OCinBuffalo

And, what are the chances of that happening....vs.....the chances of anything other than than happening? Whaley, with career in mind, is supposed to not do this trade, because there's a, what, 5% chance of EJ getting hurt in the preseason? That's not how I run my career. I highly doubt it's how anyone other than those who've never progressed beyond "entry level job" have run theirs either. It's precisely this "there's a 10% chance we could be wrong" mentality, which seems incapable of understanding the contrapositive: "which means there's a 90% chance that something besides us being wrong is true...including being right, this whole thing being irrelevant, aliens invading, etc."... ...that is so bizarre. This is like the Underpants Gnomes in reverse. 1. Thing we might do 2. Small % chance problems with them 3. ..... 4. Catastrophe!

Not crazy. Calculating. This trade(along with this past FA period, Mario, etc.) makes so much of the "same old Bills" ethos flat out wrong. And whatever is left is called into serious question. One can no longer wear the trappings of being a "realist" with ease, and use the "the Bills never do anything to fix the the team" arguments... ....without the possibility of being proven blatantly wrong. These are dangerous times for the lazy pessimist, who has gotten by for so many years by simply repeating the same mantra. They need to get ahead of this trade, and define it now. Otherwise, they may find themselves having to back up what they say from here on out. So...calculating. This trade represents a very real threat to some very long-held opinions/conclusions, that haven't been "rigorous" in years.

It should have been done with the 1st correction, 2 pages before I wrote the 6th correction. Hey, it's not like I didn't threaten a crayon format! And...you're wrong too: don't forget the 4th. The net loss is one first and one fourth. You know, cause that 4th was going to be our Russel Wilson/EJ replacement.

Yes. The value of the pick is absolute. However, who posesses that #1 overall pick: changes. Same thing for every other #1 pick. So, pretending that there is a set value of our #1 pick....next year? Doing it wrong. We don't know, and won't know, the RELATIVE value of the pick we've given away until next December. It's a bet. You may be betting that the value is ~10 overall. Someone else would take that bet, and bet against you. As with any bet, we can't know the outcome, until we know the outcome: that's what makes it a bet. However, if you want to bet that the value of the pick we traded away is top 5? I will take that bet right friggin now! My wager: 100 naked Youtube pushups!

Can we just call the "we just traded away our 100% lock to replace EJ, by trading away next year's 1st" argument out for approaching the ridiculous? The 1st we traded away had a 10% chance of functioning as designed, and therefore isn't even close to a "lock". 1. Worst case EJ play scenario: It's not gonna be top 5. It's probably not even gonna be top 10. So, the notion that it could be automagically turned into a 10 year answer at QB is franky: silly. There's a chance it could have been. Yeah: a 10% chance. So many things have to go right, or actually, wrong, for that pick to have had a viable chance of getting us an Andrew Luck, it's practically worthless to even consider. Too many dependencies. Too many more likely outcomes. 2. Spare me the Russel Wilson/Colin Kaepernick argument. Russel Wilson was taken with a 3rd, not a 1st. Kap = 2nd. We still have our 3rd, and 2nd...but not our 4th. Howard Simon trotted out this have-it-both-ways argument this morning. You can't talk about later pick QBs, and ingore that we still have the later picks they were taken at, at the same time. 3. Even if we did take a QB, and it was a "lock"...I have one thing to say to you: Butt-Fumble. Sanchez was a Top 5 "lock". There's no way anyone can guarantee that the guy we might get in the top 5, with the 1st we traded, will be better than EJ. And, if you can? Then that guy is going #1-2 overall. What realistic chance does this team have of going 1-15 this year, and thus being in line for #1-2 overall in 2015? See? When you look at this in terms of probability? 10% chance is being generous. So enough of pretending that we "gave away our EJ replacement" pick. There's a 90% chance that is false.

Now, if the Jets had our spot and made our move? Oh wait: they did! Mark Sanchez! What a "smart, gutsy" move that was! It's so pathetic it's funny. These guys aren't even trying anymore. They have to downplay what we are doing, because it doesn't suit the marketing model that the big markets are always the "winners"....and "don't you want to click on that NYC? That's right, gimme that traffic! Check out this ad!". Once again: telling a lot of people what they want to hear, is a good way to make $, especially when your business is based 100% on internet traffic.

Not only that, but it assumes the pick would be high enough/postioned properly to actually obtain the "sure thing" EJ replacement. Chances are we aren't drafting top 10, never mind top 5, which is what we would need to get a "sure thing" EJ replacement. And this is about the time when we hear the "Russel Wilson, Colin Kaepernick, Andy Dalton weren't taken high" argument.... ....which.... if the person making that argument understood that 2/3 of them weren't taken with a 1st(Wilson was taken in the 3rd, and Kaepernick in the 2nd)... they would recognize that both our 2nd and 3rd are available to us next year, because we didn't trade them. Perhaps losing next year's 4th is the real problem! (Example of unmitigated moron who makes this model "have it both ways" argument: Howard Simon this very morning )

Now I understand why C. Biscuit97 started this thread.

2 O line? Why the hell not? Frankly, we can get DE lots of places, and Schwartz has flat out said he's not forcing a strict 4-3 on us. I just don't see DE/LB as the issue it's been characterized to be by some. I do see DT, possibly. As I said 5 months ago: this is the first draft in 10 years that I don't want DB....because we finally have 4 DBs that can cover....the 4 WRs/TEs the Patriots send at us. I don't see any D at all if there is once in 5 years surplus of OT/OG/TE value available. If so, why stop at 2 O line? I'd be fine with 4 O line/TE if that's where the value is.

I've been watching the same highlights. Pass. His mechanics are horrible. And, if you wanna see what a real "1 read/half the field, then run QB" looks like(and therefore, have visual confirmation that this is NOT EJ's game)? Watch Taj Boyd. The difference is readily apparent. In fact, I just texted: "I bet half the reason Watkins is so good at catching the ball/extending the window...is because this QB throws the ball all over the place." I'd have Taj Boyd as a flanker or a halfback in my Chip Kelley Offense in a heartbeat, but not as a QB.

How much of this Manziel stuff.... ....is not that far removed from the "Rocky effect"? I mean: I wonder how the average Manziel supporter grades out...in terms of height/wieght? I mean I've seen the "Rocky effect" cause more than a few shorter/smaller dudes think they have a "shot at the title"...in all the wrong places: like Mardi Gras, Spring Break, Tijuana, Metallica Shows, Christmas shopping, etc. I'm not saying anything about Manziel, I just wonder what I wonder. There's a lot of research....

Wow....legit. Not that far off. I wonder: was Stevie taken off the table by us, or by Cleveland?

And if these selfish motives means we go into the Patriots house in December and whip their sorry asses for the division? Somehow, I don't think we'll mind. EDIT: When the impromptu "playoffs" parade is rolling down Delaware Avenue/Elmwood....I will remember to shout to the crowd: "But...but...but....this is all based on Whaley's selfish motives!" and see if anyone gives a crap.

Hmmm....and what was the other "spending" option with the 5th overall pick we got, for our 9th overall, besides drafting a player? Were we going to spend it on....a new stadium? Private security to follow Mike Williams around? Nope. We were going to spend 1(one) 1st round draft pick, whether we stayed at 9, or moved 5. How do we know that? Well, what is the normal difference between 1...and 1? What is 1-1? That's right: 0. Thus, there is 0 difference between staying at 9, and going to 5, in terms of drafting one player: both cost you 1(one) 1st round draft pick. However, moving to 5, ALSO costs you 1 2015 1st, and 1 2015 4th. Otherwise known as: 2 picks. Therefore, this has nothing to do with semantics. This has to do with bastardization of arithmetic. You can't pretend that "we spent 2 first round picks" is accurate, when we were going to "spend" 1 first round pick no matter what. EDIT: This is not distinction, without difference. This is both distinction and real difference, hence, not semantic.

I swear I'm going to get the cayons. I have some, for real I read what you said. I always read the posts I reply to. What is the friggin point otherwise? And, no, you aren't even close to saying what I am. "Divesting 3 picks", and ignoring the fact that 1(one) 1st round pick was going to be spent no matter what(expect trading out of the first completely = not), is obtuse. If we had traded down last year, and got a 1st rounder this year, and gave it up, along with our 1st next year, then, and only then, would we have "given up 2(two) 1st round picks". Yes, then and only then, would we be giving up something we "invested" in. Therefore, by the English language, logic, reason, Holy God....we did not "divest ourselves of 3 picks", because drafting NOBODY in the first round was never a real option. Only in the obtuse vacuum of this thread, is drafting NOBODY with our 1st round pick an option... ...and therefore... giving up the option to draft NOBODY...counts...as a 1st round pick....that was "given up", along with next year's 1st and 4th...to make 3, not 2, picks.

Read my post again. Never mind, let's try another format: The ONLY way we could not have spent 1(one) 1st round pick yesterday? Draft NOBODY. This is NOT semantics, this is about "we gave up 2 1sts" being illogical, nevermind an affront to arithmetic. 3-1 = 2. With 1(one) being the pick we were going to use no matter what...because we were not drafting: NOBODY @9. Right? Difference. Hence, minus sign. Or, "The difference between 3 and 1, is 2". The difference between taking Sammy Watkins, and staying put, is also: 2 QED It cost us 2 additional draft picks to take Watkins. We therefore "Gave Up" 2, not 3, picks to take Watkins. Once again, you cannot have your draft pick, and your player. You can have one or the other. When you pick your player in the 1st round, you give up 1(one) 1st round pick 100% of the time. We gave up 2 picks, not 3, to get to Watkins @ 5. If this continues, perhaps the next format I try should be in crayon?

Your link was taken down! It's already begun! I blame Fox News! Oh....they just moved it to here: https://www.middleea...-arab-dictators And....nothing so far.

Hmm....we take a relatively stable, and historically well-peforming energy supply chain. Then, we replace it with a completely unstable/startup/"on the bleeding edge" supply chain. Then, we call that: "progressive". Which means: all performance indicators be damned, because, we've slapped a name on it, and therefore, it is what we say it is. What could possibly go wrong? You think you have it bad? You didn't spend the winter in Germany. How's about having 0 energy, and having to import it at night, at a premium, just to keep your people from freezing to death? And, we wonder why Germany isn't lamb basting Russia economically? Answer: their green "investments" have reduced their foreign policy options to -1.

That's pretty much what we do here: argue with people who ignore logic and facts. That's PPP. What are you whining about? Often I purposely insert non-fact, and it blows right by. Thus, not only do "people" ignore fact, they ignore non-fact too. That they don't know the difference? That's not tiring, that's hilarious.

How much value and substance you think this Handel broad () has derived from Palin? Last time I checked a fat campaign account is rather "substantive". I believe we've had a recent SCOTUS decision or 2 about this? Something about a lot of leftists whining about campaign $? Oh well, it's leftists, which means you guys are probably right...nothing of value or substance being discussed.

It's a DC_Tom holiday! I was this close to saying "hey conner, nice post" on the football board yesterday. You know, to sorta puff him up and make him think "hey, why not take a stroll over to PPP and see what's happening, maybe say something dumb about food stamps/consumer spending?". But the draft got going and I got drinking. EDIT: I too am pleased by the return of the Toad.

Right after we have real posters, acting like "stand up guys".... You post this? An improbable hypothetical? Mr. Weak having the strength to come out and admit he was wrong? Now, are you trolling? Or, what the hell? How is he supposed to answer that question honestly...which...seems to be what's sorta happening the last few posts...when there's practically no chance of it happening? I mean he could say "Of course", or perhaps: But, he's never gonna have to answer that bell. I could say that if aliens invaded I wouldn't be scared. And, when they never invade...I never had to answer that bell either. Do I get the credit for never having been scared of aliens invading?

You know what talking to Obamacare suppoters is like for me? It's exactly like this(from the Sammy Watkins thread): There is 0 tangible difference for me(I am sure many others can see it too), between this post, and the crap I read from the Obamacare supporters in this thread. And, notice: we are the ones being implored to "stop and think" Just like: we've been told to "think" in this thread. And, the best? I am sure that ICanSleepWhen is as sincere as can be. He simply does not get it. And, if you observe that thread, you'll see that my response to him is about the 5th time somebody has tried to explain it. Just like we have to keep saying the same things over and over here. I think it's sorta funny, and interesting: my response to Obamacare is precisely consistent with my response to the above. That is the honest truth. I feel no differently about the above, than when I read a leftist Obamacare post. My reaction is practically identical "WTF is this absurd schit now?" Both Obamacare, and the above, are built on absolute absurdity, and require me to unkown what I know, and abandon my logic, in order to draw the "conclusion" this poster/Obamacare supporters want.

What...in the Sam Hell...is going on here? Apparently, this is some sort of "have my cake/eat my cake" dysfunction. I shall intercede. Put simply: How do we...? Easy: There's no such thing as magically adding a draft-eligble player to your team, without expending 1(one) draft pick. Let's review that: 100 % of the time, each draft-eligble player costs 1(one) draft pick. You cannot have your draft pick, and get a player, too. It is one or the other. If you take a player, that costs you a draft pick. Let's look at it another way: Option 1: Player X @9. Standard Cost: 1(one) 1st round draft pick. Option 2: Sammy Watkins @4. Standard Cost: 1(one) 1st round draft pick. Additional Cost: Next year's 1st and 4th What is the difference between Options 1 & 2? Answer: unless we were taking NOBODY @9 there is 0 difference in "standard cost". So where is the difference? Ahh..that's right: the additional cost. Thus, the true cost of drafting Sammy Watkins, and not staying put? Next year's 1st and 4th. Now enough of this retatta. Next year's 1st and 4th is the answer. Not 2 1sts. Not ever. Anything else is flat out obtuse, and smells like Bleacher Report. EDIT: I just hope we have retatta like this cleaned up before the Sabres draft, as that's going to be a hell of a lot more complicated, just due to the sheer # of resources....but hey....this is good practice.

Ahh....the "Shomer Shabbos" approach to problem solving. This is exactly the mentality that, trolling or not, causes unnecessary suffering. (EDIT: if this is a troll, good, because it merely underscores the point I've been making. If not, good, because it merely underscores the point I've been making) Freeing ourselves from it is a key facet in pursuing happiness. The guy who thinks he's going to fill the inside straight on the river...is the guy who says "don't fill my head with probability, I'm going to bluff my way to winning, because being tricky is how you win at poker". That guy pays for my weekend in AC all the time. He's rarely happy to do it.