Mark Gaughan article

[meazza]

Not anyone, just you.

Now I know how your reading comprension teacher feels. 

 

It's COMPREHENSION

I doubt you should be anyone's teacher

[The Dean]

Jeff Morrison reported last year that Price has a degenerative knee condition.

518201[/snapback]

 

 

Thanks. I guess that kind of explains things

[The Dean]

It's COMPREHENSION

I doubt you should be anyone's teacher

518206[/snapback]

 

 

GG knows his Bills stuff, my Italian brother. He's a pretty freakin' bright guy to boot.

[meazza]

GG knows his Bills stuff, my Italian brother.  He's a pretty freakin' bright guy to boot.

518213[/snapback]

not from what i saw in this thread but hey who am i to judge

[Orton's Arm]

GG knows his Bills stuff, my Italian brother.  He's a pretty freakin' bright guy to boot.

518213[/snapback]

You are of course welcome to your own opinion. I've seen nothing on this thread which would convince me to share it.

[GG]

You are of course welcome to your own opinion. I've seen nothing on this thread which would convince me to share it.

518225[/snapback]

 

Nice of you to share an opinion.

 

Let's see, the thread started with your sage opinion that Donahoe turned down all those great offers from teams dying to get Jammer, when it was widely known that Bills really, really, really liked Roy Williams (just not at #4). We won't hold your join date of Oct 05 against you in not knowing what the pre-draft conversations on this site were about, but let's just say most of it centered around on why you shouldn't take a safety with the #4 pick in the draft, and why Bills should pick M Williams or McKinnie.

 

You also recognize that Robert Gallery who was hailed as the next Boselli-can't-miss-pick, hasn't made the move to LT? Can we say Tony Mandarich redux?

 

Then you change your tune to rant about TD ignoring the OL, when he took one of two consensus OL picks with #4. In generously applying hindsight, the old spew about TD not picking OLs on the first day comes up. When asked which players should have been taken in Bills' slots, we're given options of players that weren't on the board when Bills selected. Nice.

 

The explanation given is that TD made a stupid trade for Bledsoe to give up a high 1st round draft pick (while ignoring the move TD made to trade a peerless WR to get back in Rd 1).

 

When asked about TD passing on drafting a bust OL in 1st round, the story changes to "Well, that was a good move."

 

When presented with facts that show that success of OLs drafted on the first day is not quite a guarantee, the response is, "You're picking on me."

 

I'm glad that you're so skilled in presenting your points.

 

But your rants are so predictable.

[Coach Tuesday]

Is anyone actually disagreeing in this thread, or is this all just frustrated bluster?

[Orton's Arm]

Let's see, the thread started with your sage opinion that Donahoe turned down all those great offers from teams dying to get Jammer, when it was widely known that Bills really, really, really liked Roy Williams (just not at #4). 

These are strange words from a guy who insults my reading comprehension. Try finding the words "Roy Williams" in any of my initial posts.

You also recognize that Robert Gallery who was hailed as the next Boselli-can't-miss-pick, hasn't made the move to LT?  Can we say Tony Mandarich redux?

Blah blah blah. Some draft picks work as planned. Others don't. You've made this point before, I've agreed with it, and once again there's no apparent reason for you to be bringing it up.

Then you change your tune to rant about TD ignoring the OL, when he took one of two consensus OL picks with #4. 

You're focusing in on one well-intentioned but failed pick. I'm looking at the big picture.

In generously applying hindsight, the old spew about TD not picking OLs on the first day comes up.  When asked which players should have been taken in Bills' slots, we're given options of players that weren't on the board when Bills selected.  Nice. 

Yeah, because as we all know, it's impossible to trade up in the draft when the Bills have a low first rounder, and it's impossible to trade down when the Bills pick early in the round.

The explanation given is that TD made a stupid trade for Bledsoe to give up a high 1st round draft pick (while ignoring the move TD made to trade a peerless WR to get back in Rd 1). 

Are you trying to say the Bledsoe trade was a stroke of brilliance? Or are you trying to say that because TD had done something good with the Peerless deal, he needed to even things out by wasting a first round pick? And what about the fact TD squandered the opportunity to franchise and trade away Antoine Winfield?

When asked about TD passing on drafting a bust OL in 1st round, the story changes to "Well, that was a good move."

This is beyond ridiculous. Had I said the Clements trade-down was a bad idea, you'd be calling me a mindless TD basher. And rightly so. I'm saying that some TD decisions were good, others bad. In case you haven't happened to notice the Bills' win/lost record, the bad decisions outweigh the good.

When presented with facts that show that success of OLs drafted on the first day is not quite a guarantee, the response is, "You're picking on me."

Is it your intention to convince me you're one of the least intelligent posters on these boards? You're certainly going about it the right way. My point was simple, and shouldn't have been this hard for you to grasp. I'll spell it out nice and clear for you:

 

1. The Bills' offensive line represents 23% of the starters, yet under TD has received just 13% of the first-day picks.

 

2. The offensive line hasn't received a first-day pick in the last three drafts.

 

3. The offensive line is this team's biggest area of need, and is being neglected.

 

You feebly attempted to refute these points by pointing out that many first-day offensive line picks are busts. How on earth does that fact make it okay for TD to ignore the offensive line on the draft's first day? I'm trying to understand whether there is a remotely sane chain of reasoning here. The first day of the draft provides busts at every position. Even that kicker Oakland took in the first round hasn't lived up to expectations. You seem to want TD to say the following to his staff: "The first day of the draft is fraught with risk and uncertainty. No matter what position a player may play, there's a good chance he'll turn out to be a bust. We should respond to this risk by never again drafting an offensive lineman on the draft's first day, even though that's our biggest area of need."

[Simon]

The Bills' offensive line represents 23% of the starters, yet under TD has received just 13% of the first-day picks.

 

This hasn't become any more sensible since the first time you said it.

 

 

You feebly attempted to refute these points by pointing out that many first-day offensive line picks are busts.

And you've typically ignored this fact by focusing on only the ones who are not. I'm still waiting for your list of the many other teams who tried to build a line through the draft and failed.

 

Is it your intention to convince me you're one of the least intelligent posters on these boards? If so, you're certainly going about it the right way.

You're so far out of your league that it is even funny.

[/dev/null]

It's COMPREHENSION

I doubt you should be anyone's teacher

518206[/snapback]

 

and i doubt you are anyone's Physics teacher

 

V(sound) != V(Light)

 

[meazza]

and i doubt you are anyone's Physics teacher

 

V(sound) != V(Light)

 

518284[/snapback]

 

nono, i'm an economist not a physicist.

[Orton's Arm]

This hasn't become any more sensible since the first time you said it.

Not everything you fail to comprehend automatically lacks sense.

And you've typically ignored this fact by focusing on only the ones who are not. I'm still waiting for your list of the many other teams who tried to build a line through the draft and failed.

Better to have tried and failed, than not to have tried at all.

You're so far out of your league that it is even funny.

Pot? Kettle? Black?

[Orton's Arm]

and i doubt you are anyone's Physics teacher

 

V(sound) != V(Light)

 

I don't remember him saying that light and sound travel at the same speed.

[meazza]

I don't remember him saying that light and sound travel at the same speed.

518359[/snapback]

 

actually i asked a question in another post and it was taken out of context but the intellectuals in this board have nothing better to do than mark it down and bring it back and bust my balls about it everytime i post

thats maturity for you, the thing is the ones making fun are like 40 years old and I guess they have nothing better to do.

[Orton's Arm]

actually i asked a question in another post and it was taken out of context but the intellectuals in this board have nothing better to do than mark it down and bring it back and bust my balls about it everytime i post

thats maturity for you, the thing is the ones making fun are like 40 years old and I guess they have nothing better to do.

518371[/snapback]

Yes, the kind of repetitive jeering you describe gets very boring very fast. There are a lot of Alaska Darrin wannabes on these boards. The difference between Alaska and the wannabes is that the former is usually clever and original when putting someone down.

 

Besides all that, the speed of light can be greatly affected by the medium it's passed through:

 

http://news.com.com/Slowing+the+speed+of+l..._3-5387842.html

 

In the past five years, other researchers have slowed light and even stopped it for a few microseconds.

 

If these people are going to razz you about this whole light/sound thing, they at least need to get their facts straight. They should be saying that the speed of light in a vacuum is greater than the speed of sound. The speed of light in a vacuum > the speed of light when traveling through the Earth's air > the speed of light when traveling through water > the speed which soundwaves travel through the Earth's air > the speed that light was traveling at for a few microseconds in some of those experiments!

[IBTG81]

Yes, the kind of repetitive jeering you describe gets very boring very fast. There are a lot of Alaska Darrin wannabes on these boards. The difference between Alaska and the wannabes is that the former is usually clever and original when putting someone down.

 

Besides all that, the speed of light can be greatly affected by the medium it's passed through:

 

http://news.com.com/Slowing+the+speed+of+l..._3-5387842.html

If these people are going to razz you about this whole light/sound thing, they at least need to get their facts straight. They should be saying that the speed of light in a vacuum is greater than the speed of sound. The speed of light in a vacuum > the speed of light when traveling through the Earth's air > the speed of light when traveling through water > the speed which soundwaves travel through the Earth's air > the speed that light was traveling at for a few microseconds in some of those experiments!

518379[/snapback]

 

Dude, you've proven you're a tool. GG and Simon are two of the smarter, objective Bills observers on this board. When they both talk, it would be wise of you to listen.

[Orton's Arm]

Dude, you've proven you're a tool. GG and Simon are two of the smarter, objective Bills observers on this board. When they both talk, it would be wise of you to listen.

518426[/snapback]

This is the second time on this thread someone's complimented GG's intelligence. Certainly he has provided us with no evidence of intelligent thought on this thread. I'm curious as to which threads he's posted on where his thoughts and arguments are well reasoned and well thought out.

[meazza]

This is the second time on this thread someone's complimented GG's intelligence. Certainly he has provided us with no evidence of intelligent thought on this thread. I'm curious as to which threads he's posted on where his thoughts and arguments are well reasoned and well thought out.

518433[/snapback]

 

on this board Intelligence = sarcasm

so if you have a witty comeback to any post on this board then you're deemed intelligent

[IBTG81]

This is the second time on this thread someone's complimented GG's intelligence. Certainly he has provided us with no evidence of intelligent thought on this thread. I'm curious as to which threads he's posted on where his thoughts and arguments are well reasoned and well thought out.

518433[/snapback]

 

Click on his name, and do a search. It's not that difficult. Or do you need someone to hold your hand?

[IBTG81]

on this board Intelligence = sarcasm

so if you have a witty comeback to any post on this board then you're deemed intelligent

518434[/snapback]

 

http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showt...11entry518411

 

What a nice, thought-out, mature response...