OGTEleven

Post yours. Mine is below.

It seems to be conventional wisdom that the Bills have had a tough schedule so far and that it gets easier as the season moves on. I decided to take a look at the records of our opponents at the beginning and end of this season's schedule and their records so far. I did three levels. The first was the teams' records when all games were counted. Level 2 is the records when you strip out their game against the Bills and level 3 is when you strip out the games against either the Bills or teams the Bills have played this season (I did this because when the Jets play the Pats, their record after the game will be 1-1 no matter what happens). I included the Chiefs in the first section because they will not play again before the game against us, so their record won't change. Level 1: 43-25 .632 Level 2: 38-22 .633 Level 3: 26-10 .722 This tells me that the teams we have played so far have been good (level 1) in general, good when not playing us (level 2), and very good when playing the part of the league we haven't played against. The level 3 of .722 is amazing as only 7 teams in the NFL have a better percentage (and we have played 4 of them) and this is an aggregate record for our whole schedule. It gets easier when we play the rest of our schedule. Level 1 17-35 .327 Level 2: 15-34 .384 (Jets, Pats, dolphins are the only change from level 1) Level 3: 8-17 .320 will this ease be enough to help a playoff push? Personally I think 3-5 is too big a hole to dig out of but the schedule is one thing in our favor (for a change).

At this point I think each side may very well be defining a win as getting the better of the other guy. Sadly, this does not always equate with getting the best deal for yourself. I like Byrd and would like him here long term and think he fits the re-make of the team perfectly, but keeping Byrd and losing subsequent negotiating credibility is the wrong tactic. Giving in and trading him doesn't help either. The Bills have to keep him this year unless they get undeniable value in a trade. From Byrd's point of view I just don't see how forcing the Bills to trade him gets him anything unless he thinks the new team will agree to not franchise him next year. Who would do that and still offer the Bills a high enough pick or good enough player to have them interested? None of this makes logical sense which leads me to believe it is a pissing match.

That is what makes it hard for me to understand why Parker or Byrd would demand a trade. Parker and the Bills have to know Byrd's trade value is low given the fact he can't get a new deal from anyone until year's end. If he were traded, why would Parker make any promises to the new team when he could negotiate with 32 teams once the season ended? Why would any new team promise not to franchise Byrd again? It would be the only leverage they have. For the trade partner, the major motivation would have to be a rental of a safety to put them over the top for this year. How many teams can be in a position to think that way about themselves before week one? If there is an injury to a safety for a team that is 4-1 and looking good I could see this changing, but that is a narrow field of potential teams and a narrow window of time. For Byrd, I'm not sure I understand the motivation unless Parker thinks he has a deal in place with a certain team (collusion?). Maybe he has a few teams about which he feels comfortable enough about the prospects for a deal. That seems to be taking a lot on faith. It almost seems like Byrd would be better off playing for the Bills and opening up the field wider for 2014 (via trade or FA), than giving some sort of gentleman's agreement to his new team. He can't expect any new team to promise not to use next year's franchise tag can he? On paper that is the only potential advantage to Byrd the new team could offer that is not already there with the Bills. The only exception to this I can see at all is a crazy one where Byrd has a specific team in mind. Did he grow up in San Diego when his dad was playing? I doubt it is about something like that. Clearing an immediate headache would be the only motivation I could see for the Bills trading Byrd, but if they do this they would be creating far bigger headaches down the road. Because Byrd can't negotiate with the new team, any draft pick would be too low (IMO). Again, only a wild scenario could make any sense. Is there another team with a player on a one year tender who would feel comfortable working with the Bills long term while Byrd went there and felt comfortable? I highly doubt that scenario. I don't think a trade makes logical sense at all to Byrd, the Bills, or the new team from a practical point of view. All of the above was my roundabout way of saying that this seems to have become about winning to both Parker and the Bills. I think the Bills have made their share of mistakes over time with how the organization has been run, but this is supposedly a new regime. On the field it certainly seems like a new feeling from the coach to the new QB and at least one potential superstar in Spiller. Off the field who knows, but I am rooting for the Bills to win this apparent battle with Parker. Losing it will eventually erode whatever progress they make on the field. I like Byrd and losing his full capabilities on the field in 2013 hurts (I in no way expect him to play hard for the Bills this year....it is Parker's only leverage against the CBA). I'd rather lose Byrd for one year than lose the ability to leverage the CBA and basic negotiating tactics for a long time, with any player.

As pointed out, a couple of states already use this although I think they give the two "extra" votes to the popular vote winner; not the winner of both districts (not sure). It is already the decision of each state, it's just that 48 states decide to be winner take all. It really shouldn't be a national debate at all. This is a good idea or bad idea for Virginia and Virginia alone. It is no business of anyone living in NY or Kentucky. Unfortunately I think no matter what you do you're going to have problems. You think districts are gerry-mandered now? Lay this electoral tie-in to them and watch what happens. I'm not a huge fan of winner take all either because so many states have populations with large political differences. Although less so now, NY City and Upstate are like two different states politically. Upstate Republicans basically have no say at all in selecting a president. No system is perfect but any system ought to have its roots in the constitution which includes the electoral college for a reason. A national popular vote is the worst possible idea for a whole slew of reasons.

We had the same washing machine for my whole childhood and it never broke down. As an adult we are on our third machine and the current one has had major repairs (luckily covered by warranty) three times. Every one we have had has been terrible.

I could see moneyball being applied somewhat readily to defensive players and not so much to offensive players. Oddly enough, this is similar to baseball using it for offensive players over defensive players. A football defender and a batter in baseball are both reacting to something being thrown at them. The defense (pitcher) initiates every play in baseball where the offense initiates it in football. You can look at film and determine most of the time how the football defender matched up against the other team. Did he draw a double team? Penetrate? Cover his man? Sometimes you won't be sure if he executed his assignment but most of the time you'll be able to tell by watching. Even so, you can't have others do the watching for you by reading OBP stats like baseball. That is a lot of people watching a lot of film and that makes it subject to varying interpretations. I haven't read the book Moneyball (movie only) but I am a baseball fan. I have not seen anything indicating that Beane used the metrics on pitching/defense but he didn't completely ignore them building that winning team. They did have Hudson/Zito/Mulder after all. Evaluating Scott Hatteberg as a value against Jeremy Giambi is one thing and I think it can be important, but you still need pitching. That is where everything starts. A quarterback is like a #1 starter that starts every game. Take the Bills this year and plug in Manning for Fitzpatrick. What would the record be? I am not sure how to apply moneyball to WR (how do you know if a player operating from another team's playbook ran the right route?); RB (can apply it to rushes certainly but what about blocking/receiving? And even rushing is dependent on the OL as has been pointed out). I guess I can see applying it to the OL somewhat but again the assignments are not always clear.Moneyball worked (works) for the A's brilliantly with respect to hitters and production. They have been able to develop pitching talent consistently too and make some timely trades to keep the farm stocked. Some of these things could be done in football but some could not. I am not against the moneyball concept but it would have to be a square one re-design for football. I'm hopeful but skeptical.

So you have defined that there is a problem and decided there should be a stigma? Others may say that gay marriage is causing a morality problem, or food stamp recipients are buying twinkies and causing a nutrition problem or people with high incomes aren't paying enough in taxes and causing our fiscal problems. Why can't they get access to all government records on all citizens so they can post the trouble making gays/poor/rich/black/white/SUV driving/student loan deadbeat/parent with special needs children's names and addresses on line? Should they run it by you first to see if there is enough of a problem to make a personal transaction public information? Everything you or I do via an application or license granted by government could be seen by another person as wrong and hurtful to society. Are you really saying they should be entitled to all government legally issued licenses, permits, applications and similar documents? In my opinion your answer has to be yes to everything or no to everything. You can't say it is ok to publish a list of all gun licenses but not ok to publish a list of all people making over $100k. I'd prefer a society based upon that answer being no.

So you wouldn't see a problem of publishing a list of the home addresses of all abortion doctors? Or all owners of SUVs? Or all married gay couples?

Who decides what gets stigmatized in society? A newspaper? And then they publish the associated list of private citizens? If gun ownership and foods stamps are on the naughty list, what might be next? Income under (or over) certain levels? A 1040 is something that is filed with the government just like a gun registration. Should that be published too? How about a kid that needs special assistance in the public school classroom? The parents need to fill out a form for that, right? A list of everyone on Medicare that takes Zoloft? Viagra? A list of all people that drive cars with low mileage? Gay couples that are married? My point is that many (almost all) individuals interact with government on an individual basis. Personally I think the documents filed by individuals with the government ought to be treated as private by the government, much like your doctor or lawyer would treat them. A conviction record, on the other hand is another matter in that the person has broken the law(s). You don't break any laws when applying for a gun permit or food stamps. Documents internal to the government should also be available. I'm not totally against things getting stigmatized, I think that has a useful place in society within limits, but information that should be private shouldn't be used as a vehicle for stigmatizing it. Stigmatizing groups (food stamp recipients, gun owners, whatever) only works if there is enough agreement that there is underlying "bad behavior". Naming an individual gun owner or food stamp recipient in writing seems beyond reasonable to me.

This is an attempt by the paper to stigmatize gun ownership (I think everyone figured that out). What would be the reaction if a registry of all people on food stamps or other government assistance was published in a similar attempt to stigmatize? My guess is that the left would be up in arms. It is strange to me that the pendulum of what is perceived as desirable and undesirable can shift so much in a society but clearly it does. You can agree or disagree with gun or welfare laws, but is it really fair to single out people that are obeying those laws? I understand and support government openness for policy setting, bids, internal communications and the like, but why are interactions between governments and law abiding individuals subject to the same openness? The gun owner and the welfare recipient are basically clients of the government. Public companies have to audit and publish their financials but they don't have to publish a list of their clients or accounts. We all have to file with the IRS but our returns aren't open to the public (are they?). Why are gun registrations open like that?

I believe in God and find your post interesting. With respect to the part of your post I bolded I have to disagree with you on one thing. If there were no free will, only perceived free will, why would more than one possibility exist? The illusion of free will notwithstanding, our predetermined choices would all still collectively lead to only one (admittedly highly complex) outcome. I can buy the concept of time being our perception and everything existing at once either with God or without God existing. I can't get there with respect to all possibilities existing simultaneously at once without including free will in the equation. This is because without free will there is but one possibility. Am I missing something here? To me free will can only exist with God, not without him. As for the study I only skimmed it and must have misunderstood it. Care to summarize? I interpreted it as saying the subconscious tells the conscious what to do. In other words you think about moving your arm and then your arm moves. There must be more to it than that.

Does it strike anyone as odd that the teachers union is getting all high and mighty about this investment after the fact? If they felt so strongly why would they have made the investment in the first place?

I keep trying to wrap my head around what happened in Connecticut the other day and this seemed like a good place to look. I normally have a lot of opinions on things to blame and not to blame. I'm sure at some point I will have opinions on the arguments that arise from this about guns, mental health, schools and the media. Right now I still don't have any opinions on any of it. Maybe it is because I have two young children, or maybe it is just the age of those poor kids that were taken from us. Parents or not, we can all relate in some way. I always come back to the what if. What if this were my kid(s), or if it were me, and there was nothing that could stop it, what would I feel? The only answer is knowing that I would trade everything I have, including my life and all of its memories, to be able to spend one more minute with my kids. It makes me realize how blessed I am to not have to make any such trade. There are 20 sets of parents yearning to make that trade right now, but they can't. All they can do is live there lives in a way that honors their children and hope that at the end of their own days, they will have a glorious reunion with their child. I pray for them that they will have this reunion.

It's been a long time since I logged in but I still lurk (put it this way my birthday is in February and I had a note from Mead when I logged in. Thanks Mead). I saw this thread and liked a lot of it. A song I heard today reminded me. I thought I'd add a couple from one of my favorite artists. even though I'm not a music expert on what qualifies as The Blues. The first one is a song I love called Baloney again. It seems bluesy to me but I'm not sure it qualifies. The second one is definitely Blues. Thanks for all the good links. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-gUV4UKWHA You Can't Beat the House

I always liked Icehouse but thought their best was We Can Get Together. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzRCYjlIVYw Another forgotten song I think exemplifies the 80s is Wouldn't It Be Good. Over video limit I wouldn't call it 80s music exactly, a lost Dire Straits gem is Tunnel of Love.

I can buy into a multiverse theory which says every action we make based on a decision "creates" a parallel universe. I actually have thought a lot about this with God. Without God I still come to the same conclusion (only bigger?). I create trillions upon trillions of universes by deciding to blow my nose or turn left/right. At the end of this thought process, I still come back to the free will itself being an illusion. It doesn't matter if trillions of "me" think they have free will or even if some me's were created by other me's. Every decision I make spins out a universe. Meanwhile you are making a decsion. If both our decisions are yes/no, then the result is 4 universes more than an instant ago. There are billions on earth with free will and not every decision is yes/no, so the number of universes is staggering. This is before we even account for decisions being made in other worlds we have yet to discover. I can actually buy off on this no matter how big the number, but not with free will as part of the equation. If there are trillions of me, but each is subject to the laws of the multiverse which involve predictable interactions of matter and energy, then there is still zero free will by definition. Zero times a trillion-trillion is zero. I still come to the same conclusion that an atheist must be resigned to predetermination. That's ok because as you say the illusion of free will may be enough. I just think it has to be recognized as an illusion by atheists. I tried the link and I can get it to play but am having a hard time with the fast forwarding. I'll try it again when I have more time.

Thanks for the nice words. I understand your thoughts about predetermination and whether it is consistent with the concept of God. There are certainly some points there which need to be addressed for believers. I have my thoughts but have no illusions that they could ever be proven. Maybe I missed it in your post, but I personally cannnot come to grips with free will even being possible in a universe without God (an atheist universe if you will). I am interested in your thoughts about that. To me, if someone is an atheist, they simply must be someone who believes in predetermination. I'm not clear whether you believe that. I am not trying to set up some trap, just interested in your thoughts. If you even believe free will is a remote possibility, how could it be without God?

I am what some people would consider religious and others would not. I believe in God or at least I would be perceived to believe in God. I am aware that being religious, and/or belief in God requires faith. I have that faith. I can see a reasonable person having no faith in the existence of God. I can EASILY see someone not wanting to be religious or be affiliated with and organized religion. Here is where I differ with you. Whether it is God as described by Catholics, Muslims or Jews, some other kind of God, or something altogether different, I do think that humans generally feel a connection to something. Basically, consciouseness makes us feel we are in control of things. We feel as if have free will. I can decide to sit down and watch the Bills play on Sunday for example. In the mind of an atheist, what is that consciouseness? How is it described? Is it real or is it an illusion? I am wondering if the conclusions you've reached include a perception that you (and all of us) have free will. To me that notion is inherently inconsistent with atheism. If there is no God, then when all is said and done, the universe is made up of energy and matter. The reactions between this energy and matter, although complex, can be predicted. Over time we have learned, about light, gravity, chemistry and myriad other disciplines with increasing accuracy. We haven't met something we don't feel can be predicted (although we've met things we can't predict yet). This means all of the chemistry that goes on in our brains and triggers actions in our speech and movement and every other aspect of what we call life, can be predicted. It just can't be predicted by us. Basically, this amounts to predetermination. It really isn't too complex, but my perception of atheists is that not all of them subscribe to predetermination. Why not? How can there be free will; real free will without a real consciouseness. Is that consciousenss "God"? Since you're into spreading seeds of doubt, here is an attempt to spread one to you. You gave the thumbs up to that. Let me ask you something. Why don’t I believe in free will? No, no no, why do YOU believe in free will? Surely the burden of proof is on the believer. You started all this. If I came up to you and said, “Why don’t you believe I can fly?” You’d say, “Why would I?” I’d reply, “Because it’s a matter of faith.” If I then said, “Prove I can’t fly. Prove I can’t fly see, see, you can’t prove it can you?” You’d probably either walk away, call security or throw me out of the window and shout, ‘’F—ing fly then you lunatic. How can I question anything without free will? I really have no idea why this topic is the one that seems to draw me in to posting. It is getting pretty annoying.

I'm a big fan of Mark Knopfler. He and Emmylou did an entire CD of duets a few years back called All the Roadrunning. You may want to check it out. I was lucky enough to get to see a Knopfler show this spring and Pieta Brown, the daughter of Greg Brown (prominent songwriter) opened for him. She put on a nice show. It was just her and her guitarist Bo Ramsey. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8h11wXkgzYc

Mark Knopfler played Buffalo the other night. I'm wondering if anyone went. I'd be interested in any reviews. I'll be seeing him in Albany next weekend and am really looking forward to it.

Knopfler is my favorite. You may not be aware, but he has several post Dire Straits solo albums. He may be a better songwriter than guitarist. Check out the solo stuff if you haven't. It has a little bit of everything (rock, country - even a CD of duets with Emmylou Harris -, Bluegrass, story-telling, ballads, Blues and more.). There is always guitar and it is as restrained as you remember. Check out "Boom Like That", "Song for Sonny Liston", So Far From the Clyde", I'm the Fool (later covered by Randy Travis), "Heart Full of Holes", "In the Sky", "Silvertown Blues", "Sands of Nevada", and "5:15 AM"if you have to limit yourself. Don't limit yourself. But for the guitar solo thread, I'll go with the solo on He's touring the US in the spring and I'll get to see him for the first time. In case you can't tell from the post, I'm pretty psyched. EDIT: "I'm the Fool" was not covered by Randy Travis. It was a song called "Are We in Trouble now?".

Get well soon John. Prayers to you and your family.

It makes me a little sad honestly because I always perceived Sagan to be a good guy and someone who was thoughtful and respectful of others. In your quote he is far from it. I believe in God. I have never sought to prove God's existence to myself or to anyone else. If you ask me, I will explain why I believe (perhaps not well), but will never under any circumstances claim proof in a scientific manner (or any other manner really). I have no interest in pre-emptively bringing up my belief to you or anyone else. I very strongly expect to die believing in, but not knowing if God exists. As a matter of fact, I would be disappointed if God truly revealed himself before my death. I am not here to prove anything to anyone about God and ask for no proof. Sagan's mocking dragon example talks of believers as if they are childish people, constantly stomping their feet and demanding to be heard. Of course, there are plenty of people like this (on both sides of any argument), but the vast majority of believers are not. That is why they call themselves believers, not knowers. By going on and on with an example anyone could understand after three sentences he tries to paint believers with a broad brush. He puts words in their mouth and by doing so betrays his own deference to science. There is nothing wrong with his argument on the basis of the overly repeated facts. For the most part though, he is arguing against very few people and claims to be arguing against very many people. To me this quote says Sagan was either a hack, a liar, or astonishingly arrogant. He was a hack if he failed to take the time to understand or acknowledge that most believers understand exactly what they are. He was a liar if he understood this and simply continued to use the same argument anyway. He was arrogant if he demanded that the dragon reveal himself, because after all, he was Carl Sagan and the dragon simply must recognize his importance. That's what makes me sad.

Thank you to all those who have served or who are still serving. To those who have lost their lives, saying thank you isn't enough and nothing is enough. I found a nice video someone made on Youtube. It is set to a song which is one of my favorites. Link