TH3
-
Posts
3,154 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by TH3
-
-
You're really an idiot.
How is that?
-
How far back do the records go?
134 years
-
You're still ducking the issue here, and pretending you don't understand something that's been exhaustively explained to you. Now, either you are an idiot, who got you degrees in some dubious manner, or, you're a liar, or, you're playing games and trying to say you don't understand:
The 15 year "pause" in warming, while CO2 emissions have EXCEEDED the predictive modeling expectations, and the hilarious speculations that result.
debunk the predictive claims made by the supposedly serious scientists working this issue.
What do we normally do with an "event" like this in our raw data? Well, normally, I go back and tell whoever is saying that a "trend" is occurring...that they need to start over again, because that's too much contradictory data. We reject their take on the data, and we sure as hell don't try to generate intelligence based on it.
What I don't do? Keep driving the original model, and then run around grasping for every straw to defend the original position.
Oh...
Wait...
Yeah, actually? I have done that. You know when? When it threatens the existence of my project. When there's a good chance we will get the boot if I don't. Then? I would basically say anything I could, provided I could back it up in some way, no matter how lame/tenuous. It's not lying. It's just stretching what you have, because you are desperate, and, because it's your job.
Now...having admitted to this behavior...do you now realize that, when I see it in others, I know it?
Moreover, since I'm usually on the side of taking over/firing the F ups, I've heard/seen the same story, over and over.Dude, this is about people trying to protect their "project". Nothing more. Sometimes, it works. Most of the time? It doesn't. The reason they are doing it? Because they are desperate, and, because it's their job.
2013 warmest on record...to quote Texas Ranger "someone didn't love you enough when you were a kid"
-
How predictable.
I mean, it's almost like I said "4merdipshit is going to put me in thread about a website, and then make sure I don't win...buy 'judging' it that way." word for word. Hence: the rhyming. Which, I think all will agree, was not only funny, but a fine response to your transparent set-up.
As I also said: "Hey, I enjoy watching children get a new toy". Or, if I didn't, I should have.So, by all means: run along and play with yours. But...never forget who quite willingly, and knowingly, went out and bought you your new toy.
I just...didn't want to disappoint you on something you clearly had worked so hard at.
Oh? Where? Specifically when and where do I contradict myself?
This will be the 3rd?...well, I've been away a while, it could be the 5th...time I've asked you the same question:
Why do you need 2 separate and distinct speculations..."bottom of the ocean", and "pollution stops pollution" to be true, in order for the AGW theory to be true? If this is all "settled"...then the speculations shouldn't be necessary, yet, here they are. What does your "science mind" tell you about that?
Or, how about we speak, again, to your brilliant...ly obvious speculation: Shouldn't "water holds more energy than air" have been factored in?
Nice short questions, and a nice small post that the ADHD kids can't complain about. Now, who wants to bet on whether this turd(still a turd, as defined) will answer the questions?
=============================
AFA "flashing credentials" (not your post - but someones): People questioned whether I actually had an engineering degree = so I responded.
AFA MBA's: I felt I needed the business education to get where I wanted - so I went back to school to augment my engineering degree. I cannot answer to your personal observations.
AFA various observations on "pauses" etc: http://www.ncdc.noaa.../global/2013/11
- The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for November 2013 was record highest for the 134-year period of record, at 0.78°C (1.40°F) above the 20th century average of 12.9°C (55.2°F).
How we got these rising temps is up to discussion.
Again - I don't understand whether your point is - or others on this board - the rising temperature is not actually happening or whether it is happening and man has nothing to do with it.
My take is that it is happening and human/fossil fuels is the cause. I also maintain that until there is a cost effective alternative to carbon - we should keep using fossil fuels.
- The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for November 2013 was record highest for the 134-year period of record, at 0.78°C (1.40°F) above the 20th century average of 12.9°C (55.2°F).
-
I am an engineer...BSME Clarkson....MBA too..although I have never been a "practicing" PE. Did not read all of it. Seriously not sure what response you are looking for...you contradict yourself so much its tough to even understand what your point is and how you got there.
-
Do we possess the technological capability of producing enough to counteract the effect of bovine flatulence on the global climate, in addition to man-made sources of pollution?
Light a match
-
A point for the Princess Bride reference.
But you didn't actually read all that, did you?
No.
-
Turd: My special PPP name for a poster who refuses, repeatedly, to deal with the reality that's been placed in front of his/her nose.
"To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle." - George Orwell
Let's see if you've responded, properly, to anything I've put in front of your nose. If not? You remain a: turd.
Yeah, now you're getting it: there's no such thing as "independent" on this issue, just as there's no such thing as "scientific".
Oh, so he doesn't get his money from the Oil Companies? Just...y'know...was surprised I didn't hear that "stock" answer, or see you parrot any other made up schit from leftist character assassins.
In order:
1. If it is warming, I can't trust it yet, because of the flat out lies that have been told in terms of the magnitude of the warming...for purely political and personal gain purposes. I need some physicists, economists, and mathematicians to review whatever data comes in from here on out.
2. This doesn't mean I don't think it's possible that it is warming. See...unlike environtologists, I take a: scientific approach to this. But, again, how much/how fast? Those are the questions that matter. IF the planet warms by .1 of a degree over 20 years....we can say that it is warming. However, we can also say: bring back Tar and Feathering for Al Gore.
3. In ALL cases, the $ cycle of Democrat politics and Global Warming Scientists and those with a socialist agenda....is now so obvious that it's not worth talking about. This was finally confirmed by China....making a big show of walking out of the IPCC meetings recently, and taking the little D-bag countries with them....when they found out they weren't going to get their welfare check.
You ask a reasonable question...and follow it with this?
What then...is the picture evidence of? Proof that Dr. Freeze exists? Perhaps this:
is a picture you like better? Yes, Iceman made 553k square miles...of ice...magically appear.
How the F do you account for what is so obviously an UTTER REFUTATION OF YOUR PREDICTION...in the simplest form possible = a before and after picture.
You are confusing simplicity with veracity, and, the presence of the former doesn't preclude the latter.
Interesting. I've never heard anybody try to tell me that "water holds much more energy than air" is the reason why the models have failed.
You would think the creators of the models would have factored "water holds much more energy than air" into their models...prior to completing them. You know...because it's not like that's obvious or anything.
All these scientists, working for years on their models....and the condition they missed, and you didn't....wasn't included.
Truly amazing.
Yes, and in this case? "Everyone" is the the climate scientists and Democrat politicians...who have cried "Conform with our wishes or die a watery death".
No....this is what we call "anecdotal science" especially when we are talking about the climate of a F'ing planet.
I love how "look at dem HURRICANES!"...becomes..."well...this year of course is different" when it's colder than Oprah's snatch out...and, let's not forget the poor English children who will never see the snow.
I love how weather is only "extreme" when it fits the Global Warming narrative.
Do you even see it? Do you understand why this crap causes an empiricist like me....to howl BS?!?!
Again, this IS political, and ALWAYS has been. There's more evidence for this being a leftist political contraption...than there is for the damn warming itself.
We can easily say...a bit of warming may be caused by humans, but, trying to isolate that from natural occurrences, like the F'ing Sun....is darn near impossible. And, that should tell us something: if you can't isolate a variable...what does that say about it's range? Or magnitude....in terms of all the other variables?
Technical people, like me, know the answer to that.
Do you?
Turd: My special PPP name for a poster who refuses, repeatedly, to deal with the reality that's been placed in front of his/her nose.
"To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle." - George Orwell
Let's see if you've responded, properly, to anything I've put in front of your nose. If not? You remain a: turd.
Yeah, now you're getting it: there's no such thing as "independent" on this issue, just as there's no such thing as "scientific".
Oh, so he doesn't get his money from the Oil Companies? Just...y'know...was surprised I didn't hear that "stock" answer, or see you parrot any other made up schit from leftist character assassins.
In order:
1. If it is warming, I can't trust it yet, because of the flat out lies that have been told in terms of the magnitude of the warming...for purely political and personal gain purposes. I need some physicists, economists, and mathematicians to review whatever data comes in from here on out.
2. This doesn't mean I don't think it's possible that it is warming. See...unlike environtologists, I take a: scientific approach to this. But, again, how much/how fast? Those are the questions that matter. IF the planet warms by .1 of a degree over 20 years....we can say that it is warming. However, we can also say: bring back Tar and Feathering for Al Gore.
3. In ALL cases, the $ cycle of Democrat politics and Global Warming Scientists and those with a socialist agenda....is now so obvious that it's not worth talking about. This was finally confirmed by China....making a big show of walking out of the IPCC meetings recently, and taking the little D-bag countries with them....when they found out they weren't going to get their welfare check.
You ask a reasonable question...and follow it with this?
What then...is the picture evidence of? Proof that Dr. Freeze exists? Perhaps this:
is a picture you like better? Yes, Iceman made 553k square miles...of ice...magically appear.
How the F do you account for what is so obviously an UTTER REFUTATION OF YOUR PREDICTION...in the simplest form possible = a before and after picture.
You are confusing simplicity with veracity, and, the presence of the former doesn't preclude the latter.
Interesting. I've never heard anybody try to tell me that "water holds much more energy than air" is the reason why the models have failed.
You would think the creators of the models would have factored "water holds much more energy than air" into their models...prior to completing them. You know...because it's not like that's obvious or anything.
All these scientists, working for years on their models....and the condition they missed, and you didn't....wasn't included.
Truly amazing.
Yes, and in this case? "Everyone" is the the climate scientists and Democrat politicians...who have cried "Conform with our wishes or die a watery death".
No....this is what we call "anecdotal science" especially when we are talking about the climate of a F'ing planet.
I love how "look at dem HURRICANES!"...becomes..."well...this year of course is different" when it's colder than Oprah's snatch out...and, let's not forget the poor English children who will never see the snow.
I love how weather is only "extreme" when it fits the Global Warming narrative.
Do you even see it? Do you understand why this crap causes an empiricist like me....to howl BS?!?!
Again, this IS political, and ALWAYS has been. There's more evidence for this being a leftist political contraption...than there is for the damn warming itself.
We can easily say...a bit of warming may be caused by humans, but, trying to isolate that from natural occurrences, like the F'ing Sun....is darn near impossible. And, that should tell us something: if you can't isolate a variable...what does that say about it's range? Or magnitude....in terms of all the other variables?
Technical people, like me, know the answer to that.
Do you?
Hey Vizzini....I surely cannot battle with your dazzling intellect....I guess I don't have either the IQ or the paranioa to connect the dots between a spike in global temperatures that parallel the rise in fossil fuel use and CO2 concentration that the "left" and academia have somehow collectively conspired to leverage this set of happenstances into greater and greater control of our lives.
Wow...just wow.
-
This is all well and good but it contradicts your prior statement that human use of CO2 is warming the planet. Would youplease just pick a side and stick with it?
I am not sure where and when that happened - but I if we are picking shirts and skins - I have always been on the side that humans burning fossil fuels is likely the cause recent upticks in global temperature - if that was not clear - there you go!
-
So, you're pretty sure that human use of CO2 is warming the planet?
I am not a climate scientist but: Humans have burned everything they can cut down, dig up and suck out of the ground from day 1. This process has lead to making pretty much every humans life quantum leaps better than 100 years ago when oil was first distilled. This burning has almost doubled CO2 concentrations in out atmosphere. Double the CO2 concentration in an aquarium - put it in the sun and the temp goes up more than the norm. This correlates with what we see in our climate both on an observant basis and on an anecdotal basis. This all seems logically "proven" to me.
Stop using fossil fuels = turn back the clock 100 years and reduce the human population through starvation >> not going to happen so worthless to even discuss. That is why I think Al Gore and and GW "movement" are off. Grant them that humans and CO2 are causing global warming...OK...what are the alternatives and the results?.
There is no result right now that results in greater benefit to humans than continuing to use fossil fuels.
The ideal solution to me - and everyone - would be cost competitive non CO2 energy. I think the Federal govt is mistaken to fund solar companies etc that build non cost competitive solutions - all it does is create angst for this technology and it makes no sense as they have no viable business model. That being said - I would be for Fed $ research and development for future energy solutions. We do this for many things - health care....
I think ultimately if you could fully develop nuclear power and add higher efficiency solar power panels (which don't exist yet) with high density energy storage (which also doesn't exist yet) - you have the energy volume access and might have a chance to saw off the cost and ease of use of fossil fuels. Until then - fossil fuels are the way to go.
-
I may buy several for tonight and tomorrow............................
Cheaper than firewood.
.
Oooh - got me but good....Told you I am not an advocate of Al Gore or the movement to stop fossil fuel use....I just believe that CO2 use is warming the planet, the planet will survive just fine, rising temps will cause some problems for the human race - but those problems are far less than stopping the use of fossil fuels/CO2 with the caveat that acidification of the oceans could really really suck
-
So I am a "little man" and a "turd"....sheesh...name calling...really?
1. There are few independent media sources - The Weekly Standard is not one of them - in fact I am not sure who is. The guy has a point that academia is funded to a point - by people who support the researchers views. Lindzen is just another one of them - he gets his $ the same way.
2. I don't get what you guys are trying to posit - are you saying the earth is not warming?
Are you saying it is warming but it is not man? Are you saying it is warming and a large part of the scientific and political community is taking advantage to fund their studies and push for vast geopolitical and socialist changes in worldwide structure?Are you saying it is not warming but nevertheless a large part of the scientific and political community is taking advantage to fund their studies and push for vast geopolitical and socialist changes in worldwide structure?
3. A picture is not evidence of anything - you know that - 2013 was the hottest ground temp in the US - November was the hottest air temperature on Earth on record. As smart guys you should know how to draw lines on a graph and to get good information - one doesn't draw a line for the last 20 percent of the data - but rather draw a line for a trend for 100 percent of the data - kind of makes the 15 year "pause" less of a point.
4. Further - everyone knows that water holds much more energy than air - I think air is 2 percent of the climate energy and water is 98 - and both are components of climate - so one has to add water temp to the total energy contained in our climate - so add both of those components and the trend is unchanged.
Everyone can read data etc...and everyone can choose to mix in politics to explain the current state of affairs.
I see it as this: The earth has warmed - the data shows this and we all have seen anecdotal evidence of warming - I live in southern Erie county and did not use my snow blower once last year - this year of course is different - nevertheless - farmers can tell you that the growing season is 2-3 weeks longer than 20 years ago. The shellfish industry can measure the Ph levels and see how it is reducing the strength of the shells of their harvest - and you can directly show how the new levels of CO2 are changing the oceans acidity. Not rocket science - high school science.
One can say the earth always warms and cools and choose to classify this warming as nature. One can also choose to say that this warming is particularly fast with past warming and cooling trends and research it. Well - humans have pretty much doubled the CO2 concentration in the last 100 years - you can calculate this by how much coal and oil we have used and you can measure it. And - again - a high school science project of an aquarium with differing before/after CO2 levels will show a mimic of our own atmosphere.
Now one can chose to view this through a political prism - I have no answer for that
-
Quoting "there's no reasonable consensus on WHAT impact humans might or might not be happening.
Yet now we're supposed to believe that changes that took thousands of years in the past will now take place in 10 and primarily due to humans? And we're supposed to believe this based on a tiny spec of data relative to the planet's lifecycle? That's just silly and naive.
T. When your cause's #1 spokesman has been proven to be full of sh-- and the only 'solutions' being proposed by politicians are nothing but more money grabs against US taxpayers, how can you still claim it's about science or be surprised when people who aren't lemmings refuse to jump on the bandwagon?
And finally, if you aren't prepared to offer a solution, than what's the point of the debate? And the only solution (assuming you believe humans are the problem), is obviously to dramatically reduce the number of humans. And if you're too PC to suggest a solution for that, then you're simply burying your head in the sand anyway" Unquote
1. There IS reasonable consensus - at least from what I see there is.
2. Well - the change in temperature IS the notable aspect - temperature changes that have taken 1000's of years now are occurring in 100...why is that?
3. I don't have a cause - I am just an observer - Al Gore is not my guy - nor is the GW "industry". In no way am I suggesting that human kind change its ways...it can't - I don't believe that temp changes are the end of the earth's goodness...after all temp change has been part of earth since year one. I think humans have the most to lose as the temp changes...but that's the way it goes. I DO think that if the effects of carbon acidification in the oceans continue (as they are now seeing in the shellfish industry) - that is going to be a real bummer.
4. I don't propose reducing the human population - please don't put words in my mouth.
5. I also can't stand ridiculous stances on GM foods - after all - they have been genetically modified for eons - how are we to feed everyone adequately? You are not going to do it with free range chickens and maize.
My "solution"? Nobody wants to hear anyone else's "solution"....as I said before - humans are just animals with a decision making time horizon of the next 3-5 years really - let alone a lifetime or our kids lifetimes. After all we don't seem to have any qualms spending our kids money (and that's on both parties). Sooner or later it will become more evident that we are sick of paying people to rebuild their homes on the ocean front....sooner or later the climate will move planting zones northward....but none of this will happen so quickly or saliently that humankind will find it necessary or a worth it to stop using fossil fuels - unless something else is cheaper and easier to use.
-
The echo chamber rolls on.....can't believe the scientific community hasn't stumbled on to this thread and apprpriately modifed their views.....November 2013 hottest air temp on record by the way
-
So what do you suggest we do?
Whelp, I think we are just another animal living on this planet....and animals have proven to have a planning horizon only as far as their lifetimes. We have 7 billion people on this planet that depend on fossil fuels to survive...to end man made additions of CO 2 to the atmosphere you would have to accept the aspect that this would entail reducing the human population significantly...this would not happen....so - as I said we are in for a great experiment....Climate has changed tremendously and very recently and creatures have evolved to the new conditions...the animal with the most to lose is probably us....clearly if sea levels rise those living close to the oceans are gonna fight and ulitmately move inland....the great breadbasket of our central plains is going to move northward...ski areas are going to go bust...Phoenix might just become too friggin hot to live....things like that....adapt and move on. As I look at it though...I really think the real bummer is the acidificationof the oceans....the lakes in the Adirondack Park went dead...as in NO fish in the 70-80's from acid rain produced by the coal plants west of their location...as a frequent visitor to their one could really see the damage...Losing the oceans on such a scale would be genuinely disasterous....you can already see the this effect on the Pacific Northwest shell industry...
-
As far as spelling, I use an Ipad which stinks and I don't have my eyeglasses...shoot the messenger huh? As far as credibility, I have none as I am not a climate scientist...are any of you? if 97 percent of them agree on something and their premise seems plausible...I am going with the 97. The majority here seem to think that their basic premise is wrong.
As far as saving polar bears...I made no such claims that we are ruining the planet. Earth has undergone vast and recent temp fluctuations as recently as 15000 years ago where I sit here was under a mile of ice. The earth will survive just fine. I do however think two things about global warming are going to be a bummer. The first is the acidification of the oceans as they absorb CO2...I actually think that might be the biggest aspect no one really talks about. The second factor is this...human population is optimized for the current climate conditions...where we plant food, where we live...etc....as the climate changes this will change and reoptimization is going to be expensive and not unpainful. We have already begun to see the start of this.
At the end of the day, this century or whenever...I don't believe there is a thing we can do to change this great experiment...the entire state of humanity is built on fossil fuels...eliminate them and drop your population by 90 percent...at least....
-
Ok 97 percent. There is really no point in arguing with you guys....you - with your appropriate backgounds have it all figured out and can easily discount the science and math that exists on this subject. Problem for me is I an an engineer and the science is quite simple. Bear in mind that our atmosphere is incredibly thin....by 100,000 feet it is all but gone....20 miles...draw a line from Buffalo to Batavia and point it up.....that is it. So it is pretty easy to see that the enitire humanity burning fossil fuels as fast as they canfor their enitre existance could change that. As far as me going away....why...thought this wasa forum for discussion...don't like poeple who don't agree with you?
The thing about the truth is.....it is always true.
Your 99% statement is a lie.
or should I say lye.
.
-
Warming, cooling, warming, cooling been happening for millions of years. I'm waiting for the definitive science that ties specific man-made causation to the cycle...and waiting...and waiting.
So your dismissing the 99 percent plus of climate scientists who link man made CO2 to climate change?
The echo chamber on this thread is defeaning.
-
True, but how many of those games did we get over midfield and then stall and have to punt instead of getting TDs or FGs like good offensive teams do? Quite often, in addition to many games going three and out on multiple possessions in a row...
Better QB play easily has this team in the playoffs this year
Well we were down to our 4th string UDFA rookie who was 4-22 in college....I agree I think with EJ playing 16 decent if unspectacular games PLUS fixing the primary causes of the loss gets us in playoffs OR don't fix the primary causes of the losses and get a HOF QB....
-
Aint all on the QB….
Let’s look at the games:
Game 1 Pats: Bills lose by 2 in the last 5 seconds. In essence this game was not lost by the QB but by the 2 gift wrapped fumbles in the red zone that we gave to the Pats…and in a sense the Bills inability to stop Brady in the last drive – something that few do - and as well SJ13 not catching that 3rd down pass
Game 2: Bills win over now 12-4 Panthers: QB provides winning drive.
Game 3 Bills lose to Jets: Loss can be pointed to QB play – but our D was devastated with injuries and we gave up huge plays to Geno.
Game 4 Bills win over Ravens: Solid win –unspectacular QB play – in fact both QB’s were mediocre.
Game 5 loss to Browns: EJ was solid and Tuel was not – but the glaring fails in this game were the two long returns on special teams…take those away and a win is probable.
Game 6 loss to Bengals: As above – our QB play was more than sufficient to win the game but horrible special teams (and defensive injuries) played the primary role in this loss.
Game 7 win at Miami: A win with unspectacular QB play.
Game 8 loss to Saints: This was never gonna be a win.
Game 9 loss to KC: The two pic/fum 6’s were the difference. One can point to a win with anything other than a 4th string UDFA starting - and the elimination of 14 points of turnovers.
Game 10 loss to Pgh: EJ was bad – the whole team was bad – ½ of the loss you can point to QB play.
Game 11 win Jets: EJ was very good, Geno was awful.
Game 12 loss to ATL: this loss can be pointed directly to the stone cold hands of SJ and SC – not the QB play which was more than enough to win the game.
Game 13 – loss to TB: The whole team was feeling the effects of the ATL loss and the end of playoff prospects – while the QB play was bad – the whole team was worse.
Game 14 – win – EJ was actually very good – QBR 105 – nothing to complain about.
Game 15 – win – TL was very average and Fish were totally outclassed by Buffalo D.
Game 16 – Loss to NE – Again – the QB play was not really the issue – it was the horrible ST play as well as Dareus being out for the first half and jumping offsides.
So we had 10 losses – I would say only 1 you can point right to QB play.:
2 attributed directly to turnovers deep in our zone or pic 6 (NE week 1, KC).
3 go right to special teams – NE week 17, Browns, Cinci
3 total team collapse – Pitt, TB, NO.
1 goes right to low receiving talent – ATL – and as well SJ13 week one!
And you can take 1 – and hang them on QB play – Jets 1.
Now if you have a Brady – he can overcome – by himself – poor special teams etc…but if you look at NE – they win most of their games with unspectacular QB play (game 16). They don’t make ST errors; they don’t jump offsides, they catch balls in OT and with the game on the line, and they show up for games. The above also doesn’t account for the injuries on D and the MANY drops from SJ and SC.
Point is – the Bills are better off recognizing the primary point of the losses and directing efforts to fix them. I am not saying we are an AFC Championship caliber with EJ - to get there you need another grade up of QB play – but with some simple fixes + solid injury free play – Bills should compete for a playoff spot next year.
Oh - and no way we draft a QB next year - if you say this - do a mock draft and tell us who we would draft and how it would be better than EJ.
-
Yeah, don't let 14 losing seasons get you down!
Heck ....I have been actively watching the Bills since the early seventies....I watch them to have fun..looking for positive things to build on is surely a more rewarding experience than constantly looking for why things won't work.
i have built and sold one company and have built another which is taking off....if you don't discard the negatives and build on the positives you won't get anywhere in building anything successful.....yes it might take years....but thats what you do in life right?
-
No, they're not better. It's not like the Bills have been unlucky, they're a legit boring 6-10 team this year.
Offensively, they're significant worse than Gailey while their defense improved.
They're pretty much at the same level as the Jauron teams. Above average defense, lousy offense, no QB, team that irrationally loves their coach.
Why do you follow this team.....all your posts are a wet blanket...being a fan is supposed to be fun....if you are so down on them why wouldn't you just forget about them and come back when you percieve something positive in them?
-
Criminy - So much silliness.....If TL were the "starter" and EJ was the back -up underdog the same group that are Thadaholics now would be EJ maniacs - They would point to TL's inaccuracy - they fact he had four years to do something and the rest of the NFL gave up on him....why are we sticking with him, the defense bailed him out yesterday...when we have EJ ready to come in - who has show good things in spite of missing practice most of the season EJ is our future!!!....blah blah blah...
The back-up QB always has the benefit of the doubt because its a win-win for them - look reasonable and you are the answer- because you are the back up and you weren't' necessarily expected to do well ....play like a back up and you did because that is what you are. For Cripe sake - if EJ had the same performances TL had against Miami - the same TL supporters would be pointing out in game one the horrible QBR (29) and in the second game the D handed the game to him.
On the other hand - EJ has the burden of having to look like a "franchise" QB every time he plays - and every aspect of him is gauged against Wilson, Luck....TL - not so much because we got him for nothing....but TL "shows more emotion....!!!"
EJ is exactly (minus the knee) what he was predicted - great potential - gonna take a couple of years.
I love all the Alex Smith fans who point to him - he stink stank stunk for 5 years......now he is captain check down (also 2-4 in his last 6 games) but EJ checking down means will never amount to anything.....
Bills are NOT going to draft a QB this year - no way - no how - unless EJ has a career ending injury next week.
-
Jeez I thought Florio took a softball cheap shot at our Bills.....he basically crapped on every team in that write up......Merry Christmas!
Setting up the Global Warming lies to come
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Thought I was an "idiot" a " turd" and also a "s/;;(ty" engineer.
I get what you guys are saying..... I just don't agree with it.