Ronin

Correct. But case in point: Consider what was said about Ivory last year. Now he's gone. More opionated factless dataless stat-less gibberish? The more things change the more they stay the same. The holistic objective thing will be negative until proven otherwise. Wouldn't you say. See, some of you guys seem to think that if enough people say something then it will come to pass despite there not being any holistic or objective reasons for it to actually happen. Kinda like paying Dareus and Fitzpatrick huge amounts of money which were unjustified, with the rationale that apparently if we pay them they'll for some reason play to those levels. Or how drafting Jones based on a bunch of stats in college based upon circumstances that simply won't nor ever exist in the NFL that he'll be able to duplicate his collegiate success as such. Foolish as that way of thinking is. But hey, it's a narrative-driven sports world. Hence all the unexpected disappointments at season's end.

You're funny. LOL, OK, since "your word" seems to be the end-all-to-be-all in the discussion, sure. See, this is what happens when you argue based on opinions only. BTW, here's one more, he ranked 18th in combo tackles and 20th in solo tackles. His contract was far from the 20th in compensation. Well then they're stupid for paying a 2-down guy that much money, particularly one that doens't produce. I know I know, his mere presence on the field was the reason why the D was good otherwise. LOL Otherwise, it is a problem for the aforementioned "theory." It doesn't reconcile. Changing the argument/theory after the fact is not good form. What's even funnier is that you provided none. There's one. Now if you'd care to find a site that has him having logged sacks or more than 1 QB pressure, please feel free. You guys are hilarious, you post nothing but opinions to counter the numbers that are all over the place.

Just one more sign that maybe McD/McBeane don't understand offense very well. Shady's & Gore's past performances are irrelevant going into this season. I'd be highly concerned if I were him about relying on a 31-year old RB that saw a significant diminishment in play last season coupled with a 36-year old RB being used to spell him. I don't see that working out the way that McD apparently sees it working out.

The only problem with your theory is that Lotulolei's snap count on the season was below 50% of defensive snaps, and he lost snaps as the season went on specifically because he was not effective. So no, he didn't do the job that they brought him in for, much less having done it very well. He was graded average by PFF. He had no sacks, 1 TFL when he's averaged nearly 6/season, and no QB Hits when he's averaged 5/season prior to last year. Not quite sure how that's doing the job, much less doing it very well. I guess we all have our standards tho and no one says that they're the same.

Well, OK, but keep in mind that "upgrade" is relative. We weren't exactly on the cusp of having impact talent last year. I guess I would say that if Brown is an upgrade, and I seriously question whether he is for reasons that I've pointed out, then it must've been wholly inadequate to begin with. And keep in mind, "listening to Beane" also involves having listened to him last year when we made "upgrades" then too. We see how those worked out. The offense is bereft of talent. I'm listening, but I'm not believing. Sorry, I call it the way that I see it, and I see it based upon reality, not how I'd like to perceive it. As to the Draft, honestly, if we're going to talk about upgrades, and given that Allen's a shoe-in at QB, there's not another one of the 10 offensive roster spots that couldn't benefit from a significant upgrade. I still say that they really need to bolster the OL. Top priority. The difference between an OT that can be had in round 1 and later rounds is going to be much more pronounced than the difference between a WR in round 1 and later rounds. In fact, WRs are very difficult to predict sometimes.

What's sad is that over the years since the Polian days that we can't get a GM in here that runs the place something other than a casual fan runs a fantasy team. Always relying on boring ill-founded narratives and drafting players like Jones, Watkins, Spiller, Lawson, Maybin, McCargo, etc. for which if they had looked at how those players racked up stats in college they'd have seen an ill-fit for the NFL. But they draft them anyway expecting that circumstances that typically don't exist in the NFL for some reason won't be a factor in their play in the NFL. They translate to wasted picks, push our miserly along, and force the firing of the people responsible turning it into a vicious cycle.

I haven't looked at the contracts, but if that's true, the fact that they're all being brought in on 1-year contracts with team options thereafter hardly suggests that they're above-average and "upgrades," like so many are saying and which has become the narrative. You say that we added the top available deep-threat. "Top available" is one thing, very good much less great is entirely another. As I've often stated, the availability for offensive players was scant in this year's FA class. Otehrwise, can you lay out all the deep TD passes that Brown caught for us in this argument? I think if you do you may begin to question that narrative. We have WRs on our team from this past season, meaning more than one, that have better "deep threat" numbers than Brown. So how does one process that contrasted with the narrative? What, we simply throw out any and all data and assume that mere talk trumps all of what we just pitched? As a holistic and objective analyst I cannot do that. Some others will say "using stats to prove my point," to which my response is what, using no stats or concrete data to prove a point that's based almost entirely on talk? Does that make any sense? What about his catch%? Have you looked at that? It's bottom-dwelling. So get ready for the next stage of the "dropped passes" narrative as yet another excuse for Allen of sorts. Secondly, the deep-ball is so overrated. Fans get enamored with it but there isn't a franchise QB in recent history that was a great deep-ball passer with an average or worse short-medium game. That really tells us all we need to know. I wouldn't have traded anything valuable for OBJ much less Brown. Both are problems that Allen doesn't need right now and which won't help him, strangely. As to the "10 picks" narrative, 7 of them are on day-3. On days 1 & 2 we only have one pick each. NE and the Jets are in better shape on days 1 & 2. But if they don't take an OT they're nuts. Even then, he'll have to emerge outta the gates swingin'. And BTW, I'm hardly criticizing their free-agency picks, what I am doing is challenging the narrative that we've somehow upgraded. And frankly, it wouldn't take much to upgrade. Keep in mind that we're in this position because all of the "one-year contract" signings last year on offense that everyone said we could jettison if they didn't work out, didn't work out. Again, hardly an endorsement for McBeane.

An oustanding post! Well stated! The one part I'd comment on is that bolded part. Yes, it is entirely within the realm of possibility, but that's also something that is all but uncoachable. If a QB does it he typically has to master that on his own. Coaches can guide, comment, suggest, etc., but sorta like with Bledsoe and his "getting rid of the ball timing," QBs either get it or don't, and Bledsoe never did no matter what they tried. Bledsoe could even read Ds to a reasonable extent, that timing held him back throughout his entire NFL career. This is way more critical. These patterns for these QBs get cemented and attempting to change them in the NFL is a tall order. Even seasoned QBs coming in with a strong arm that were better as such have failed. So to the extent that it's entirely within the realm of possibility, I'd still place the odds at well below even that he does it. Remember, a huge part of that is the ability to read a D on the fly. Again, tough stuff, really impossible to coach in as that has to come from within, mentally. I'm guessing that a big part of the problem is that like a kid with a gifted arm on a sandlot, he's made full advantage of his size and athleticism, to the extent that he's never had to learn to read Ds to be successful at least to a large extent. You can get away with that in college and for sure high school, but getting away with it in the NFL ain't gonna happen. The problem is that the NFL is not the place to start learning that either. Unfortunately for him, he wasn't in a program at Wyoming where it was necessary to hone those skills in order to be deemed "successful. He never did hone them as a result. Here's what his nfl.com draft profile said: Allen can make some truly special throws, but his ability to improve the mental part of his game will determine whether he's a good NFL starter or just another big, strong-armed guy. That's spot on. The problem therein as well lies in that NFL history is littered with QBs with that limitation that were unable to overcome it. In fact, I can't think of any, no franchise QBs playing today for sure, that did. As with you, I'm hopeful. This kid's got the leadership and other qualities that would make him a killer leader. Even if you're not a Bills fan you've gotta be pullin' for him. Dude, all you do is throw mud up on the wall in these discussions.

OK ... so what? In light of what I posted, who cares? I don't understand why that's relevant. NONE of the four teams competing for their conference championships lacked receivers. Beasley does, but again, he's not the type of WR that Allen "finds" and makes optimal use of. I disagree completely on Brown. Horrific catch % and not the WR that many here claim that he is.

Completely agree, and the fact that it was an emotionally charged game celebrating Kyle's career and the type of game that the team usually overachieves on, certainly factors in too. As to that pass to Ivory, I don't think that there's any question that he "can make" those throws, surely he can. The question is whether he can process all the moving parts of the offense (and defense) so as to be able to optimize his options on every play. That's what franchise QBs do. As of now he's not proven that, here or even in college.

Thanks. The question is why didn't he make the throws. All too often we'd watch, see a receiver wide open in the flats or OTM short and yet he didn't seem to see the guy. Here's the thing, that's a very difficult thing to coach, namely getting into a players head and mindset. That to me based on decades of experience is where the biggest connection between college and the NFL exists. We'll see. Otherwise, I'm not sure that people realize the size of the gap from where Allen is now in the short-medium game to even average much less franchise status. It cannot be stressed enough, Allen was bottom-dwelling in the short-medium game and in the Red Zone, where he was easily, by a country mile, DFL prior to that emotionally charged Miami game. Another interesting point-of-note was that he really only played well against Maimi. He was horrible in the other 10 games. He had 5 TDs and 3 INTs in two games against Miami, he had 5 TDs and 9 INTs in his other 10 games and averaged over 75 yards less passing than he did vs. Miami.

You sure about that? Let's finish that analysis. Making the playoffs is one thing, being playoff competitive is entirely another. First of all, I count only 4 of 12 teams, not half, but a third, that did not have a 1,000-yard WR unless we include the Pats, but see below there. Otherwise, of the four teams that you mention: Dallas had a 2,000 yard-from-scrimmage RB, the 6th ranked scoring D, and the 7th-ranked red zone D. We have nothing close to a 2,000-YFS RB, we had the 18th ranked scoring D, and the 30th ranked RZ D. Dallas wasn't a strong playoff team notwithstanding, they were a good, hardly great team, in a largely mediocre division. Chicago did not win games because of their offense. In fact, they were 0-4 when they allowed opponents to score more than 22 points (below NFL average) where they were 12-1, their "1" being their playoff loss to a mediocre Philly (a 9-7 playoff team) where they could only muster 15 offensive points, 9 coming from FGs. 10 of their wins involved holding opponents to 17 or fewer points. Needless to say they could not advance to the CG. Seattle was similar, they were 8-2 when holding opponents to average scoring (24 ppg) or fewer. They were 6-0 when allowing 17 or fewer. In short, they didn’t do it via offense either. They were 2-5 when allowing 25 or more points. Baltimore was a carbon-copy of Chicago. They were 1-6 when allowing opponents more than 21 points, they were 9-1 when allowing 21 or fewer, 8-1 when allowing 17 or fewer and had the 2nd ranked scoring D in the league a mere 4 points behind Chicago. Ergo, they didn’t do it via offense either and were not championship caliber as a result either. Defense no longer wins championships. Brown was their leading WR with 715 yards and 5 TDs, two 100-yard games and 10 games of 28 or fewer yards. Side notes: Philly had one in Ertz, but Jeffries was on pace for 1,000 but only played 13 games. Of the four teams that advanced to the Conference Championships, LA had two 1,000-yard WRs. NO had Thomas who had over 1,400 but then also had arguably the best dual-threat RB in the league who logged over 700 yards, and Brees. KC had two 1,000-yard WRs as well along with last season's most prolific QB. NE had Brady, which means everything. But otherwise, no WRs (or Gronk) played all 16 games on that team except for Hogan and Dorsett. Edelman would have had well over 1,000 but was suspended for 4 games. White, a RB in a role-playing mode with only 3 starts, had 751 receiving yards. Gordon & Gronk both started only 11 games and were otherwise on pace for over 1,000. Hogan, in only 7 starts as a role-player logged nearly 600. So yes, good receivers are in fact required to win SBs these days. In Brady’s case he elevates the level of any given WR by at least one notch, not much argument there. There's nothing "magical" about 1,000 yards, but there is a difference between WRs that routinely only put up 600, 700, or 800 yards and 3-6 TDs, such as those littering our roster, and those referenced above. Having said all that, the big hope from this free-agency period so far is Brown who logged 715 yards last season and 5 TDs. His TDs in distance were 7, 9, 14, 21, and 33, something that hardly fits the “deep game” narrative for Allen. He had two (2) 100-yard games. 10 of his 16 games he posted 10 games of 28 or fewer receiving yards for an average of 18.5 yards in those 10 games.

Great post Logic! Very engaging. As to your bolded part allow me to add some perspective there. There always seems to be a boolean (aka binary) association with things of this nature. I'm sure that I speak for a bunch of people when I say that they aren't necessarily pessimistic, rather simply not optimistic, largely for reasons that you stated. So in short, it's possible to be neither over team "news" or player signings. As for me, I'm simply not seeing any upgrades with the exception of Morse, and there again, he's missed almost half of his games the past two seasons, so if he continues that trend we can't really say that it was a great signing. Presumably you would agree. So that one's on ice and IMO that's the best signing we've made. Otherwise, as someone has already opined, I view it more of a rearranging of the deck chairs. Now the signings of marquee/premier/impact players are cause for optimism, but A, there are none in the bunch we've signed, and B, again, to McBeane's credit, there really weren't many in free-agency available on offense. Antonio Brown would have been such a signing, but again, and partial credit to McBeane, it's good to have avoided him. Mr. "Play by My Rules" isn't exactly what a developing QB that's struggling with his passing game needs at this point. I can easily see that acquisition having derailed Allen's develoopment. The absolutely last thing that Allen needs right now is a prima donna rambling in his ear constantly what he should be doing. So on that end I'm a little surprised that they were even considering Brown. Here's where we differ on their philosophy: Their attempt at a rebuild, offensively anyway, actually began last year. But they swung-n-missed on just about every one of their offensive acquisitions, which frankly, were very similar to what they're doing this year. Coupled with the fact that McD is a defensive-oriented coach and Beane, quite frankly, is still largely in OJT/Unknown mode, this isn't exactly cause for optimism. Lastly, the big thing, namely what's going to determine their futures here in Buffalo, perhaps beginning as early as this season but next for sure, is Allen's own progression. I keep reiterating that, and the narrative is that all of Allen's faults, not talking merely areas required for development common among QBs, but actual faults per se, are all resultant from a "lack of weapons/tools" which IMO is tremendously faulty to assume. Allen's going to have to take a huge leap in his own rite, HUGE! Again, as a passer last season his short-medium game was bottom-dwelling, worse than all other rookies. That can't all be because of a lack of tools, particularly since his fellow rookies for the most part, besides Mayfield perhaps, also didn't have much better talent, if better at all, at their disposal. Consider too that Jackson had John Brown who's now here. So if we're going to apply the same standard across teams, then couldn't it also be said that Jackson's play was hindered due to the same "lack of weapons?" The answer to that is of course it is despite the fact that the narrative here will be that it was all Jackson there for whatever reasons. But then, why should we be optimistic about Brown here? Pessimistic not necessarily, but what's the cause for optimism? I see none. Think about all of their offensive moves since they arrived, McBeane that is. How many have worked out? Any? I see none, at least not to the level that's going to move us forward and into playoff competitiveness mode. That's not a good sign for them. Having said all of that, IMO, I see absolutely no way that they can avoid drafting an OT with the 9th overall, or preferably trading down in the 1st for more day-1/2 picks yet still getting an OT. Thoughts?

Last time I checked, the amount of money players got wasn't necessarily correlated to how good they are. See Lotulolei as one prime example. The money is irrelevant. Does it really need to be reiterated how many horrible huge contracts we've handed out that have A, made no sense, and B, weren't anywhere near what we paid them? Many of the same people opining here applauding McBeane were also likely the same ones that applauded some of the asinine moves that we made in that way back then too. Money/contract is one thing, performance is another. I think it's a case of fans seeing what they want to see, to start, and also partly from being down for so long, which for many having absolutely no recollection of the teams from the early '90s, that they really don't know what a good team looks like looking at it from an unbiased perspective. The other thing that you have to keep in mind is that McBeane is in a little bit of a bind. I said last season that it was prime (actually the season prior was) to trade Shady because of his age, an age where RBs routinely decline in performance. I realize that fans rarely see that day coming, but coaches and GMs should know better. Either way, the kept their eggs in his basket. Otherwise, they didn't make many good changes. Benjamin, Jordan, other moves on offense didn't work out well. So now they're in a bind. They've "gotta do something" or they'll be viewed poorly, so despite the notion that this isn't the best free-agency for offense, nowhere near or even above-average, they're making moves with the perception that they're improving things when the reality is that they're really simply brining in players from other teams that don't have performance histories much better than what we have had, which has been below average, offensively speaking that is.

Oh, I think I do. Also, according to who, what, the narrative? I don't think that they are. I just added to my post, reread it and tell me where you disagree. I'm interested as to why you, not anyone else, thinks that they're a whole lot better than what we have? As well, allow me to put it another way, suppose that all of these new players start. Do you really think that they represent an above average team? I'm happy to go thru them one-by-one with you, pick one and we'll start. But I can tell you that if Brown and Beasley are our #'s 1 & 2 WRs, well, I'm not exactly thinking division winners here, or even playoffs based on that. Sorry, but no, I'm not seeing how a pair of WRs that have one 1,000-season between 'em, and barely at that, and that have each averaged a mere 3-4 TDs/season are somehow our Smith-Shuster/AB or Woods/Cooks tandem. Seems to me that Foster just did that and Jones too, and neither of them are good pending whether Foster's three good games can translate to an entirely good season. Either way, you're talking about free-agents, not what's here. If I had my choice I'd pick Foster over Brown and take my lumps. As to Morse, do you not think that there's an injury risk for a player that's missed nearly half of his games the past two seasons due to injury?

They all scream back-up/depth to me. Either way, they're not much better than what we have. I like the Morse signing but he's missed nearly half of his games over the past two seasons due to injury. That's risky. If he misses even three or four games this season it won't be good and will render his signing questionable. Otherwise, there isn't a player that we've signed that made a big impact on their former teams. They're all categorically in that mediocre-average range for the most part. I don't see a plan, frankly, other than for what you say, namely as camp fodder with the "pool of average-mediocre" simply being larger to choose from, presumably thereby hoping that one or more players will emerge as something greater than what thye've been elsewhere. That doesn't sound like much of a strategy to me. To McBeane's credit, there wasn't a whole lot available at top levels this season offensively speaking in free agency. Having said that, every seasoned football fan knows that teams are built via the draft, not via free agency which is more used to plug holes and leaks. The offensive strategy for McBeane to date has left us in this unenviable position of having an offense all but completely bereft of starting caliber talent. Excuses can be made, "reasons" given, but that's the state of the O right now and it's on them. To add some relevance to that, I've seen a whole lot of people applauding the WR Brown and Beasley signings. They've both averaged only a few TDs season and not any more yards than any other WR we currently have. So, if Brown's going to be a bona fide #1 WR, as I've read more than just a few people suggest while applauding McBeane, then he'll have to add then again at least 50% more to his average annual stat-line than he's averaged. Also, I posted elsewhere that he's had only few deep TDs in his career, lastly notable in '14 & '15 with Palmer playing QB. He's also bottom-dwelling in terms of catch-%, almost as bad as Jones is. As to Beasley, same thing. Are we expecting his numbers to then again increase by 50% over his average? Would that make sense to expect that? Re: him, he'll be playing a position that Allen overlooked in terms of finding open receivers last season. Beasley's good, but he's not the type of WR that Allen utilizes to that extent. Between 'em they've averaged 542 yards/season. Is that something to get excited about? Between 'em they've averaged 3.75 TDs/season. Is that something to get excited about? Between 'em, of their 45 TDs, only 7 have been greater than 24 yards. Only 4 have been greater than 33 yards. Does that fit the "deep game" narrative that we hear incessantly? Is it anything even approaching being game-changing to the point where it'll win games for us? Either way, I'm not seeing much of departure here from the free-agency methodologies of the first two season to be honest. Just my two-cents.

Boy, talk about having a tantrum. LOL I'll tell ya what's silly, is slamming facts/data/stats by insisting that there are other things to look at while providing absolutely nothing substantial to counter the premise. That's silly. Insisting that narratives trump reason and well substantiated analysis is silly. I'm not trying to prove anything. I've stated that I don't know how it will work out. Again, tantrum much. If you took the time to read my posts you'd see that all I'm saying is that in order to become a franchise QB, his short-medium passing game will have to go from bottom-dwelling to well-above-average. I'm sorry that you disagree and have trouble processing that tidbit and NFL factoid. Unfortunately, and since you insist on talking about "being right," etc., if Allen becomes a franchise QB he'll have done that, proving me correct. OTOH, if he fails to do that he can't possibly become a franchise QB, which, unfortunately for you, given your emotional disposition here, will also mean that I'm correct. So it's kind of a lose-lose for ya here. LOL I couldn't care about being correct or not, only emotionally immature people care about that. I care more about discussion and the topics at hand. I enjoy the analysis of it all. I also care that our team doesn''t suck for another decade or into perpetuity. Unfortunately that's well beyond my control. I've been stuck here watching the ongoing buffoonery at OBD for over two decades now just like everyone else.

No. I was comparing, overall, the laundry list of WRs that he said were better under Manuel, which is nonsense. Neither had great WRs but one group wasn't all that much different from the other, particularly when we consider that Woods was a rookie at the time, alongside another rookie as well. There's not a prolific WR in that bunch. Woods may end up being very good but one very good season hardly a great WR makes. Many WRs post one good season, so the jury's out there. Also, Woods is playing on a team with a relatively prolific passing game which makes it much easier to post good numbers. Common sense there. IMO, how good a WR is also has a lot to do with what said WR can do on his own when he isn't on a team with three or four other viable targets with a top-notch offensive backfield to back it up. Ergo, I don't see to many WRs doing poorly on the Rams, eh.

Uhhh, sorry partner, you've got me completely confused with someone else. I've never believed any of that. Mayfield was the only QB on record that I said I would have taken in round 1 prior to last year's draft. Always a good idea to get facts straight first. ; )

That's funny, I'd suggest that you're the one doing the flaming here. To start, I haven't quoted PFF in this string today and what you're recently responded to. Secondly, loving or hating Allen has nothing to do with it. I love the kid to be honest. I can separate the fact that his passing skills are nowhere near average at present tho, unlike yourself and others that you think you speak for. Discussing objectively is what I do best. Posts with no objectivity, hating on other posters with no objective info otherwise, AHEM, such as yours above, would appear to be flaming types. Just sayin' if we're going to call it what it is. Once again, I'm reacting to your flame. Trying to be objective. Funny too how you know that "I hate Allen" when I'm fully on record here stating the complete opposite. So regarding flaming, come again. Either way, do me a favor and put me on ignore, then you won't have this issue. Right? ... Right?

Anything that I post is well-substantiated. People get upset when the facts don't line up with their opinions. All I ask, a big thing apparently, is that people substantiate their positions. Case in point, I posted a simple table above and one poster, who's on ignore now, posting absolutely nothing but pure conjecture and opinions as to why the data was wrong. I mean seriously, you may want to take it up with those types.

What, for commenting on something that someone said? If it's off-topic it's because someone else sent it there and I responded. Perhaps take it up with them. And yes, please, by all means, put me on your "ignore" list. Seriously, I'm begging you. I would absolutely LOVE it is everyone that posts nothing but opinionated tripe put me on their ignore list. Saves me the hassle of doing the same. I enjoy good well-researched back-n-forth, not ill-substantiated and opinionated emotionally-charged gibberish. So again, please, do so. I'm more than content to discuss this amont the 20 or so posters that I find want to actually discuss things on an intellectual level. That applies to everyone.

No convincing necessary. I have nothing to do with the forthcoming outcome. Allen could be the next Brady or whomever, or he could also be the next EJ Manuel. I'm merely reacting to some of the absurd narratives here. So many people already penciling Allen in as a future great QB when his short-medium game is bottom-dwelling, except for those throwing any and all objective data out the window and relying exclusively on the end-all-to-be-all "eye test," or having the "It factor" as in Manuel's case, and when the basis for a franchise QB can essentially be defined upon that QB's short-medium game. I'd LOVE for Allen to "be the one" for the next decade and a half. Unfortunately it's not up to me. I'm simply pointing out both the commonalities that all franchise QBs possess contrasted with Allen's present shortcomings in that way. His ability to reconcile those hinges not one iota on anything that I put out. What's difficult for others to grasp, apparently, is that it also doesn't depend upon their opinions either.

What's incredible is suggesting that Allen's passing line was good. What's incredible is suggesting that the 2013 WRs on team, considering that two were rookies and none were 1st-round draft picks, two of which are out of the league for several seasons despite them still being well within playing age, and of the 30 or so season-years only four times have they collectively logged over 1,000 yards, were anything other than a very average lot at best or more likely a below-average lot. But I get it, same as everyone talked about Spiller and Watkins to name a couple, and Dion Dawkins last season going into this past one, etc., etc., etc., people always see greatness before it actually arrives. It's a typical human response.

So 100 Scouts would admit that tossing 10 TDs and 12 INTs is good? Mmmm, OK, if you say so. I suppose that they'd say that he was good in the Red Zone too. Argue as you may, this isn't worth my time. It's ridiculous, you speaking for "100 scouts, coaches, GMs, and personnel directors," many of whom have already contradicted your ridiculous position.