Capco
-
Posts
2,293 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Capco
-
-
DIVISION CHAMPS!!!!
-
That spot was BS.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Miami is just as likely to drive 90 yards as they are 60 yards with all that team speed.
I'd go for it. -
Damn. Bills are dropping like flies.
-
Just now, Billzgobowlin said:
He probably should have run for the first but its essentially a punt
Right. Had he thrown an incompletion, the result would have been 10 yards better for the Dolphins. -
8 hours ago, BBFL said:
Back back to Madden 18… Most of multiple year simulations where the Bills weren’t the controlled team Josh never developed into a mid-level QB let alone close to what he is now.
Hopefully they don’t use that video game for their future drafting acumen.
I still use Madden 2005 on the original Xbox because I love the franchise mode and how they did player progression.
This is my 3rd 30-year franchise and at this point I don't even care about the wins. It's all about developing players and creating an excellent roster year after year.-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, NoHuddleKelly12 said:
“Bills conquer the East,
Dolphins swim in defeat's sea,
Buffalo's victory feast.”
Cordially yours,
ChatGPT. 🤗
Dumb AI can't even count syllables.
-
2
-
1
-
-
In my current Madden franchise, I drafted 2 WRs with picks 5 (Travis Green) and 11 (Reuben Parkman) in the second round.
Green: 6'2", 214lbs, 89 SPD, 91 ACC, 89 AGI, 89 JMP, 58 STR, 67 BTKParkman: 6'1, 205lbs, 96 SPD, 78 ACC, 92 AGI, 87 JMP, 57 STR, 55 BTK
Green started his rookie year and has held the WR2 position since being drafted. Parkman took longer to develop, but after three years of training camp drills I was able to get his ACC to 96 and his JMP to 90. He's set to take the WR1 position next year.
Both were abysmal blockers coming out of college but have really progressed in that area. Green is probably the more complete receiver and uses his size extremely well on deep balls in particular, but Parkman is incredibly smooth in his routes and electric after the catch.
Both have been re-signed to 4-year extensions. I'll probably look to trade Green once he's on the wrong side of 30, but Parkman will likely retire a Bill.
tl;dr: drafting WRs back-to-back might seem excessive, but it can really pan out in the right organization. -
Time to go Fishing
And let Ed do some squishing
To keep them wishing-
2
-
-
Just now, BobBelcher said:
I would like to know, of the 46% that said Bills win SB, how many of you were saying the same thing last year? The year before? 😆
150%. Maybe even 200%.-
1
-
-
Cowboys are the only team in all 3 categories.
-
5 hours ago, ComradeKayAdams said:
First, we need to recognize that the United States functions as a corporate oligarchy and not as a vibrant republic responsive to the interests of its citizens. It follows that our country’s foreign policy reflects the economic interests of an elite few and has very little to do with any greater good.
The analogy that comes to mind is a simple one.
Consider cleaning one's home. The very moment we are "finished" with the cleaning, the place immediately starts getting dirty again. The fact is one is never truly "finished" cleaning because it is a never-ending task.
When it comes to our country and our democracy, the same idea holds true.
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." -Thomas Jefferson
While I am progressive in most areas, I also realize that perfection is unattainable. You can clean up all of the graft and bloat and corruption in the military-industrial complex, but the very mechanisms that initially created it will immediately start working in the opposite direction.
Does that mean we should just throw up our hands and give up? Of course not. We should constantly be working towards a more perfect union.
But unfortunately there are tradeoffs with everything, including striving for progressive ideals. Here's another analogy from my chemical engineering days that will help explain what I mean by that; it is somewhat similar to the law of diminishing returns.
Distillation is the separation of two compounds based on differences in boiling points. In the distillation of ethanol (alcohol), ethanol is boiled off from an ethanol-water solution by keeping the boiling point of the system above ethanol's BP but below water's BP. However, mixtures of ethanol and water form an azeotrope at just under 90% purity. You can distill that 90% solution again and hit just under 99% purity, and again to hit 99.9%. But you can never get 100% purity.
Each distillation costs roughly the same to perform, but the effect of the cost diminishes by 90% each time. At some point, it becomes silly to go for 99.999999999%, especially since you will never, ever get to 100% no matter how many times you do it.
I'm cool with a "90% democracy", if that makes sense, because I realize the tradeoffs of going further than that.-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Tommy Callahan said:
No argument. That's what state supply side does. Think trillion dollar stimulus directly to the top quintiles. Nothing but artificial bubbles. But when people actually have disposable money to spend (true supply side) then at least the economy is natural.
Exactly!-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, ComradeKayAdams said:
Respectfully, Capco, I don’t think this is true at all. You can still wield power (military, economic, political) on the international stage without also having to subsidize the military operations of other countries. You can still maintain a strong reserve currency without having to exploit labor and resources and governments abroad. You can do all this through diplomacy, by building a healthy domestic economy, and by maintaining a technologically superior military within one’s own borders.
There’s the ethical component of this conversation, of course, that should be self-evident. As just one example among SO MANY, I’ll raise the issue of current ethnic cleansing in Gaza that the United States essentially funds for the primacy of Middle East hegemony (via an Israeli client state).But then there’s the matter of economic opportunity cost. International military subsidies would be better served in the broader hands of taxpayers than in those specifically of the military-industrial complex. Example: in the United States, medical debt is easily the number one cause of personal/family financial ruin. If we could actually use all that money to instead fund our own universal health care system (like the rest of the modern industrialized world does), we could free up so many Americans to become healthier participants in the economy…i.e. have much better GDP growth, which equates to greater economic power.
Tbh, I already had some of these exact things in mind when I wrote my other post. But I was speaking in very broad terms on a global/macro scale.
My belief that US hegemony is not only best for Americans but also best for the stability of the world does not mean I have no criticisms to levy against our foreign and domestic policy blunders.
I'm all for reducing graft in the defense budget, and not starting unnecessary wars that hurt our standing and image abroad. But I'm still all for maintaining the strongest military in the world by several orders of magnitude. Both can be done and are not mutually exclusive. I am a strong believer in what JFK once said, despite my belief that the Vietnam War was a mistake:
Only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.
Even with a corruption free military-industrial complex (lol), maintaining this kind of might is an expensive endeavor. But in the long run it is far cheaper and more beneficial to be the biggest kid on the block for as long as we can do so while also lending a helping hand to our allies and not squandering our diplomatic capital on blunders like Iraq.
It's also far cheaper in the long run to have universal healthcare than the sh!tshow we have now, which is why I support it. There's more than enough money and human capital in this country to do all of this and more if we started correcting ourselves in the areas where we are off-course.
The alternative to US hegemony is a power vacuum that is likely filled by our adversaries, or a situation where the balance of power becomes so unstable that regional wars become the norm again. Our unquestioned primacy on the world stage requires the projection of power outside our borders, and is simply not something we should ever walk away from.
I strongly, strongly believe it is cheaper and better for everyone in the long run. Like you said, we have multiple forms of power we can project, both hard and soft, and I agree that we need to be more ethical and mindful of how we wield that power.-
1
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, BillsFanNC said:
Like physical chemistry.
The only way to make sense of those theoretical concepts was getting high!
For real though! P-chem was such a PITA.-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, BillsFanNC said:
This is another favorite.
A "proof" that requires dividing by zero.
0 = 0
4 - 4 = 6 - 6
4 = 2 x 2 || 6 = 3 x 2
2^2 - 2^2 = 2 x 3 - 2 x 3
(2-2)(2+2) = 3(2-2)
2 + 2 = 3
It's been a while since I've done proofs, but if the original is valid then it would seem the proof I just wrote is also valid.
Fwiw, higher level math gets really abstract really quickly, and you almost have to be a little detached from reality in order to make advances in it.
I wouldn't put too much stock into this as a direct caricature of the left. But hey, that's the world we live in today so I'm not surprised that's how it's being sold.-
3
-
-
On 12/29/2023 at 2:07 PM, Tommy Callahan said:
Not being the world police and paying for others defense would be a start. but you know, you all called the orange dude racist and anti American for that.
The US reaps far more in benefits from being the world hegemon than it costs to maintain it.
As mentioned earlier, the position of the dollar as the world's reserve currency gives us an enormous advantage when it comes to borrowing money. It's highly unlikely that this status would remain as such if we retreated from the world stage and our obligation as the primary pillar that supports the current post-WWII world order.
That factor alone is probably enough to justify our role as world policeman.
PS - I actually liked it when Trump called out our allies for not meeting their military spending requirements in accordance with our treaties. Even if we are the primary beneficiaries, we aren't the only beneficiaries and we shouldn't be the only ones supporting the status quo.-
1
-
3
-
-
Just now, Billy Claude said:
I think Gruden is using it in the way the pitcher and catcher is called the battery in baseball, so yes "connection".
Ahh I wasn't aware of the baseball reference. That makes sense. Thanks!-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Big Blitz said:
Yep.
Interesting use of the word "battery". Does he basically mean "connection"?-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, peterpan said:
Actually the money earned in a game is paid to the state it is played in.
so if the AFC championship is in Baltimore, it would be paid to Maryland I assume. This may be different with the bonuses but that’s how it works out for your salary.
I've never heard this before.
So players have to fill out state tax returns for every state they play a game in? And what about the London game?-
1
-
-
Bumping this back to page 1 in case anyone missed it.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Bill Grundy said:
Was wondering ...
As an overseas tellyclapper, I don't get much access to the reality of football in the States. I only get access to the TV production. And I know from the sports I attend over here that this production can often have little in common with the actual game-going experience itself.
So, for those of you who travel to road games, which are the best / worst stadia in the league? Are there some that you look forward to visiting, some that have more soul than others, some that you just hate? Some that surprised you?
I was at Tottenham this year. Which I thought worked really well as an NFL ground, tbh (whereas Wembley doesn't) and if the Bills are basing the new one on that, it's quite exciting.
But it has always seemed to me that Rich Stadium - or whatever it's called this week - is one of the very best in the league. But then I love old stadia. and find, say, the Texans or Cards stadia seem to be big and corporate but lacking in character somewhat.
Anyway, just interested. Any views?
I totally missed the memo that the plural of stadium is stadia and suddenly feel very dumb lol.-
1
-
-
Remember when Long Snapper was one of our few "elite" positions?
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Limeaid said:
No games being replayed on NFL Network.
Nothing listed on until repeat of Amazon game on Friday.
TEAMS TBA but the 3:15 am game today (Tuesday) was supposed to have been replayed and nothing listed.
Maybe it is an issue with NFL Network webpage itself; will see if a game is replayed at 3 PM.
Aka when your dealer is late 😄
The 2+2=5 Commie HOF
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
I had an excellent organic chem professor for I and II, and our class sizes were between 10 and 15, so organic wasn't too bad.
P-chem was literally a blur though. I genuinely dunno how I got an 85 on the second exam and eked out a B lol.