Jauronimo
-
Posts
13,845 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Jauronimo
-
-
I ignore friend requests from anyone I work with and all family members except my sister and bro/sis-in-law. Who needs the hassle?
You can also block someone from following you (i.e., the annoying family members and co-workers you don't really want reading the crap you post/tweet).
While that feature is nice it opens up the "why won't you friend me," can of worms. You can only claim you didn't get the request so many times before they catch on to that. And if you come clean and tell them that you don't want them to see your profile, people are usually hurt. FB, although much more slick these days, is a shell of its former glory.
-
:doh:Peteski isn't in to the whole solstice thing. He's more of an equinox kinda guy.
-
Now i could be wrong, but if someone hates twitter so much, you ARE in fact allowed to not follow someone who annoys you. But i guess its more fun following people who bother you and then bitching about it.
It has its uses. Its great for breaking news, and for following sporting events if you aren't in front of the TV. You can get much more from twitter than from a simple play-by-play or box score. Its also great for keeping up with friends and sending out messages to a group fo people. Its free text messaging.
Thanks for the tip. I do not have an account and do not follow anyone on Twitter.
-
depends on who's twitter it is. Schefter is right roughly 80% of the time. For the media, twitter is just a way to break a news story before writing a full article/segment to go in more depth. Like a teaser. It is just a promotion tool to bang out headlines.
So far, others in the media are confirming that schefter is right about this, so..... yeah. if you think donte and schefter use twitter the same way, then that is just wrong.
I have no issue with the way Shefter and a few others use Twitter nor am I questioning Shefters reliability. I still think Twitter is a one dimensional and redundant application. Facebook already had status updates. Why do we need Twitter? It does nothing that existing technology didn't already cover and offers nothing unique.
-
Here's how your list looks for people under 30:
1. Text
2. Email
3. Facebook
4. Phone call
5. Tweet.
...
100. Snail mail
Is 27 under 30? I ranked them in terms of convenience and effectiveness. I too text and email more than I call. I stay away from FB because its not fun anymore. I don't need updates on my ex's, and I don't care what some friend of a friend of a friend thinks about poptarts, the weather, Bush/Obama. FB was amazing at first. It had just gone live when I was in college and it was basically a big contest to be the most crude, disgusting, drunken slut on campus. Now my family, coworkers, boss and their children are on board and the party is over. I can't tell a joke without offending 10,000 people I've never met or getting a call from my aunt asking what "teabagging" means. You can barely even use it to stalk hot girls anymore. Pathetic.
-
Frankly, I learned a long time ago not to trust those who tweet for a living.
Did Donte burn you with the Super Bowl ticket giveaway too? And to think I followed that jerk!
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that Twitter is really just a medium for idiots to communicate with other idiots for the amusement of the rest of us. Am I missing a greater significance? Is Twitter capable of more but its just been co-opted by idiots. My heirarchy of communication forms is below:
1. Phone call
2. Text
3. E-mail
4. Snail mail
5. semiphor/morse
6. facebook
7. mime
8. interpretative dance
9. carrier pigeon
10. Chatroullete
11. Twitter
12. cup-and-string
-
I do emphasize Gailey's record as a Bills head coach, but his record career wise isn't all that good. Over his career Gailey is 22-26. the two he is being compared with not only won superbowls but had winning career records..569 for Parcells and .700 for Gibbs.
Where does he stand right now against the coaches in the league right now? He took a mediocre team and failed to fill the obvious holes, move in free agency, changed to a 3-4 without the personnel, made some strange trades, and ended up with a bad team.
Maybe this is a part of a bigger strategy and I hope it is. But going on what we have I think 29 is kind of generous.
What I've tried to point out repeatedly is that evaluating a coach on only wins and losses, without considering all other factors, is too simplistic. As is your approach of "9-7 or better in 2 years or you're fired." I've provided several high profile examples which I thought would illustrate the shortcomings in your evaluation. I've demonstrated that great coaches with multiple super bowl wins to their credit, can have losing seasons. Given that great coaches can have losing seasons, it must follow that there are other factors at play in determining wins and losses other than coaching. Therefore, it is not necessarily true that a coach with ONE losing season is a bad coach.
Gailey was handed a team that has been run into the ground due to poor management. The main criticisms of Gailey all seem to revolve around personnnel decisions, which are NOT his responsibility. It is my contention that Belichek, Gibbs, Parcells or even Lombardi would produce similar results if they were head coach of the Bills last season. I'm not saying Gailey is a great coach, or even a good coach. I don't know enough about his approach, his in game adjustments, and haven't seen enough to judge his effectiveness as a coach. I know far less about the other 31 coaches in the NFL, so I won't even try to rank them.
If Gailey is one of the worst coaches in football, which may be true, someone please break down the flaws in his strategies, preparation, adjustments or lack thereof, etc. instead of just peddling out the "he won 4 games" line. I don't know anything about coaching a football team (played hockey), but I do know that the conversation needs to be steered in a different direction.
-
hmm Vince Lombardi, Belichik, Parcells, Gibbs...what do they all do as head coaches that Chan Gailey hasn't had? Oh...yeah...superbowl wins....and a remarkable career of WINNING.
Chan...so far his head coach career is one of LOSING.
Hope it changes but it is what it is.
Right. But your approach states that a coach is only as good as his record and only seems to include the most recent sample. Gailey took the Cowboys to the playoffs twice and last year finished 4-12, and you declared he's the worst coach in the NFL and a loser. So clearly you're of the mind set that a coach is only as good as his last season. To expand the discussion I brought up coaches with a demonstrated history of success who had bad years recently, as well as a coach who has enjoyed incredible success after a disastrous stretch with the Browns, and asked you if Gibbs and Parcells are bad coaches. The question remains.
-
2011 Draft
Rd Sel# Pos. School
1 3 Dareus, M. DT Alabama
2 34 Williams, A. CB Texas
3 68 Sheppard, K. ILB LSU
4 100 Searcy, D. SS North Carolina
4 122 Hairston, C. OT Clemson
5 133 White, J. RB North Carolina
6 169 White, C. ILB Mississippi State
7 206 Rogers, J. CB Richmond
7 245 Jasper, M. DT
Jasper is from Tennesee. Tennesee was a border state in the War of Northern Agression and, althought it had a star in the Stars and Bars, it was the last state to seceed from the union and the eastern half of the state was pro-union. All the rest of the players from from solid confederate southern states. Gailey will not be sure if he can trust Jasper and may quiz him on what strain of crowder peas and okra he prefers. You heard it hear first.
I think its obvious that this post is more slanderous libel from the midget propaganda machine. They've had it out for Jasper ever since he may have doubted their existence.
-
Heretic! The OP should be excommunicated from the board!
-
it isn't about liking, it isn't about whether he has been "held back" or got screwed over other places....its about WINNING and LOSING. Right now he's a loser who didn't make the playoffs. When he makes the playoffs we can start talking about him being in the top third. When he gets to the superbowl we can rank in him in the top six, and when he actually wins a superbowl he can make a case of being a premier coach. Right now? loser...we can argue whether that makes him 32 or 29, but he's where he's supposed to be.
That approach seems pretty narrow and overly simplistic. I guess Joe Gibbs is a loser due to his last stint in Washington. Parcells is definitely a loser from his last seasons in Miami. Belichek was a giant loser in Cleveland. Did Gibbs and Parcells lose their touch? If so, how? Did Belichek have an epiphany of sorts after Cleveland which translated in to Super Bowl wins in New England? What was it? Or is there just more to each of their stories'?
If Vince Lombardi in his prime were on the Bills sideline they still would not have made it to the playoffs last season. Would that make him a loser?
-
Perhaps there is a lesson that true stars are those who make the players around them better and allow them to step up and shine at the right moments. To me the difference between Manning and Brady is that Manning is hands down a better QB in virtually every aspect of the game. However, Brady somehow makes the players around him play better and you see the difference in SB wins produced.
Jordan was a great player not merely due to his unparalleled physical gifts but because he somehow got his "supporting cast" to play their best and at times above their heads. Rich is better than poor so you wanna be rich. You do want stars.
However, while I will be surprised if LeBron never wins a championship I will not be shocked after seeing them brushed aside somewhat easily by a better in team in 7 game (excuse me 6) series.
Manning is arguably the best QB ever. However, even with the best GM in the game putting together a great ST game, the best kicker in the game, an outstanding WR, and all Manning's team was clearly not good enough to win even 1 SB. I took getting the best defensive minded HC in the NFL to put some stud players like Freeney and Saunders into a position where they finally one one SB.
Stars are necessary but clearly no where near sufficient to win an SB.
Even more ironically since under the salary cap its hard to be great everywhere a team likely has to choose where they are going to be weak. The 85 Bears and the Ravens led by Lewis and Trent Dilfer (for gosh sake) indicate that when you look for your start D may be a better place to have your star than O.
Perhaps there is no lesson here. Or at least no lesson to be found in your post. No one has ever disputed the merit of star players, or their effect on their teammates play. The lesson that can be learned from the Heat experiment, and one that has been learned repeatedly in other professional sports, is that star power without chemistry does not guarantee results. The Mavs are a great team and the sum is greater than their parts. The Heat are also a great team, but Wade, Bosh and Lebron failed to realize their full potential. The sum is less than their respective parts.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the rest of your post. Were you going for some kind of stream of consciousness thing? Is it a riddle?
-
Who do you think is advocating a free market approach here and who do you think prefers a more socialist approach based on a compact of a group.
It is the players who if they win the lawsuit the game continues as it is for us fans.
If the owners instead prevail in the court case it means a truncated season if not a couple of years where the action is in the courts and not on the field.
You do understand this don't you?
As a by-product of the lockout, individual players in Brady et al have filed suit and demanded that the NFL team owners use a free market approach and sign individual personal services contracts.
One of the faults I find with the NFLPA is that they have colluded with the team owners to completely abridge the rights of individual players to live where they choose to live and instead they are forced by the NFL draft to negotiate with one and only one team.
For those who want to uphold individual rights over forced negotiations created by the team owners simply begging the NFLPA to come back after the last lockout if you are worried about individuals being told what to do then opposing the owners is where you should be.
I can honestly say that I haven't the slightest clue what you're getting at.
-
The owners really add very little to the quality of the product and the main reason why they get anything is that they used to own it all and its hard to confiscate wealth from rich people in this society.
Yes, it is time for wealth redistribution. I have a series of 5 year plans designed to bring this country into the modern age. Everything old will be forbidden. Land owners are the enemy of the state, and their wealth will be shared among the working class. I'll hand out the little red books this weekend. Portraits of Hplarrm will be hung in every household.
-
Why aren't high character, sportsmanship and "locker room guy" included in the Madden rankings? The Bills would be ranked much higher in Madden if EA would finally add those categories.
-
He's already getting measurements for the yellow jacket
Don't be ridiculous. Of course Jasper will go to at least 10 pro bowls and win 5 or more defensive MVP awards, but he will NOT win the Masters. He doesn't have the short game for Augusta, hes more of a links player. Get your facts straight!
-
I'm not sure what player traits are, I thought madden used a point system?
Madden does use a point system which is pretty controversial. Some say the rankings are abritray and question their validity.
-
No. To draw a conclusion simply based on stats whether you limit yourself to SB wins or you limit yourself to numeric comparisons like QB ratings (or some number which makes this up) are both stupid. An argument which focuses merely upon SB win success (where Brady clearly outshines Manning) or on raw offensive stats (be it OR merely on offensive numbers produced (Manning clearly outshines Brady if one attempts to reduce the comparison down to TDs throw, yardage wracked up or some other single statistical or combo like QB rating.
It strikes me that a far better estimation is general QB prowess might be found in judging how the other player would be if he was at the helm of the opponents team. My guess is that Indy with Brady would still be good. NE with Manning however would likely make 1 SB at best.
I would conjecture that the use of statistics and other measurables in analyzing and comparing the two players would be a more fruitful exercise than speculating on what could happen if the players were to trade places. I was trying to point out that all stats should be considered and that no single metric holds the answer to the question.
That said there really aren't any stats I can point to backup my gut feeling on the matter. Both are great players by any measure. Both have benefited from playing on good teams and landing with well run organizations. I'm just more impressed with Peyton's play and individual achievements. He really runs that offense, makes reads at the line and decides the play (as I understand it the coordinator calls in 3 or 4 plays and he chooses). His totals and stats are on pace to shatter every record in the book. For that reason I lean towards Manning.
There's something about NE and Belichek's system that seems to produce great QB play no matter who is under center. Bledsoe goes down and Brady becomes super bowl MVP. Brady goes down and Cassel steps up and almost makes the pro bowl in his first action since highschool. Neither Bledsoe or Cassel looked as good post New England. I'm not saying Brady would be average on another team or he is merely a system QB.
Both guys have the same weakness. Get a few shots on them and they start to unravel. Brady's aura took a big blow in that playoff game against the Jets. He looked like he quit out there. Manning gets down on his teammates when he gets hit, Brady whines to any ref who will listen. For the first 16 games I'll take Manning. In the big game I think Brady is a little tougher mentally.
I think both guys would each have another super bowl ring if their teams weren't so pass happy and had a more balanced attack. NE won 3 super bowls with screen passes and winning the time of possession. When they started running 4 wide every play they came up short. Indy also won the super bowl the only time they had a legit running game out of the backfield.
-
Okay I don't want to embarass the guy who wrote this, but I hafta quote this one
"Poz is washed up. He sucks and at age 26, hes far too old. Merriman is only 27 and still young"
CLASSIC LOGIC. Chalk one up for the Cheektowaga School System.....
laughin myAss off
U gotta problum wit da Warriors pal? I playd second string long snapper for all 7 years of highscool. U dont want nun of me pal, un less you like nuckle sammiches in ya face! I bet yous never even playd ball. You probly was on da feeld hocky team so yous cud wear a dress.
Cheektowaga High class of 2000. Well ackchually class of 2002 but I stop goin in da tenfth graid. Dat place was a scam.
-
I'm pretty sure the Cheektowaga school system and their language arts department taught the concept of irony and satire. I'm guessing the schools you attended didn't or perhaps you were absent that day? Jauronimo was making a good point in a creative way. Not enough of that around here.
GO BILLS!!!
While I appreciate the vote of confidence, I'm not sure my point was very good after reading your pretty thorough analysis of both Poz's and KW's play. I'm interested to know if, in your opinion, Poz is a significant upgrade over guys like Torbor and Davis? Do we lose anything when he is not in the lineup? It will definitely be interesting to see what kind of money Poz is looking for and how much interest there will be for him.
For some reason (don't remember why) I assumed the plan was to stick KW at NT while Troup developed and then move Kyle over to end where he would be better suited. Again, it looks like I was pretty far off the mark. If Troup or the other, who's name need not be mentioned, turn out to be the true 2 gap NT we need, does KW fit into this D? In this hybrid defense did the Bills relegate KW to a part time role player?
-
While theoretically considerable this approach goes off the track pretty quickly. The ultimate argument for Brady is simply one of reality that when one stacks up SB appearances and wins there is no comparison between the two that in reality Brady has been a far more successful QB than Manning. Case closed end of story for those rooted in reality.
So in reality Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson, Mark Rypien and Eli Manning are every bit as good as Favre, Peyton and Brees, but none of the aforementioned are as good as Phil Simms and Roethlisberger? Looks like the who's won more Super Bowls approach went off the tracks pretty quickly too.
-
I love hyperbolic sarcasm and posts dripping with satire. Well done. And at the risk of inspiring more of your unique wit (seriously, it's good stuff so keep 'em coming) I'll attempt to respond to the football aspects of your post.
KW is a perfect 1-gap NT in a 34. But that's no surprise given how well he plays as a 3 technique in the 43. However, to maximize his talents as a 1 gap NT he MUST be supported by DEs that can get down the line as well as have ILBs that can shoot the gap he vacates on a given play. Our DEs and LBs were terrible in that regard last season especially. Moving KW to DE seems like a waste of time. His short arms and frame would be a liability in space against long-armed tackles. I think he'd have problems getting off blocks and would be even worse at setting an edge as a result. I don't think we'd be strengthening DE as much as weakening our DT position. That said, if anyone with short arms and body CAN play 34 DE it might be KW.
As for our LBs they are terrible as a group. Ayodele's best days are behind him. Batten is a total unkown. Maybin hasn't shown a thing. Moats can't play the run to save his life and Kelsay has no business even lining up at OLB. That leaves Davis and Poz. Davis is long in the tooth and was nothing special, although his leadership and experience is a huge plus. Same for Poz, but other than his intangibles I don't see consistent good play over his four seasons to suggest he's anything special regardless of scheme. He routinely over pursues, takes bad angles, can't shed blocks very well, and is a liability in pass coverage, especially in the 34. Merriman, if fully recovered automatically becomes our best LB and the best OLB we've had in a while. But his health is a big if.
We can have negative opinions on a player's ability and not be running him out of town. It's a simple honest assessment. Hell, who better than a fan to want to have positive outlooks? I WANT to believe all our players are good. After watching Poz for three years in a 43 and not being impressed, I was looking forward to how he would play in a 34. He was just as undisciplined and his already poor pass defense was even more of a liability given the added responsibility the 34 presents. His limitations were magnified by the poor play of our DEs. For Poz to excel, he needs perfect play up front most of the time. And that's the very definition of an ordinary player.
We have too many ordinary players and nearly every position on the D side of the ball is eligible for an upgrade. Including Poz.
GO BILLS!!!
Nice breakdown K-9. Its certainly much more football analysis than I could provide. I agree that Poz is pretty ordinary, but I find it hard to believe that he rides the bench on every other team. My posts were in reaction to the people who advocate cutting every player who doesn't make the pro bowl. Over the last 2 years this team has had to pick up guys off the street to play LB. Its not a position the Bills have much talent or depth at. Letting Poz walk , or claiming he's not worth it, when we don't even know what the kind of money is on the table seems absurd.
-
It's obvious isn't it? He's big, strong and fast. He looks like Mark Henry, so he's got to be awesome. Jasper is a nice guy and will be just as great within the community as Pat. Just like Pat, Jasper was bypassed by every team multiple times. Looking at all this convinces me that Jasper = Pat Williams.
End sarcasm
You're out of your mind! Pat Williams is too short and his arms aren't long enough to play DT. He will never be a player in this league. He only looked good because he's had solid LBs behind him his whole career. Cutting Pat was the best move the franchise ever made. Jasper is orders of magnitude better than Pat.
-
Admittedly, I have reservations about Williams playing DE in a 3-4. I'm not against trying him out there (once, as you said, the team is confident it has a capable NT in the fold), I just worry that his relatively short arms and overall lack of length/height might hurt him in that role. Then again, his lack of weight didn't exactly cripple him as a 3-4 NT, so I suppose it'd be silly to assume he can't play 5-tech.
Don't back down now. What was true then is true now. HE DOESN'T FIT THE PROTOTYPE! Playing a guy at DE who's arms are an inch too short is like bringing a banana to a knife fight. Grind him into meat!
Poz is washed up. He sucks and at age 26, hes far too old. Merriman is only 27 and still young, so even though he can't get on the field, hes better than Poz. Ayodele, Davis, Moats, Batten, Maybin and Kelsay are worth keeping but GET RID OF POZ! Even though Poz has been the best LB on the team since his rookie season, he wouldn't start on any other team in the league. I know Kawika Mitchell started for the Super Bowl winning Giants, and Poz is better than Mitchell, but Poz would not start on any team in the league. Although I have no knowledge of the money Poz expects, I'm certain its too much. Remove all mention of Poz from the books and airbrush his photo from all team propaganda. Anyone who speaks his name should be sent to the gulag.
Schefter twittering deal in the works
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Are people still doing that?