What a Tuel

So you agree then? The cost of production has not exceeded inflation adjusted dollars? So my initial statement we ultimately agree then (which you disagreed with). Glad we had this talk. 😂 Edit: I find it hilarious that you won't provide the actual quotes with timestamps and keep falling back to your recollection of the order of the conversation.

Man dude. People are right, you just can't accept being wrong. You are providing a bunch of links about soaring costs in 2022 compared to what?!? pre pandemic? 1990? 1950? What? As someone who holds themselves in high esteem for intelligence, you must certainly acknowledge that this does not prove that the cost of production in 2023 exceeds inflation adjusted cost in 1990. And again no. Still wrong on this. Funny how you don't provide the context. Talk about shifting goal posts. It isn't my fault that my initial post soared over your head. I literally said accounting for inflation is correct in my initial statement, but that the cost of production likely didn't skyrocket. You responded with random commodities trying to prove that it costs more in 2023 and utterly failing on multiple fronts. You are literally arguing just to argue lol. Either prove it or just stop.

You just can't admit that you are wrong and it is hilarious. The context of the argument started with this post by me: You just quoted an out of context derivation of the argument as preceding the original statement. So no, once again wrong. Again you are so big on evidence, and you made the claim that the cost of producing a newspaper went up from 1990 in 2023. So go for it. Prove to me that the cost of producing a newspaper without quoting random commodities like printer ink which im not even sure is the same ink used in newspapers. And once again take note of the bolded, underlined, italicized statement in my original argument in which I agree accounting for inflation is correct, but now prove that the total costs of production OUTPACED inflation. That alone would prove that the cost of production went up.

Nope, bud. Not even close. Edit: and yeah you were making the argument that they aren't more efficient now. You literally made arguments that the machinery installed in 2004 is the same efficiency as whatever they had prior to that. You literally made arguments that the reduction in required staff doesn't make a significant impact. Pretty sure you indirectly implied that you don't think computing advances has had any impact either. But like I said, you do you.

Im not getting into it here. You already hijacked one thread with your poor understanding of inflation.

So they replaced the printing press in 2004 with the same exact technology they already had? Come on man. "The Buffalo News took the wraps off its new color commercial printing press Thursday, part of a $1 million investment to expand the company's ability to print high-quality postcards, brochures and reports." You have a terrible understanding of this. It is more like: $1,000,000 x 2.4 inflation equals 2,400,000 in costs without the efficiency improvements. $550,000 x 2.4 inflation equals $1,320,000 in costs with the efficiency improvements. Inflation happens either way however ultimately the cost of production DECLINES.

It has everything to do with the owner's decisions because you say there is value in considering this to determine McDermott's future value. Either there is value in this statistic or there isn't. 😂 I just can't even with you man. You made the claim, and you are SO SO big on proof from what I understand, so prove to me in the other thread that a newspaper costs more to produce 2023 than 1990 without quoting random commodity prices.

Hahahaha. You think it is the same person thinking you are being absurd? The arrogance. Those machines were put in place in 2004. So suffice to say some improvement in the machinery occurred between 1990 and 2004? No? Edit: I say 1990 bc that was your inflation calculator date but it was likely faaaar older machines than 1990 were replaced in 2004. Ok lets talk computers, editing, writers, proofreading, internet research. Any number of things that make it cheaper to produce a damn newspaper man. Just give it up.

This is such a stupid statistic. You really think the owner should base his decision making not on the performance of the coaching staff but on the past record of other coaches? 😂 Don't even bother man. The guy thinks that the cost of production is higher in 2023 than 1990 and won't be told otherwise. How is he ever going to accept that he has bias towards our current HC without evidence despite his posting history knocking the HC consistently. 😂

Dude you are literally arguing the cost of production in 2023 is HIGHER than 1990. I mean give me a damn break. Like I said though. You do you.

Again a quick google search on a few factors does not prove your case. I am not going to argue man, you keep doing you.

It is not fact bc you quote ink prices and oil prices. But whatever man, you go about your business thinking it costs more money to print paper than 1990 🤣

Oh come on man. You really think it costs more to print a paper than in 1990? Give me a break. Show me all the price per barrel nonsense you want. It just isn't the case. The efficiency of technology has drastically altered the cost of production.

It doesn't account for advances in production capability, and productivity that decreases cost though. So yeah the inflated price is right but at the same time, how have their costs of production faired? They certainly didn't skyrocket, and would be amazed to find out they stayed the same.

There are ads even with the subscription?

I highly doubt that Diggs missing the practice and McDermott saying he isnt concerned would have derailed the media train. They would certainly have went full steam ahead with their Diggs speculation and conspiracies, and maybe would have tossed in a "McDermott seems detached or not in touch with the lockerroom" or some other nonsense, again bc they have nothing better to talk about in June.

Yeah! unlike the "realists" who couldn't possibly be lapping up a July drought driven media narrative that Diggs is super duper unhappy bc he missed 1 of 2 minicamp practices. Noooo, its gotta be the dumb homers. 😂

It really is amazing how purposely inflammatory the media is while at the same time acting as if they are beyond reproach and the epitome of integrity.

It's exactly this. I also feel like he could do a better analysis by going through the fired head coaches after 7+ years and find out why they were fired. I mean John Fox was fired after 9 years in Carolina and made a Super Bowl but missed the playoffs 4 of the last 5 years he was there. Subsequently took Denver to a Super Bowl shortly after with Peyton Manning. Lovie Smith was fired after 9 years in Chicago and while he did take them to one Super Bowl, his last 5 out of 6 years he missed the playoffs. Jeff Fischer spent 17 years in Tennessee and did make one Super Bowl but his last 5 out of 7 years he missed the playoffs. Until McDermott has us consistently missing the playoffs, he is safe whether history shows you other coaches never made it happen after 5, 10, 15 or 20 years or not. He has to do something on his own to blow his job. The proof is your posting history. I bet the McDermott rhetoric existed in years 4, 5, 6 when your model doesn't reflect poorly on him.

Yeah agree, somehow Belichick slipped my notice, I must have subconsciously refused to pull his wiki up 😂

Accounting for team moves, it appears that coaches that coached anytime between 1980 and now, there are about 30 that have won a championship and it appears as though roughly 10 HC or 33% of them have won their first Super Bowl in their 7th+ year as a head coach. It decreases if you narrow it to having to have 7+ years on the same team but that opens up all kinds of questions. Was it the HC or was it the team? Front Office? Owner? Andy Reid, Pete Carroll, Bruce Arians, Gary Kubiak, Tom Coughlin are all recent examples of HC that moved to another team and won a Super Bowl. One could argue that their previous teams (obviosuly not NE and Pete Carroll) made a mistake giving up on them or not addressing the real issue.

Why is "Super Bowl appearance" the threshold and why would it not just move to "Super Bowl win" if we make it there and lose? Also we are really saying we have a statistically significant better chance of McDermott winning in year 6 vs year 7? Explain that? How does previous coach history on a different team and period affect the here and now? There are a lot of coaches that didn't win for a long time and never won a Super Bowl, but won one later on the same or different team. There are a lot of coaches that won a super bowl in their first few years and never made it back again. I bet the Chiefs front office were glad they didnt have Einstein in their ears for Year 7 of the Andy Reid HC gig. They had very little chance to make the super bowl according to this bc it proves he is just not capable of it bc other coaches didnt?

I did not know it was an old logo but even the standing buffalo is much more crisp. If they wanted it to be a throwback to their old logo then fine then. It just looks like an amateur freehand drawing of a lion.

Once again here we are. No one is saying Super Bowl isn't the goal. The difference in opinion is that we think McDermott and Beane are putting us in a position to achieve that goal. You think that McDermott is a detriment to that goal - that we cannot win it with him because he is not capable of it.

Ok bud.....