OCinBuffalo

Sure it is. A thread like this is too...depressing?...to deal with sober, or take seriously when sober. Thus? I do the opposite.

I suppose the Obamaphone company doesn't fit here? Because we are talking dynastic. Depending on how things go with net neutrality...Google MAY end up in this category at some point.

Well, we have "improvement"! Principal shows up on time for work for the first time in 7 years And, what the hell is making poor kids spend $110 for a 5th grade formal? That's just weird. But, you know, it's for the children, so it must be good. Aren't you the one who told us you put your kid in private school because...there was sex going on at the public school, or something like that? Or am I confused?

And here I was: thinking that millbank was gonna be on PPP now, and trying to figure out what that would look like. Oh well.

This? Too easy. A lawyer....decides that he is qualified to make medical diagnoses...based on what? Apparently? His "ability". And, what is the diagnosis he makes? Narcissism. :lol: Most ironic thing I've heard all week. (EDIT: well, it is only Monday) I suppose I'll head down to the hospital I'm working at, and start diagnosing people in the waiting room. I'll just ask them for writing samples: that's sure to do the trick! (Because, you know...writing samples. 10% chance you get this) Jesus. Once again..."look at me!" Of all the things you could have said here, how telling is it that your main motivation = other people's children? My, my, look how noble you are. I mean, you could have said lots of things...but nope: children. Such a phony. I can literally feel the phony, LAMP, "look how moral I am", oozing through this post. John humblebrag Adams. You're the guy that talks about how pleased you are that Fishtown is improving, aren't you? I didn't see this before I posted what I wrote above. Ya see? I don't really need to respond at all. All that matters is: My "work" is known, and has had the desired effect. Perhaps my favorite moment on PPP = John Adams: "you aren't going to turn this around on me". Oh yes. I am. I have. I did. I will again. 4 "I"s in a row! EDIT: Wait...what's the objective of this thread again? Or, wait what's my objective again?

You've missed all of it. The whole entire thing. And, odds are you're going to continue to miss it, when the real crayonz never would. The post above is the single best indicator that: you are no crayonz.

It doesn't matter Tom, because? Whether I write 1 word or a 1000 you have to read them all, don't you? Oh look, the two posters who are the most all-time butthurt due to the beatings I've put on them. Hilarious.

OK Help us understand how this isn't a sweeping statement that doesn't define ALL corporate culture? My issue here, and why I wrote what I did above.... ...is that I am quite tired of the ...lybob's of the world pretending OCinBuffalo, LLC = General Motors, Enron, and Global Crossing. I'm tired of hearing about "corporations" and the "rich" as though we all are some one-size-fits-all entity....like government. This definition of corporations comes from the domain of the 6-year-old. I assure you: I am as "corporate" as they come. More so than most people will ever dream of being. But...I'm also only wearing flip flops.

This is as simple as: the guy who was crayonz was a hell of a lot funnier, and much smarter...than the guy who does crayonz now.

Read the original article for this thread. I'm not saying anything, or making any claim. I'm looking at what is being said. What's being said: "bottom of ocean" and "pollution prevents effects of: pollution" and calling that patently retarded. Thus there is nothing to disagree, with me, on. Either you agree with these 2 ridiculous speculations, which represent the last defense of the entire AGW theory(again, amazing, isn't it?), or you don't. If you do? Then explain your support, and count on me ridiculing you as much as I possibly can. If you don't? Then there's nothing to do but join me in laughing at them. In all cases, we are FAR past the time for NEW MODELS. Instead of creating workaround after workaround(you know what that means, right?), it's time to throw out the design, and start over. Consider: The current design has exactly 0 chance of meeting the spec. If we can't get a decent model together, then we CANNOT make global and national policy decisions on it. If that's the case? Then this whole thing dies...right here, right now. Environtologists know ALL of the above is true. Hence? they keep defending the bad design. Christ, if you really are an engineer: don't tell me you've never seen this behavior before.

Whatever. I'm not the one who's spent...how many pages again? on this ridiculousness. Oh, I assure you: there's plenty of holier than thou here. It may not be coming from you, but, it's here. There's plenty more to come. Well, maybe. Boy, you really have no idea WTF is happening here at all do you? No clue. That's all I'm gonna say for now. It's too bad. The real crayonz would have seen it, and helped me out. You are just pathetic.

What? Insecure much? Do you have any idea how hilarious threatening me, with PPP is? Yeah, I doubt you thought that one through. Hysterical. This thread is about "solving" a "problem" that hasn't even been defined properly...see WEO's posts. Yet, we are going to change the goal posts...on a whim, without even thinking about what else may happen as a result? Don't like my experience with this? Fine. We are ALL encountering the effect of this very behavior, or soon will be. Again, the example I refer to is right under your nose.

I could do it. The question is: who is paying me, and can they afford our rates?

As a guy who's been getting paid to do "analytics" for quite some time, I believe I can answer your question. First of all, analytics is not a light switch. You don't just flip it, and suddenly you are doing it. Second? What the hell do diapers have to do with beer? Quite a lot actually, and we know this because of analytics. I always use this real world outcome of analytics to explain it. Third: here's your requirement Wrong. Sorry, but wrong. You don't approach analytics in terms of looking for the answers to your questions, or what "I believe". Clients constantly struggle with this. Yes, if you go looking for an answer, you'll probably find it: because your methodology was designed to find it. This is doing it wrong. Doing it right = You let questions, not answers, come to you. Questions, such as "Hey! There seems to be a connection between lowering the price of beer, and increased diaper sales, I wonder why?", is where the value of analytics becomes clear. If you started by saying "I think lowering the price of beer will increase beer sales", and go looking into the universe(fancy analytics word) you've created for this purpose, then yeah...somewhere, someplace, you'll find confirmation. But, more often than not, you've inherently biased the entire process towards your predetermined conclusion, and you've also missed a lot(diapers). Instead, the job is to create a universe WITHOUT a specific...something...you are trying to prove. Thus, the weird things, like diaper sales being a function of lowering beer prices, jump out at you. See, if you were just looking to measure beer prices, because you already "know" the "answer"....then you'd never have included diaper sales data in your universe. In this case of NFL coaches, if we just look at football coaches in terms of the play at their players positions, and build a universe on that? I'm sure you can prove what you are looking for too, but it's doubtful it's right...or at the very least, it's doubtful that we have the complete picture. Thus, building a proper universe should take time. You don't want everything you have, or maybe you do. Figuring our what is relevant, on a macro scale...is why you hire guys like me, who've done this before. We're objective. We aren't looking to prove anything other than: we know how to do it right. So finally, what the hell does beer have to do with diapers? Sale of diapers, when purchased as part of a small order(5 or less items sold) that also includes beer, increased when beer prices were lowered. The reason this was found? The sale of ALL items was looked at relative to beer prices(or prices of ALL items), for small orders, medium orders and big orders, and diapers jumped to the top of that list in terms of significant increase. In order to find out why, the customer's credit card info was added to cube(another fancy analytics word). Then, it was determined that these small orders were bought by: men. Who runs out to the store for diapers? Who is most likely to buy beer? Who makes buying decisions based on beer prices? Who doesn't know/care about diapers in general, never mind their prices? See? More questions, not answers. But, once you answer the questions with the right data? Boom. You want to sell more high margin diapers? Cut your beer prices, and you will, because men don't care about diapers, or their price, but they do care about beer, and its price. Get it? If we didn't build the data warehouse properly, to allow for these kind of cross-product analyses, or the ability to add dimensions, like the credit card data, if we didn't allow for what we call "drill across": this diapers/beer thing never happens. That's why analytics takes time, and this is why it's not a light switch. IF you want to use analytics to determine which coach to keep, and which to fire? You have a hell of a lot of work to do.

And the fact that the changes you've described have happened... ...over the course of 60 years.... ...doesn't make you stop and think? Again, just because something is a statistical spike today, doesn't mean it will stay that way. Show me 5 straight years of outlier kicking, and I suppose there might be a cause for concern. Look, I hate problems. My life is about killing them, permanently. But, that's the point: permanently. I've seen far too many short-sighted "solutions" that end up causing more problems than they solve, produced by people who aren't qualified/haven't done the work that is necessary to produce good solutions. There's a perfect, giant example of what I'm talking about...somewhere on this page.

That seems to be the only logical explanation. Playcalling could be the culprit, but, over the course of the season? Doubtful. Also, garbage time. You can be great in pass blocking in garbage time. But, we didn't have many garbage time games this year, so, it seems QB play is the issue here. Other interesting stats: Bills lead the the league in rushing attempts at 34.1, the next closest 3 teams are all at 31. Bills tied for 2nd in the league in rushing fumbles at 12. Ah HA! Bills 22nd in the league in rushing 1st down % at 20.7%. That's where the 28th in Run Blocking really starts to make sense to me.

Speaking of counterintuitive, 11th in pass blocking on a team that was 28th in passing?

This seems interesting: PB: 11th, RB: 25th, PEN: 7th Which is Pass Blocking, Run Blocking, and Penalties respectively, I assume. Looks like we need better Run Blockers, not Pass Blockers...which seems counterintuitive for a team who finished 2nd in the league in rushing. Not sure how this squares. Perhaps Fred, and especially CJ, are a lot better than some here would allow? Anyway, 15th sounds right to me....via yeah, the eyeball test. Of course, you're not going to make any friends in the "Always draft O line first" club with this.

My personal review, and the process involved, of my group is my business. Not other employees, not my customer's, not my board's. I have plenty of public integrity, and I don't need to allow anyone into my business to maintain it. Marrone's discussions and reviews with his staff...isn't your, or my, business either. Simple as that. Why? Because Marrone doesn't work for us. He works for Doug Whaley. If Doug Whaley wants to understand the process...that's Doug Whaley's prerogative. Consider the chaos if things weren't this way. Every small decision scrutinized by clowns, who will never, ever, ever posses the acumen to actually make these decisions properly? No. Nobody would ever sign up for that job. And even if they did, there'd be no way to do it. If I hire a friend...the ONLY course of action is MORE effort, for both of us, to ensure that the friendship isn't coloring things. That may stress the friendship, but, this is work, and work always comes first(in my business. I recognize this isn't true elsewhere.) Since we advise businesses(in addition to other things we do), we encounter "resistance to change" all the time. 95% of the time? We find "resistance" = "I am ignorant about the change, therefore I resist it. I am ignorant because instead of constantly improving, I've been lazy for the last X years"....hence the reason we've been called in to advise with "new" ideas. No. Lazy is absolutely the right word.

Of course. But, you'll notice I specifically said: "...no different than he reviews any other coach, and comes to the honest conclusion..." Being "stubborn, or blind to an issue", for a manager...is another way of saying: lazy. Your job as a manager is to eternally be looking for ways to improve the process. If you are resisting change, and haven't done the work to prove why that resistance has merit? "Haven't done the work" is the operative phrase.

I suppose I should then ask: Is is time we stop coming up with ways to F around with the game....that suits special interests/whatever whim comes along? The game has tradition....because it's "traditional". Constantly creating uncertainty and "solving" problems before we've defined them properly.....is exactly how you end up with the awful officiating we've had this year. This year had some of the worst calls I've ever seen. Not just the ones that went against us. We GOT awful calls this year. When has that ever happened? Unintended consequences. That's what all this mucking around with the rules creates, because NOBODY has done the work required to identify all the possible outcomes of doing X, and then accounting for the ones we don't want. The best you can hope for doing things this way? You get lucky, and nothing too bad happens.

Well, since I am "the boss" this didn't require much effort. I just basically typed out what I know/do every day.

What if Marrone does his review on Crossman, no different than he reviews any other coach, and comes to the honest conclusion that Crossman deserves another year? What if he realizes full well that Crossman screwed up, but, that he deserves a second chance? That's accountability. Marrone himself is being accountable. Trust me...accountability is not just firing people when everybody knows they screwed up. That's easy, and anyone can do that. It's also: keeping the people you know are quality, when everybody else wants them fired. That's called: holding yourself accountable, as the boss. That's not easy, and that's why not so many can be the boss.

This thread has exactly the number of rules....as there would be highjacks on the first page....without the rules. Bill, you are perma-signed up to talk O line. Anything less is disrespectful, after all of the years we have had our O line vs DB fights. However, the reality is: Jason Peters is an UDFA. So are a lot of lineman out there that end up as starters. FA lineman aren't a known commodity, any more than Mike Williams was a known draft pick. However, the advantage to them is: we've seen them play in the NFL. Good, bad, etc. They've played. I believe there's not only cap room and need, to spend some $ here, I also think there's some players who are worth signing in FA....given the PFF data. I would even consider signing a 32-year old guard. If Marrone wants to develop people, it helps to have a guy who's played 10 years to assist in that. I'm already on record as saying: "I think we need to spend 3 of the top 5 picks on O line". But, I'm also on record saying: "I think we need to sign 3 O line in FA". $9 mil was/is/will continue to be stupid money spent on a guard. That doesn't mean $4 million spent on Oher, or some other OT, to play G is a bad idea. It doesn't mean getting a G in a trade, on draft day or not, is a bad plan either. I'd love to see us trade down, and, instead of getting a pick, getting some team's solid LG instead.

I dare you to make less sense. If you are saying what I think you are, but you failed to say....clearly you missed Steps 1+2 above. The catalyst is never me. EDIT: Definition? (See the edit below.) Can't be. If it was, the whole thing would fail. And you know all about fail, don't you? EDIT: Without the WASPy Bible thumper, and the erudite sages of Starbucks who need to ensure we know how moral they are, threads like these go nowhere...in terms of entertainment value, for me.