Juror#8

We're now almost 65% of the way into the season. Any epiphanies, clarifications, changes-of-mind, or simply new thoughts on the matter? Cliff's notes of my post below - I'm not sure there has even been a quantifiable difference on defense from last year, but I believe that there would have been a difference on offense with Green. We're light year's away from a good defense. We're maybe a piece or two away from a potent offense. The "win now" crowd may think that Green was the better option. Me - I still like the pick....a lot! He is a force on the line. He definitely needs some help around him. I'll admit that he has been underwhelming at times. I know he is only 10 games in...but sometimes he seems kinda flash-in-the-pan-ish. I realize that this will rub the "Line Enthusiasts" the wrong way. But a spade is a spade. With that said, and seeing as how we have local intramural players starting at WR, I couldn't be mad in retrospect about an AJ Green pick. This is not "he *must* be better because he is shown on ESPN highlights" commentary. It is based on what I feel would have been impactful this year for this team. The d-line has still been a sieve. The run defense has still been trash. There is little push in the middle. This despite Dareus being the pick. I'M NOT SAYING IT'S ALL HIS FAULT. IN FACT, HE IS DOING EVERYTHING THAT HE CAN TO MAINTAIN DIGNITY FOR THE LINE. He needs help in order for his potential to be fully realized. The injuries have hurt. That is well understood. My point is that with Green we would have had an offense that wasn't so one dimesional. Maybe we could have continued to win shoot-outs....at least. Right now (though we have a defensive stud) we have an impressively BAD defense AND an anemic offense to boot.

Yep...Ralph decided that giving Dick an extention after the team dispatched such NFL heavyweights as St. Louis, Oakland, Seattle, and Jacksonville was a great idea. This even though we were pummeled by Arizona. Ralph was almost vindicated when they came out of the bye week with a win over San Diego (who finished 8-8 that season btw). But then the season became a $h!* storm...much like this season is becoming.

I see that you have a discerning eye and great taste in cinema.

Reading this makes my head spin. Why couldn't they have waited through more divisional games! How you play versus the division, especially in the cold season, tells the tale.

Exactly, the situation with the line necessitates a mobile QB. Fitz is mobile but has suspect accuracy when in the pocker. It is made even worse when he is scrambling outside the pocket. And though Fitz is mobile, he's certainly not fast or particularly elusive. Great feature btw!

Good catch, he was at the time of the article though. Case Keenum is legit but he isn't the athlete that Griffin nor does he have the arm. Also, he plays in Conference USA so that may embellish his numbers a bit.

We definitely have tons of holes in the lineup. There is definitely a dearth of talent. And I'm concerned that, institutionally, this team has trouble developing talent (or has in the past). I'm just hoping that a rare talent like RG3 can overcome those issues, and get this team going in the right direction. We have a few pieces to build with (Freddy, Dareus, Wood, Ubrick, Levitre, KWill, Sheppard, Barnett). Our skill players suck. Secondary sucks. Lines...suck. I'm just hoping that we can attract some FAs to supplement holes if we can dangle some bling. RG3 is the bling. For example, a veteran FA WR will not come here to play with Fitz. Remember Tony Gonzalez's criteria when he was team shopping? If we can set ourselves at QB, we will find that FA acquisitions will become easier and the benefits will be seen in other areas.

The guy has a cannon arm and throws a zip-tight spiral. I noticed a floater in the OK game but no more than I see from Luck (and Griffin has a stronger arm that Luck). And if you want to discuss the occassional wounded duck - talk Matt Barkley. Check out the clip at :34, 1:51, 2:25 (the ball travels 50 yards in the air with just a shuffle of the feet), 5:35. And we're not talking about a team with superior skill players at the WR and RB spots: One of the things that he will need to work on at the pro level is a more complex read progression but he is demonstrating more of that during this, his junior, year.

So....you don't draft the best QB in the draft because we don't have a line for him to play behind? WR for him to throw to? That is mis-priortizing. Doesn't it make sense to draft the QB, and let him sit behind a similarly intelligent (though skills deficient) QB in Fitz while we solidify the lines and bring in skill players to supplement what is, admittedly, a team with a derth of talent EVERYWHERE! Also, and it seems that people miss this point, FEW freeagents will want to come here if we don't have players with some semblance of name recognition. Reggie White only went to Green Bay because they had Favre. Players wanted to play with Peterson in Minnesota. When a team is geographically challenged, they have to use an element of subterfuge to attract free agents. Western NY is a wonderful place. The people are great. It's peaceful. But to rich athletes, its not the jimmy jam. So in that respect, we're geographically challenged. Robert Griffin will be the best player in the 2012 draft. Because he's a black QB, he's silhoutted in the huge shadows of Luck and Barkley; therefore he'll be an after-thought. We need this guy. We need his skills. And we need the magnetism that a transformational QB will lend with respect to attracting free agents and a broader talent pool. We can keep bull-&*&$*% around with 300 lb 20 year olds, hoping that the windfall financial gain doesn't affect their ability to effectively anchor a line and guard a blind-side, or we can draft a guy who already has a demonstrable skill set as well as the ideal combination of athletic, character, leadership, academic, and maturity qualities that is LITERALLY once in a generation.

He has been very consistent and has played well every week. The only game that he had more ints than tds was in the Oklahoma State game (1 td, 2 int) but he tossed for 425 yards and a 66% completion percentage. He is a true pocket QB and has precise accuracy. TCU W 50-48 21 27 359 77.8 64 5 0 250.6 10 38 3.8 14 0 9/17 Stephen F. Austin W 48-0 19 21 265 90.5 66 3 0 243.6 8 78 9.8 35 0 9/24 Rice W 56-31 29 33 338 87.9 64 5 0 223.9 6 51 8.5 22 1 10/1 @Kansas State L 36-35 23 31 346 74.2 43 5 1 214.7 12 6 0.5 14 0 10/8 Iowa State W 49-26 22 30 212 73.3 25 1 0 143.7 24 107 4.5 17 1 10/15 @Texas A&M L 55-28 28 40 430 70.0 77 3 1 180.0 12 15 1.3 11 0 10/29 @Oklahoma State L 59-24 33 50 425 66.0 72 1 2 136.0 16 27 1.7 9 1 11/5 Missouri W 42-39 27 41 406 65.9 68 3 0 173.2 19 53 2.8 15 1 11/12 @Kansas W 31-30 (OT) 22 29 312 75.9 67 3 1 193.5 10 103 10.3 49 1 11/19 Oklahoma W 45-38 21 34 479 61.8 87 4 0 218.9 18 72 4.0 24 0

I'm just hoping that Nix is doing his homework and that there is no dismissiveness based on 'black qb stereotypical type-casting.' He is not the one to box into any stereotypical category. Ever.

Nix should draft him with their first round pick in the 2012 draft. This guy is better than Andrew Luck and will make a better pro. He leads the nation in completion percentage, tds, and is second in passing efficiency. He has accomplished this while making the dean's list every semester. He graduated in 3 years with a degree in Poli-Sci and will have his Master's degree in Communications in the Spring. He graduated from high school early and was class president. He is an aspiring Olympic sprinter. He's smart, accurate, mature, experienced... His line against #5 Oklahoma - 21/34 479 yards, 4 TD, 0 int Please read the article below: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/big12/story/2011-10-13/baylor-robert-griffin-cover/50765420/1 Drafting RG3 is how this team begins to turn its decade long mis-fortune around.

Yeah. I think it would be extremely naive of us, 3rdnlng, to imagine that these new developments are going to cause any change in Fox News expansionist policy. I mean, we must be... increasingly on the alert to prevent them from taking over other mass-media space, in order to breed more prodigiously than we do, thus, knocking us out in superior numbers when we emerge! 3rdnlng, we must not allowwwww a deliberative media gap!

With respect to Seattle and Kansas City, they probably didn't think that building on last years playoff runs (with mediocre teams and, consequently, corresponding draft choices) entailed a 3-6, and 4-5 record [respectively] halfway through the season. Seriously, please read the entire thread. Option added. Please see above.

I think that his point is well taken. Fox gave some pub to this issue. But it's always the "lib media." Surprised Magox hasn't jumped in with his "boogie man" theory. Oh, that's right, you're advocating for conservatives and the "truth" is not an 'a priori,' nor is it objective. Its pendulum only swings in a conservative direction. Just kidding...

*PLEASE READ ENTIRE POST BEFORE RESPONDING* Does anyone else not want the Bills to back their way into the playoffs? There is something inherently wrong with cheering for another team to lose only because your team is not winning and that dynamic keeps you in playoff contention. I know there will be a strong contingent of "making it into the playoffs breeds a mentality of winning and continued playoff appearances," but really? How did that work out for Seattle? Kansas City? __________? ___________? We really have holes to fill and backing into the playoff race on technicalities with a team not built for the run is self-defeating. We need to supplement the roster with talent that reflects where we actually stand vis-a-vis EVERYONE else. Backing into the playoffs destroys, mispresents, confuses, alters that construct which is aimed at guaranteeing parity over time. The team is building something nice. And 10 years obviously sours people to the notion of "building." And I know that gems can be found in different stages of the draft. But the safer go, the stronger percentage, and where I'd be more comfortable betting on, is in an area of the draft where talent exists that can best impact a teams fortunes immediately. And you can save the "but Maybin, but Marshawn, but McKelvin..." jokes. That is a function of a bad administration. The point is is that a better talent pool was there at that point than was there 15 pics later. It's all averages. Now if we WIN and make the playoffs, WONDERFUL! But getting in because others in the division around us are losing and we pull off 3 or 4 wins against crap talent in crap ways down the stretch it will do more harm than good.

The question is will people take something from their "knowledge" gained with respect to future drafts. Not to thread jack, but the volume of "Cam Newton is Jamarcus Russell - redux" threads was over-whelming. He has been anything but; and though a few have owned up to their mistakes, the prominent "Jamarcus Russell redux" voices have been conspicuously quiet. Hmmmm..... By the way, this is the opening salvo in my dedicated push for the Bills to draft Robert Griffin III! I imagine that if I mention his name enough, there will be a natural acceptance/acclimation process. I figure that some people here have to get used to the idea of a black QB in advance.

I've heard about more than I've seen. It is characterized as "voluminous" in description. What I've seen is a lot of Bain Capital stuff; a lot of Ted Kennedy stuff; his flip-flops on his abortion stances; and no one has touched the surface of his health-care flip flops... et cetera Essentially, it is enough to suppress turnout....considerably. I'm not sure why people are so numb to that. They think that it's trivial. It's not. Erikson put it best: "Ive been reading the 200 pages of single spaced opposition research from the John McCain campaign on Mitt Romney. There is no issue I can find on which Mitt Romney has not taken both sides. He is neither liberal nor conservative. He is simply unprincipled. The man has no core beliefs other than in himself." And read some of George Will's points on Romney just for fun. Good thing is is that Romney has Yvan Yost as his research guru. Yost is probably the best there is. He accumulated the opp research on Romney for McCain. Cunning move Williard.

He did tout universal healthcare on the campaign trail. In fact, he advocated what can be described as a single-payer system during debates and on the stump. Also, during the months leading up to Nov, 2008, he was discussing to everyone who would listen a billion-dollar stimulus plan (I believe that it went from 100, to 175, to 400 billion on the trail) that centered on a tax rebate. Granted, it ballooned waaaaay beyond the original projections, but the construct was the same. What makes him less palatable now, that you weren't aware of then?

I was opining. I've acknowledged that I was opining on myriad occassions. I did, however, mention that I felt that you believed that what you were saying was factual and not of the variety of "opinion." 52% of that is my actual belief, 41% is an effort at being sardonic, and the other 7% is still undecided. I saw the "if" and other conditioned statements. My point about your style and the mock narrative that you *were* having with "the political wind" was not based on whether or not you conditioned the statement about Rubio. I was making a broader point about our effort towards dialectic. And concerning your belief that the WH is concerned about Mitt...you're still wrong. But we can agree to disagree. I'll just disagree more right than you.

1. I believe that if you look at the polls in the aggregate, Obama is leading all the candidates - most outside the margin of error. I wish Gingrich was held in higher esteem. His intellectual conservatism is actually what this country needs right now as a counter-agent. 2. It is somewhat humorous how you feel that poll trends are boiler-plate. It is naive, but also cute (in the tea-cup chihuahua sense of "cute"). 3. Not sure what knowledge you called out. If I remember correctly, you hummed on my balls numbly about how the WH was worried about Mitt. I was contrarian (with respect to the entire forum as a choir in your corner) and provided my reasons for intellectual disagreement with you. Your belief was predicated on unidentified polls of independents 12 months ahead of the election. I pointed out the flaw with your reasoning. You countinued humming. I enjoyed the moment. As an aside, it's funny how you either discount or accentuate polls based on whether or not you need them to augment your thesis. 4. I've been very direct in saying that I HAVE NO CONTACTS of consequential moment or significance. I have some good conversations with people whose job it is to be slightly ahead of pedestrian traffic with respect to WH/political strategy and logistics. 5. Happy Monday folks.

MAGOX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I missed you! You have to let a brotha know if you plan to take a sabbatical. I've had to correspond with OCin Buffalo who, while pleasant, lacks that je ne sais quoi that you exude like pheromones and bug nymphs. Good thing is, like OC, you're arguing with yourself so it makes it easy for me to counter-point you: 1. I plainly said that polls are about as useful as a long tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs at this juncture of the political season. 2. Your third sentence (first full paragraph) is basically you opining and spitting declarative statements as if they're fact(s). While I've opined considerably too, the difference between you and me is that I realize that I'm offering an opinion. I actually believe that you feel that you can affect the course of political events by just saying so. Magox: "Mitt will pick Rubio." Political wind: "Make it so." Magox: "When Mitt picks Rubio, he will win by ___." Political wind: "Make it so." 3. "Amateur hour" was a reference to OC's frequent utilization of the straw man tactic. Please go back and read when I tossed out that gem of passive-aggressiveness. 4. And then you ended with a false dichotomy. You're in rare form today. OC is the king of the straw men. You're eating with Morton's fork. I missed you. Did you vote for Obama in 08?

When did I call you a neo-conservative. This is your problem, you mischaracterize someone's words, and then argue the point that you made up yourself and attributed to someone else. When you successfully argue the bastardized point, you claim some sense of victory. But the only thing that you've achieved is arguing against a point that you created. You were arguing with yourself. And you won! My opinion: YOU WILL NOT ACKNOWEDGE THIS POINT. You will quote everything else that I write because you can't acknowledge when you're wrong. But it's on record. I never called you a neo-conservative. I even mentioned "as an aside" to take the conversation off course momentarily. My comment about the constitution was to make an ideological point. Most people usually don't realzie that their constitutional ideologies conflict. Just trying to see if your's does. It was completely off topic and irrelevant to the discussion. My opinion though: You're a 2nd Amendment originalist which presents an interesting dilemma. Another conversation, another thread though, my friend. All your insults, deflection, and defensive-mechanisms aside, you make some good points here. I don't think that you understand my point (perhaps you evaded it) about access to the marketplace happening organically. I don't think that you understood my point that if a region or state actor is antithetical to the free market, then the market itself dictates it's inclusion. In brief, either the impetus is strong enough to counter-act or circumvent the oppositional force, or it's not. that's letting the market dictate the "freeness" of the market. I think that that makes the most sense. I believe that Ron Paul does too. It's a little more constitutionally palatable. But consistutional palatability is not the end all, be all. You ignored my references/examples, yet addressed my entire post with some generalizations, Econ 101, and a couple of, "under duress business cannot operate" or variation thereof, declaratives. In short, you said the same thing that you said in your first post but you changed the examples around and consulted a text book for a couple of economic principles to sprinkle in for...presumably, veracity. Overall, I respect your opinion - even though you offered it by *attempting* to insult me. It would be cool if you didn't personalize the debate and could point/counter-point without the "moron, retard(ed)," et cetera language. But if that is how you communicate best in your native environment, then have at it friend. Have a good weekend.

Really... 1. I ask you to "try again" and you respond to 25%-35% of my post, although quoting it in it's entirety? 2. You call your opinion, "analysis," about the legislative course of the jobs bill. Really? 3. Your attempt to make a salient point about poll trends is comprised of some declarative statements and a "Rocky" analogy. Really? 3a. Then your profound follow up to my historical reference to national poll trends spanning the last 30 years is to mention that your knowledge was derived from 3 talking heads on cable news networks. To add insult to injury, you name drop without substantiation of their words, commentary, or context. It's as if because you say it, it makes it so. Really? How about this, you can go back to look at trends for what I referenced. You can look at the 76, 80, 84, 88, 92, 96, 00, 04, 08 elections and see that what I'm saying makes sense. How do we determine the veracity of your statements? That's right, we can't; but because you said it, it is per se evidentiary, right? Really? 4. I have pointed out more than once in multiple threads that Huntsman is NOT electable (because he can't get the nomination). I've said that he would have the best chance against Obama, but I've acknowledged his lack of an avenue to get there. I've also NEVER argued for him. I've mentioned complimentary points (as with other candidates), however to characterize that as "arguing" or "advocating" for him is nothing short of hyperbole. Really? 5. What was the point of you telling me about your clients? What point are you making? Stay focused. 6. Also, most polls show Obama ahead in state AND national polls (not that it matters at this juncture anyway). Check out the aggregates: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html You can navigate around and find the battleground state polls. 7. Then, you mention "straw man" a few times out of context. So you think that because you mention "straw man" after making a point in your most recent post, that that lessens the liklihood that you employed straw men in a previous post? Really? Amateur hour. 8. The above, coupled with some ad hominems tossed in (e.g. "moron") for effect, and that about summarizes your post. Try again?

1. What do you know about those with whom I speak - that I have political conversations with my brother, his friends, and the Republican Congressman (and staffers) with whom I work. If you knew anything about the diverse cast of characters with whom I correspond on a daily basis, you'd know that your assumptions are fundamentally incorrect. Now, since it seems that you've predicated your entire post on that assumption, I guess dismantling your assumption undermines everything that you've said subsequent to your opening salvo. But I'll oblige you anyway by counter-pointing the facts that you've discussed. 1a. I just mentioned that they have tons of opp research. Erik Erikson did as well. I'm not privy to all the details. But what I've seen is interesting. You can doubt the effectiveness prospectively. But be wary of presenting your opinion as fact. It's also interesting how you didn't address the Erikson article. But since it's obvious in reading you posts that your debate style is to red herring and straw man your way through your analysis, and then tidy it up with a witty closing as if everything preceding it was profound, I'm not surprised that you made some assumptions, dismissed key elements, and then *effectively* argued a bastardized position. Though it's easier that way, it only works when people are not perspicacious enough to realize the tactic. 2a. I don't know how/if the opp research would be used or used effectively. And we also don't know how the two would come off in a debate with one another because it hasn't happened yet. They are both proficient debaters. They're both professorial, academic, analytical types who handle extemporaneous moments/questions sveltely. Your opinion is that Romney would do better. We'll see how/if that happens. 3. What poll are you seeing? Not saying that you're being untruthful, but you should be candid in identifying polls (as specifically as you did) because there are many of them. Recent ones that I've seen show varying numbers in the battleground states. But also, your characterization of where numbers should be at historical points before the election is baseless and wrong. Please provide support for your contention. Poll numbers this far in advance are ALL over the place and don't evidence incumbent or challenger trouble. Clinton was in trouble in polls 9 months before the election and destroyed Dole. Bush II thought he was gonna lose to Kerry and was even concerned a few hours into exit polling. Reagan's number didn't spike until election day. He was polling even with Carter but won in a landslide electorally. Again, you're throwing around opinions as if they're facts. Save that for little cousins, and the echo chamber/choir here who agree with you already. Please troll away. I enjoy it. I don't have a monopoly on "right." If I end up wrong, call me on it. 1. When did I argue for Huntsman? And again, why not reference the Erikson article? I said that he had legit conservative bona fides and a salient economic plan. In the same breath I mentioned a shortcoming (although complimentary). Again, you're arguing a straw man. If I was advocating for anyone, it was Newt. But you won't acknowledge that, because it allows you to continue arguing a straw man (your tactic of choice). 2. My "bosses"? The Republican congressman? What does he have to lose? He called you an idiot? Hmmm...that's not like him. My friends? 2a. Lastly, it doesn't matter if I think he is electable. There are a lot of characteristics of political figures that I find unbecoming. But they still win. Because in the context of cost-benefit analysis, they're better than the next guy. Try again?