anti-gay agenda? How the F did we get here? Answer: projection. The leftist media clearly has a "not just tolerance, forced acceptance for gays" agenda. Thus, they have to run around and project that no, in fact, it's everybody else that has the agenda(NFL, NFL coaches, players, fans), not them. Everyone who isn't with them, is against them, and as Obi Wan says "only a Sith thinks like that". All we want is to do our mock drafts, and argue about O lineman vs. DBs, like we do every year. None of us asked to be included in the "debate" In fact, there is no debate, for anybody that knows football: a slow, tweener DE should get cut from a standard 4-3 team. Of course he should. They should never have wasted a draft pick on the guy. But, apparently me knowing football, and of course, not having majored in the social "sciences", and being older than 22, allows you to tell me that I have an anti-gay agenda, and am also actully butthurt about something ...that I considered nothing more than an annoyance, in that it obstructed me from getting the draft info I wanted, right? Yeah, you're not projecting anything onto me at all.

I missed this. And this is a very interesting post. Let me ask you: when is the last time you felt like you were "with" a Bills head coach, about anything? See? Well, at least I think it's interesting.

Now, I am depressed that I missed that. Schopp telling others not to be negative? What was it, "opposite day"?

Let's see: 1. Youth. The 3rd Army was mostly comprised of men between the ages 18-25. 2. Athletes. Let's see any NFL player be in real combat for a year, and ask them which activity is more "athletic". 3. Adversity and a highly skilled enemy. Patton lead his army into battle against an enemy who was almost certain to kill 5 of his tanks for every 1 his guys killed, and everyone, on both sides, knew it. The German tanks were better. But, we had more. Where exactly is the difference? Marv Levy used WW2 to great effect with the Bills of the 90s. That was his thing. Not saying that it needs to be Marrone's thing. Am saying: whatever "thing" you choose, does not need to be "yourself, or the ranks will see right through it". If the ranks can see right through your "thing", or anything that isn't "yourself"? If the only thing you have is "yourself"? When are they going to stop "seeing"? Never. Now they see everything. Now, who is doing the leading, an who is doing the following? You're constantly trying to cover up parts of "yourself" you don't want out there, but to no avail, because they can see through it all. No. This = FAIL. I put this right up there with "he leads by example" and "he is a great leader because he treats everbody the same". These are urban leadership myths created by those who've clearly never lead anything. Although, getting the feedback of "he treats everybody the same" is usually the sign of a master leader, who has deftly created that illusive effect.

Speaking from a current position of authority, and having been in one almost my entire adult life? With respect, horsecrap. The ranks will see whatever a good leader wants them to see. In fact, that's his/her job. I believe your rule only applies to those who at best are "satisfactory leaders", and probably shouldn't have the gig. In contrast, good leaders are whoever the ranks need them to be, right now, depending on what is happening. Great leaders are the ones that make it all seem natural. Since Patton came up? Patton is the perfect example of this. Patton had a very high voice. In fact, an almost girlishly high voice. George C. Scott's (the guy in the movie) gravelly-voiced portrayal of Patton is actually a disservice to Patton's leadership ability. How? Patton made a choice when he was at West Point. How could anyone respect a guy who sounds like Mickey Mouse? (Read this in Mickey Voice: "Colonel, immediately move your tanks, take hill 305, and attack the enemy's left flank!") So, he chose to start swearing. And, not just swearing, the kind of swearing that would make anyone of the time horrfied. He changed the focus. Suddenly, he became a badass. You never had time to think about his high voice, because your focus was on this man peeling your ears off with cussing, with orders interspersed. Patton became who he needed to be to lead. He became what the ranks needed him to be. He was already brilliant and innovative thinker, he just needed a stage presence. He totally made one up, and executed it every day, because that's what was required. This entire thing has been poorly understood, and Patton has been portrayed as a psychotic glory-hound, mostly by those who were jealous of his brilliance and innovations. The truth: The man spent an entire career in the Army, through 2 wars....not being himself.

You're telling me you're too affected to see what is right in front of your nose? Um, OK, I have an idea. Let's play poker! Don't bring more than you can lose though, seriously. I have no wish to put a fellow Bills fan on the street. You'll get over it. I'll even pay your way home. My behavior, year in and year out, has been constant: I read the same draft websites, watch the same shows, do my film study. Suddenly, this year, instead of getting 100% of the draft content I'm used to I only got ~60%, with the other 40% being about Sam. That's fact. Who is responsible for that? Me? I'm not doing anything differently. I didn't choose to make this non-story into a story. Encroachment? You sure you want to stop there? How about aggrandizement? How about self-aggrandizement...especially from the "I thought Sam should have gone higher, dammit! Injustice!" people? And if you think Tebow's pre-draft hype in any way even compares to Sam's? You need your eyeballs...checked. Professionally. Tebow didn't even get as much pre-draft hype as Manziel. In terms of an awful: draft hype / NFL production ratio? Sam is now down in Jeff George, Ryan Leaf, Brian Bosworth territory (the horror, the horror....), and that's due to a massive increase in the numerator, not the denominator. I'll ask again, whose agenda is reponsible for the size of that numerator? Mine? If we are going carelessly toss around aspersions, here's one for you: The entire Manziel obsessive media behavior, is directly due to their feeling butthurt that Sam, for all their hype/story creation...only got drafted in the 7th round. So, they had to go looking for problems with Manziel, the privleged white kid, where none really existed. You, know....cause...privilege justice! See? I can toss around aspersions too!

Um speaking of having a sense of humor, and I will add, poor TSW reference recognition.... I thought the Honda FIT....thing would be a tip to the longer-in-the-tooth posters here such as yourself....not to take that too seriously. Christ, if you had seen what my first "answer" was, you'd really be pissed! (I almost posted it, just for you, but, since you've only recently returned to active TSW service....I decided to hold off) The point here is click-whoring. We are seeing a transition in media, but especially in sports media, from journalism to click-whoring....or....in the mobile context, push-whoring. This entire thing has been about click-whoring. Period. Some of us are aware of media/internet change, some of us even help(ed) to bring it about....some of us have no idea what is happening, have been wholly owned by it, and feel like they are getting trucked every time they pick up their phone. Alls i'm trying to do, is do what I always do: bring the logic, educate the ignorant, and eradicate the FUD.

Because Marrone made a joke about that someone's car, and they are sensitive about it, and hapen to like their Honda FIT. Don't like that answer? Prove it's wrong. I can come up with "answers" like that all night(ask around). I can be as absurd or as reasoned as I want with my "answers for that", and NONE of them will any more or less plausible than the one above. You've asked an unaswerable question. Thus this is non-sequitor. Anybody can tell a member of the national media literally ANYTHING, for any reason. It's the responsibility of said national media member to cofirm the story.....if the goal is journalism. IF the goal is click-rate? F that! You've sorta answered your own question: somebody with an agenda. Yelling/arguments go on all the time, in every organization. The fact that this...can we call it trivial yet, or is the butthurt still too achy?...matter made it as far as it has? What's the most likely reason: agenda. Whose agenda? Did they succeed, or has the story now gone the wrong way, and are they trying to control it? Who. The. F. Knows?

Nah...that's just you that does that. "Come on Mr. GG, wake up, it's activity time. Today we're going to have a little girl who plays the piano, just like your grandaughter. Won't that be nice?" Here's something I do wonder: what you think I wonder about. If this is what you think I wonder about? I officially have your number now, too. I'll hang it right next to DC_Tom's. Perhaps build some sort of trophy case, and hang it next to the buck's head.

"You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never go in against a long time TSW poster, when Haiku is on the line"! No, we are playing in Illinois this week, not Idaho. Idaho is one of the other 57 states. How many gallons of crow will there be to eat? EJ's eyes are slow..... Bears played Schwartz last year? 2 TDs 5 turnovers. 2 games. Cutler lost..... Bears Defense? Questions. 4th most yards in preseason Off-season "Fixes"? Doubts.....

What company do you work at where the PR(most likely the lady that does the press releases and internet presence, and, most likely an underling to the Director/VP of Marketing) person tells line business people, ANY, line business person boss or not, what to do? Underpants Gnomes, LLC? Try that schit in IT, and you'll probably get shot with many and various Nerf weapons. You can count on a few stress balls chucked at your nuts/breasts as well. But, try that schit at a major manufacturing setting? No Nerf. Steel tools. And, it's the line manager/production engineer thowing them at you. I used to send marketing/PR people nasty emails, and shame their ignorance at meetings(which is also called: doing my job). I also wore shorts to a trade show presentation once, but, that was a specific punishment for a specific Marketing/PR person. One time thing. Back when I was working for others, the notion that any marketing person would discuss, never mind tell, anything with anybody on one of my project(s), without talking to me first? Never happen. Because they knew what I'd do them. Example: I'd likely have sought, and obtained, approval for them to be forced to spend their evenings with me in "professionl development" = SQL and Systems Integration "training", to "develop a better understanding of the job we do". See? Easily done. That one would be over before it started. Oh, and it would be "evenings", because I'd be sure to reaffrim their "daily" activity as being "so important to the firm". I wasn't the boss, but I was a boss. And I can damn well guarantee that outcome would be 1(one) of the many punishments doled out to the foolish marekting/PR person who ever chose to F with me. We must constantly supervise ALL sales/accounting/marketing/PR...any "support" group, or they will get out of hand.

See? As I said above, even if the Bills win on Sunday? The micro-criticism/excuses are already thrown into the dough, ready to be baked in.... What's a matter? Did you actually read up on Chicago's O line? Getting a little nervous?

Hmmmm....let's seeeee....do I listen to Canfora, or wawrow? Who is the click-whore, and, who is the real journalist, who broke 2 major, accurate, and original stories about the Bills already this year? Boy, that's a hard one. Come on. Canfora is retatta. Yessss! Yessss! Send it to usssss! We will eat it, and leave its skin hanging in the trees! It literally took 10 pages of unmitigated idiocy for this comment to finally show up. And this was the last comment on page 10. This board isn't doing so well. Bickering only happens in Buffalo. No place else. So, if the Bills win with Marrone, your post, and your take, is nonsense, and irrelevant, as well. Just, you know, doing my usual logic thing. I wonder what will happen to this board if our D line exposes the Bears O line? I also wonder if ANYBODY has bothered to read up on the Bears O line? I also wonder what the excuses/micro-criticisms will be if we do in fact win.... I have one! "We should've run the ball more in the 4th quarter! We didn't need to pass it so much, and risk losing! (EDIT: how could I forget?) It shows Marrone is in over is head, he almost lost us the game!" How many people on this board, do you think, have ever held executive leadership positions? How many have ever been engaged to advise executive leaders? How many have ever been in a meeting with executive leaders? I wonder if they know the "then just fire me!" and F-bomb rate/minute that occurs in said meetings? I do. I also know: these things usually get resolved when somebody(usually me) suggests we head to a dive bar, have a few beers and try a different approach. This is where my legendary liver, and of course, my expense account, serves me well. I get them drunk, karaoke can be an asset too, and all is forgotten. By the end of the night Bob is willing to let Steve own some of his data/process, provided Steve guarantees consistentcy and accuracy. Of course nobody thanks me for a damn thing....which...is doing it right. Of course, the difference is: Canfora doesn't have the same malcontent sourcess there. That's what this is about. Whaley hasn't been around long enough, and, the organization hasn't been successful. You're bound to have people going off the reservation under these conditions. God forbid real coaching(or what we call resource development), that is to say, doing what is necessary to get the most from your people, takes place in Buffalo. Yeah, we all do what Marketing/PR people tell us. Marketing rules! Thank you. I needed that belly laugh. When I was working for others, I remember this marketing/PR tool I used to abuse on a weekly basis. Not because I am evil, but because he needed constant supervision. If I ever took a full week's vacation with that guy around, I would have come back to find out I was now on the hook for delivering world peace by COB next Friday. I also wonder: How many Bills fans would have REJOICED for just one minor spat during the Mularkey/Jauron/Gailey years? Oh I remember: everybody here just loved "Cheeseburger Night", didn't they?

Perhaps we should begin with the most accurate summary, and methodology, of this story: 1. Leftist media, complete w/ agenda 2. Micheal Sam is gay 3. ???? 4. Profit! Or a more "substantial" representation? 1. Jerry Jones 2. Leftist media w/ agenda 3. Leftist agenda story in serious peril...due to incontrovertible fact that Sam does not make team for football, not prejudicial, reasons. 4. NFL wanted this story badly. They wanted it so badly, because they wanted to turn around and counter-harrumph their neighbors and friends in Manhattan, who had harrumphed them for not drafting Sam until the 7th round. 5. The NFL wanted to proudly proclaim "Our System Works!....for all colors, all creeds, all choices of bed partners. We are the enlightened ones, and you were overzealous in your criticism of us! Sam was drafted where he should have been, and made the team as a ST player and a backup, as WE expected. How dare you question our motives, or our knowledge of our own business! In fact, you are now never allowed to question us again!" ....because when isn't the NFL looking to put itself beyond all reproach? When doesn't it consider itself as such? Ray Rice anyone? 6. Jerry Jones "takes one for the team". Which is of course utterly laughable in every single way. 7. Everyone leaves story with their self-applied moral superiority firmly intact, not to mention their egos assuaged. 8. Profit! Conclusion: There were enough attention-addicted assclowns involved, plus an agenda that is based solely on self-congratulation = "Look at how moral I am! I'm more moral than you are! I like Micheal Sam because he is gay, and you don't, because he is gay!", that a simple "compromise" was necessary and proposed.....for this to work out in everyone's best interest. Except of course the guy that was cut to make room for Sam on the PS. But, he hardly matters, not when there's phony moral superiority to be had.

As I live and breathe....somebody began with raw data, non-biased data*, and then, rather than telling us what the raw data says....using some assclownery posing as proper methodology-->conclusive causality, they are asking us to interpret it ourselves? I've done as you asked. Now, let me be the first to say: watch your back. First, there's the "yards per attempt" sect. They are sure to come after you. They believe in that all QB knowledge in the universe can be distilled by taking one number, and dividing it by another. (Of course, division being the "ceiling" of their mathematical skill is beside the point, but, it does inform us as to why they cling to this obviously flawed non-statistic: they are able do it, probably with a calculator). Between you and me? If you look carefully at what you've compiled, you'll see that "y/a" appears to be a random distribution(or, just sorta not in any order, and certainly has no definitive relationship to "passer rating", even though they share a common "piece" = passing yards.) We should expect two calculations that share the exact same variable to correlate a hell of a lot more than they do. Sure there's a downward trend, but....we are talking about using the same value in 2 very similar, very simple calculations-->they should correlate better. They do not. For you "Bottom Liners", that's the BS flag right there, and you can stop reading right here. For those of you that want to wnow why? Cause. That's why. Oh, you require more? Too bad. "Cause" is just as mathematically sound a conclusion as any "conclusion" that has been formed based on "yards per attempt". So, "cause" is just as legitimate. Better yet! Cause I said so! I am an analytics authority after all, and therefore, arguing to myself is not logical fallacy! EDIT: You'lll also notice that the QBs who we've been "told" through the modern version of "oral tradition", otherwise know as ESPN, have "strong arms" also don't correlate very well to "y/a". What will those who've been chanting Peyton "Beowulf" Manning say when they find out he had a lower "y/a" than EJ "General Checkdown" Manuel over this timeframe? I told you: watch your back! This. Is. Heresy! Jay Culter has a full point lower "y/a" than friggin Nick Foles! The only true outlier in the bunch is Ryan Fitzpatrick! :o Chaos! Blasephemy! I warn you again: They may try to throw you down a very deep well, or something. Ok, fine. The straight answer: There are various conditions and variables that act upon a QB that can have both a consistent and inconsistent effect on the number of times he passes, per game, as well as the distance he passes. Some of the conditions are inherent to the QB himself, however, most are NOT!, and, some can change for some QBs over time, or instantly, while not for others, ever. Some of these conditions, even when held constant, can have different effects on different QBs. Real world: Joe Montana made a quite a nice living for himself....throwing a TON of short passes. Dan Marino did well, throwing a TON of long passes. One had a SB worthy defense, and Roger Craig as a RB. The other had Bryan Cox, and Bernie Parmelee. The former got 4 rings, the latter lost to the first in one of those games and never went back. Therefore.....nothing. There's a much greater likelihood that Joe Montana has 4 rings because of his defense, than there is some relationship to throwing lots of "short/int." passes vs. throwing 80 yard bombs to Duper and Clayton. Hell, the color of Montana's uniform has a better chance of correlating, because at least that is an independent, near constant, variable and, (unless you are Joe Ferguson, the reason the Bills helmets turned red ), uniform color affects all QBs equally. In fact, unless each of these variances/conditions are either accounted for, or proved to have a negligible effect, NO ONE can attempt to use this dumbass "y/a" model, stand alone, as an indicator of anything, other than their own glaring lack of familiarity with this material. I'll warn you about the other sects if one of them happen to show up. *(well, I see you included the "passer rating" statistic, so...for shame!)

Then....you are an "intution" type scout? Come now, you mentioned "attitude". How am I supposed to determine "attitude" from one meeting that lasts .5 hours? This isn't poker. The stakes are a lot higher. How do we know we aren't being lied to? Worse, how do we know the other people telling us about this player's attitude aren't biasing things with their own perceptions? Worst of all, how do we know that the same day we talk to this coach or that, he isn't having an attitude problem himself? Double worst of all, how do we know favorites aren't being played/haven't been, for years? I do have a "quantifiable" suggestion, a methodology even! Set up a confidential, controlled study of randomly sampled "functional persons" in and around various college football programs, and ask them questions about how each prospect player treats them/others on a daily basis. Also, ask them if they ever ask for help, with anything. Why? Asking for help is a sure sign of knowing one's limitations, but also, knowing where to go/whom to ask to overcome them, and most importantly giving enough of a crap to try to get better, and not just settle for what is. I can think of no more necessary trait to find in rookie NFL football player(or a rookie anything for that matter). Collect the same data once a semester, every semester. I guarantee you my quantifiable "attitude" results will beat your "intuition" 99/100 times.

How long have you been a Bills fan? After the 3rd SB loss, Polian's so-called altercation with an employee is the convenient excuse, but a very large # of fans wanted somebody fired. They couldn't bring themselves to part with Marv, but they sure as hell could be done with Polian. That's largely because, back then, maybe 10% of fans actually knew what a GM did/anything about the draft. Consider: They used to hold it in a hotel conference room. Bizarro world? No, sir. My rebuttal of Revisionist History. There are a whole lot of Bills fans who know damn well they cheered when Polian was fired. If you lived it, the anger around WNY was palpable. Nobody knew what to do/think/say. Irrationality was the order of the day. Why do you think the famous Houston Oiler's comeback game(4th SB playoff run)....was blacked out? Time, as they say heals all wounds. Unfortunately, it also allows more than a few people to gradually BS themselves and others. In this case: into believing they never wanted Polian fied, and weren't saying "See? We don't need Polian!" when Butler sent a 1st and a 4th and got Rob Johnson from Jacksonville, and paid him $25 mil in 1998. You want to see what a REAL bizzarro world on this board would look like? Imagine us trading this year's 1st and a 4th for a backup QB who played less than half a season, was already injury prone, and dropping a 5-year, $50.5(1998 adjusted $ + 10 mil because that's reality) million, front loaded, 80% guaranteed....bomb on our salary cap, causing us to have to let both Dareus and Spiller go UFA. And this guy? Is like a combination of Tony Romo ability+choking, but also Trentative, with a decent arm, but who constantly hurts himself due to....running. That my friend, is bizzaro world. Let's keep things in perspective, shall we?

Perhaps a name change for you is in order? Consider: I leave the house, prepared to spend my 5-7 hours attending a Bills game. Having bought my tickets online, and spent even more cash on the usual Bills game accessories, I go to the game, because I am a Bills fan, and I root/cheer/enjoy the team. When the team comes on to the field, I cheer, and during the game, I cheer, because the object of the entire day is: having fun. Entertainment. It would be "ironic" if I did all the preparations, walked into the game, and proceeded to act like a petulant child, and refused to enjoy myself, before the game even starts (um, the timing aspect could also be: ironic) Especially if I decide that no one else in my section is allowed to enjoy themselves, because my right to constantly, loudly complain, supersedes all. See? The..."irony"...here is in the person who chooses to spend their money on season tickets, just to be petulant? They can be petulant in their garage. Why spend the significant $ on quality tickets, and all the rest at a Bills game? Hmmmm....perhaps because they know that other people will, unfortunately for them, be their captive audience for the next 3 hours? It begs the question: why did they leave the house? WTF is the purpose? If we assume all behavior is purposeful, they must have left the house for some reason. That reason is NOT to cheer for the Bills, or enjoy the game. As stated above, they specifically stated "I can't wait to hear the boos raining down at halftime". What "fan" of the Bills ancipates boos...with enthusiasm? Come now. Logically, they must be here some other reason. This leaves us with only one possible conclusion: The Bills are not their problem. Clearly, they didn't come here as a "fan". Their behavior, and the dictionary, prove that. Thus, they came to the game as "something else". They came for "other reasons". I can't speculate, but, normatively, these "other reasons"? They are resloved with medication/counseling. The Bills success or failure on the field? Neither will resolve the truly ironic behavior they displayed at the game. Choose wisely Kelly: do you really want me to be your personal problem? I thought not.

IF you are interested in quantifying "production, effectiveness, and attitude", and have a reasonable methodology for doing so, I'd be willing to help with the math/stats/modeling.

My question: why does it seem we have to hang the 13 years prior to last year and this one on: 1. Whaley 2. Marrone 3. EJ ? As Bills fans, we got what we wanted when we got rid of Polian, then, Ole Whitey, and then Donahoe. And the Benevolent Order of NFL/Media Protection Club has taken every opportunity to crap on us, and scare the hell out of anyone who would take the job, ever since. Now? We have a bunch of new guys who are clearly doing quite well with what they were handed, and/or clearly busting their asses to be better. Why does our, age-old problem with Ralph/Donahoe/Butler/Polian/Marv Levy/Chris Mortensen et al......have to be their problem? It seems illogical to me, to speak in terms of 15 years, when 2 years, last year and this one, is all that truly matters. Our war with the NFL/Big Markets/ESPN/The Old Boys Club that says you don't fire Bill Polian AND Bum Phillip's son.....has nothing to do with who is leading the Buffalo Bills now.

I don't know if any of you caught it..... .....but Russel Wilson had a ball tipped(more like blocked) at the line of scrimmage tonight! Thus, using the logic I've heard here, either: 1. Russel Wilson should be run out of Seattle, because, well, a ball was blocked at the line....which is indicative...of something being wrong with the QB, like EJ, or so we were told week 1 of preseason. 2. Short QBs can't play in the NFL, because they can't see over the line/get their balls tipped/blocked. Therefore, EJ, being tall is the right choice for a QB. Speaking of inaccuracy, both QBs threw many inaccurate passes, it's just that Wilson's was knocked away after it was picked, and Rob Johnson's(oops, I mean Aaron Rodger's) wasn't. Not to mention, both QBs threw an awful lot of SHORT PASSES/CHECK DOWNS! Thus, clearly, both QBs sucked horribly by the "WGR/TSW Bureau of Standards and Measures": Rodgers: 5.3 yards per attempt(oh the terror!) Wilson: 6.8 yards per attempt(almost as Bad!) (Ahem, EJ Manuel's yards per attempt in the preseason? 6.3 :lol: ) Clearly, with yards per attempt numbers like these, as set by the astute sages of analyitcs both here and at WGR, both teams should be looking to use their 1st round draft pick next year(which will be in the 20s) on a QB that is clearly better than these 2, because, of course, one will be available to draft at those spots, and, because.....did I mention analytics? Yes, all sound an fury....indicative of: absolutely nothing. No propensities, no relationships, and sure as hell no causality. Yards per attempt is a completely useless statistic, because it simply does not account for the inherent bias that is baked in by the offensive schemes/concepts...gameplans!, for Christ's sake!, that are being run, nor does it account for situational conditions(such as Rodgers throwing for 20 yards down the field in garbage time). It doesn't even account for the F'ing weather. Yeah....and I'm supposed to believe that this is a "standard of measure"? But, by all means, keep saying it! I have all sorts of fun things lined up for you if you choose to continue down this path! BHWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! I love confounding the amatuer "master statisticians" with their own buffoonery. Please continue with this, I don't want what I've been working on to go to waste!

My team was autodrafted except for Dwayne Bowe. I drafted him at the tail end. And yet? According to the site "Along with having the fourth-easiest overall schedule, DeathDealers also has the league's easiest first four games and softest last four games of the season." That's not me calling you soft. A computer is calling you soft.

I think you mean HTML template madlib. Spacebars(Handlebars), anyone? Come on, I had to. And, no, I'm not going to write the javascript that would accompany said template, as this damn board always does this: e v a l (Try posting e v a l with no spaces and see what happens) to common javascript commands. Although that would be a hilarious if/else if/else if/...else statement inside a the function that fills out the template.

Yeah, it's good to see you back. And, have you considered sending your advice on to President Obama? I mean, shouldn't taking an agonizing reappraisal of where he's going and where he wants to be.....be the ONLY advice he gets on Tuesday morning/whenever he gets done playing golf? Hell, it worked for me. LBJ is on record doing civil rights/Great Society for 1 reason, and 1 reason only: LBJ direct quote: "I'll have those n------s voting Democrat for the next 50 years!" Look. It. Up. That is the real history of LBJ. Political pandering, and the systematic destruction of African American society as a whole in the US. Because? "Vote for us, and the handouts will be a little bigger next year! Don't vote for us, and the evil Republicans who hate your children will take those handouts away!" Well, he wasn't wrong, was he? However, I believe the tipping point has been reached, since we've had our "black president". The polls for undecideds at 13% support for Obama? More than a few of those voters are black/hispanic. November is coming. I challenge anyone here to deny the reality of the above. Every single piece of socio-economic data supports the FACT that the Great Society was actually the Great Crime perpetrated upon the black family. ALL the data shows that we need to go in a completely different direction. ALL the data shows that the current African American culture, ensconced, if not created, by the Great Society, is absolutely awful. It's the only time in history that an awful culture is being propagated. Every awful culture elsewhere has died out. Example: how many Spartans do you see walking around outside of Michigan State? See a lot of Vikings recently, besides on Sundays? Is Tampa still a home to real pirates? All awful, and underlying racist = votes...agendas must come to an end, too. Oh God no. The day Biden takes office is the day Putin finally invades Poland, Germany, and that joker decides to send Secretary of State John Kerry over to "get over there and do something, instead of sitting around here". Then again, Valerie Jarrett could always decide that, once again, the Constitution doesn't matter, and that she's simply better qualified to take over....you know, cause she's a black female, and we haven't had a black female president yet....so...problem solved. Really, when I think about it: I give 3:1 odds that our military would simply take over, and call for a Constitutional Convention. Which, oddly enough, wouldn't be 100% illegal. In the case that the government is incapacitated/ineffectual, that is the legal recourse.

Noam F'ing Chomsky. Really. You bring a total hack into this? Hilarious. Ole Noam is too old to do this right anymore. I will now proceed to shred his lame attempt at FUDding this issue. I wonder: who else has an "institutional motive" vis a vis Global Warming? Could it be the climate scientists, who have been flying 1st class, getting massive grants, and living large on Democratic party $ every since this became a "catastrophic" issue? Could it be the Democratic politicians, who have generated a once winning, now losing, political issue out of this entire discussion? Which of these people is going to stand up and say "no, I'd rather go back to making $45k a year in a field that nobody cares about/I'd rather go back to being a lawyer" when they can make millions, like Al Gore? Here's my assertion, using Chomsky's logic: "Even though Democratic politicians/climate scientists may or may not know what is actually happening with the climate, the have both an institutional(Democratic party) and a constituency issue(the usual wingnuts), that causes them to act in the short term, seeking votes, donations, grants, and noteriety, when in the long term, the economic damage they are doing to the country is quite substantial. But, they have a political agenda, and a political constituency to support, so...." I couldn't help but notice that old Noam got the words "market economy" in there, as a negative. Old socialist dogs have to run their old tricks, don't they? His entire argument is specious to say the least. It's time for Ole Noam to hang it up. His intellectual NFL career is over. That entire thing was laughable. I have more from that video to kick his ass with, but I'd fell bad smacking around an old man any more than is necessary. Noam Chomsky: in the top ten for "worst day in a man's life, all time, in history"....when the Berlin wall fell. I bet he cried like a baby. Yes, but just you wait until the first hurricane comes! Context out the window! Noam Chomsky on MSNBC to tell us about the institutional responsibilities of business people, as though no climate scientist/Democratic strategist works at....a literal institution!