finknottle
-
Posts
2,652 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by finknottle
-
-
I was pondering this same issue while watching Big Ben fumble twice in the 4th quarter today.
I really don't understand what standard Fitz is being held to by so many Bills fans. I can only surmise that their perception of his work is somehow tainted by personal prejudices and preconceived notions of where a quarterback is supposed to be drafted, where he went to school, what he looks like, etc, etc, etc. You're exactly right, Promo. Every quarterback makes a few mistakes each game.
But this is not the first time we've seen a Bills quarterback being under appreciated.
It's not just the standard they are holding Fitz to. Nor that they seem oblivious the fact that the best quarterbacks in the game don't even meet their standard. To me the most absurd thing is that they seem to believe there are "can't miss" guys in the draft who will.
-
His best WRs are gone. The O line is a bit messed up. Three division teams in a row. Bills will have a very hard time running the ball in all three games. So, my criteria is this: pass for more than 200 yards per game with no more than 2 INTS across all three games. He does that, he's my guy. Win lose or draw.
I agree with the sentiment, especially the bit about 3 division games in a row. How have we done against these division opponents in the past decade? Fitz could be a bona fide 'franchise qb' (like Bledsoe was!) and still look completely inneffectual against them. All 3 teams will be playing for the postseason.
I say he's ok as long as he lays a complete egg no more than once.
-
So it roughly doubled if you roughly double the actual increase.
Nice !@#$ing reporting.
I think your ire is misdirected at the Fox piece. Fox isn't claiming costs are doubling, it is saying that the GAO report say's so.
The report, released this week, warns that if fundamental reforms aren't instituted, the cost of the next census could more than double."Indeed, the cost of conducting the census has, on average, doubled each decade since 1970, in constant 2010 dollars," the report said. "If that rate of cost escalation continues into 2020, the nation could be facing a $30 billion census."
-
I live in DC and nothing makes me happier (or almost nothing) than seeing the Skins continue to have major trouble!!
Go Bills!
I'm in the DC area too.
In recent years there have been several threads about Bill's fans losing interest in their team... I have to admit that I fall in that category. (Tho this season is rekindling the excitement!) I get more pleasure watching the Redskins fail as a franchise, and listening to the recriminations on talk radio midway through the season, than I generally do following a Bills win... and every few years I wait with fingers crossed and baited breath to see if the latest coach will work out, hoping it is merely the latest chapter in dysfunctionality.
The interesting thing is that this is not uncommon in DC, with so many transplants from other areas of the country. The nonstop blather in the local media about Redskin tradition really gets on our nerves.
-
i'm guessing that you and magox then contend that this type of story is common...that you are representative (if so, there's little to be proud of in your success, but of course you're not representative).... and so the myth spreads. the saddest part is that it becomes an unobtainable expectation for many who fail to obtain it against the long odds despite their best efforts. and the "normal" lifestyle portrayed on the various media is had without massive debt only by those in the top 5 or 10% (who hold about 44% of the country's wealth). i think of it as the "barbie effect"....why do americans so often insist on setting ourselves up for very likely failure? is one success in 55 really worth possible unrest from the other 54 as the divide and expectations get further separated?
Is it any sadder than the millions of children who train and work hard, and yet fail to grow up to be professional athletes? Or musicians? Or film stars? Are they being deprived of their dreams?
Btw, the intergenerational statistics are shocking: children whose relatives are professional athletes, musicians, or film stars are more likely to have careers in those fields than children without that good fortune. Perhaps the government should set up some kind of tennis camp for disadvantaged youths, and offer subsidized cosmetic surgery.
The point here is it is possible, but not EASY, and nobody can do it FOR you.
Success takes hard work and some sacrifice.
And some luck. That's why it is called the American Dream, not the American Entitlement.
Like sports and life in general, it's about working hard and staying prepared so that you can take advantage if luck comes your way. And if luck doesn't come? You won't reach the Dream, but you'll do all right.
-
ah, but a closer analysis of cbo numbers reveals methodology flaws that propagates the myth that so many desperately cling to krugman this came almost immediately up on a cursory search but i'm fairly certain more recent analyses are available. i'll post when i get a chance. this is a long standing and contentious debate that will not be settled here...but what does a nobel winning economist know?
These are not CBO numbers. They are factual numbers taken from IRS returns, from a 96,700 sample of those who filed at both ends of the time interval. With respect to the transition matrix provided, there is no methodology to dispute. People earned what they earned.
The only room to quibble lies with what relation filers have to society as a whole (since there are filers dropping in and out); and how you define mobility and what you conclude about it from the numbers.
Your "Krugman debunk" link doesn't work. He can rant all he likes, but it doesn't change the numbers in Treasury's transition matrix.
-
hmmm...freudian slip? i was using the estate tax example to show how truly small the pool of elites really is. no argument that the number of wannabes with little to no realistic chance is enormous.(that's the basis of the american dream..er, myth)
I'll spoil the party by introducing some facts for consideration.
The Dept of Treasury measures income mobility every ten years, most recently 1996-2005, by tracking income tax returns. The sample size here was 96,700. They used three measurement criteria, which all produced essentially the same results. The most recent study found that the median income change was +24% after inflation, with two thirds of all households showing a real increase. (The median inflation-adjusted income of the lower groups rose faster than the higher groups, and the median inome of the highest earners actually fell over the period.)
More than 55% of households moved to a different income quintile, most moving up. The composition of the top changed most dramatically, with only 40% of the top 1% remaining there, and 25% of the to 1/100 of a percent remaining. Income mobility is essentially unchanged from 86-95.
Here is a usefull chart. The column is income quintile of households in 1996. Each row shows the distribution of those filers in 2005. The three rightmost colums elaborate on each row, showing what percentage of that income group would up in the listed percentile (ie 5% means top 5%, not 5-2%).
xx-xx 00-19 20-39 40-59 60-79 80-00 Tot 10% 5% 1%
00-19 42.4 28.6 13.9 9.0 5.3 100 2.3 1.3 0.2
20-39 17.0 33.6 26.7 15.1 7.9 100 3.0 1.2 0.1
40-59 7.1 17.5 33.6 29.6 12.5 100 4.2 1.4 0.3
60-79 4.1 7.3 18.3 40.2 30.2 100 8.6 2.7 0.3
80-00 2.6 3.2 7.1 17.8 69.4 100 43.4 22.5 4.4
10% 2.6 2.2 4.9 11.8 78.6 100 61.1 37.6 8.3
5% 2.6 1.8 3.9 8.6 83.1 100 71.6 54.4 15.2
1% 3.2 1.3 2.2 4.9 88.4 100 82.7 75.0 42.5
So what does this show? Churn, generally upwards, against a backdrop of overall rising incomes. And those at the very top tend not to stay there over time. One in 8 average-income filers in 1996 (median $31,875 in '85) were in the top quintile by 2005, and 1 in 300 had joined the top 1% (>$464k inome in '05). One in 500 of the lowest earners in '85 (<$15k) managed to do it!
I would call this a more than realistic chance.
-
Sorry man, but for every Brady, there are at least ten great quarterbacks selected at the top of round 1 of the NFL draft.
Ok, I'll bite - name 10 great quarterbacks picked at the top since Brady.
-
No. wait.
First, we'll give him a civilian trial in NYC...
I think you missed a congressional censure somewhere.
-
In the Rooney Rule's defense...it doesn't require a certain percentage of coaches to be black. It only requires that a black coach be interviewed for every vacancy. One might consider the difference minor...but it's pretty significant, as it recognized that the bias needing breaking in the league wasn't overt racism but merely covert favoritism (in that it wasn't a "We're not going to hire blacks" attitude, but a "We're not going to hire out of our clique" bias), and more importantly that it still required minority candidates to earn the job on their merits.
I hated the rule at first; it took me a while to realize how subtle the wisdom was behind it: it's inclusive rather than exclusive (in that merely interviewing a black candidate doesn't preclude interviewing any other candidate you might want to talk to), and its focus is equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome. Is it racist? Hell, yes - it relies on franchises to make at least one discrimination based on skin color. But as equal opportunity policies go, you're not likely to find a smarter one. Much as I dislike Jesse Jackson's race baiting tactics, I've got to give him props for this rule.
Based on your explanation of the wisdom, why does the Rooney Rule not apply to other under-represented groups?
Should each NFL team be required to also interview and give serious consideration to an Asian candidate for their head coach hirings? What about women and the disabled?
-
If a Manning type player is there you take him, its silly to argue otherwise. i mean cmon mannnnn
And if a winning lottery ticket is there, you buy it. i mean cmon mannnnn
-
Chan seriously wasted, WASTED a ton of time on Trent that would have been better used in developing Fitz.
Maybe he was craftier than we think.
A new team, new systems, question marks all over the offence, no help from the defense... this team had an abysmal start written all over it. What happens if Fitz wins the starting job in preseason and the Bills go 0-4, as they probably would have anyway? How long would Chan be able to resist public pressure to dump his preferred guy in favor of a dud?
Maybe he realized that the best way to end the quarterback controversy was to let the incumbant get run out of town, reducing pressure and expectations on the guy he ultimately wanted to develop.
Tricky, tricky Chan.
-
And they're making this a desirable destination for the free agent class of 2011. So nice to see that culture of losing starting to erode.
Desirable? Let's not kid ourselves. But at least they'll take our calls. We'll start to get a fair shot at convincing them that we may be a team on the rise, and land a few who are not the dregs of the league.
-
They are scrappy, don't give up, but they have to learn to deliver the death blow to other teams, the nail in coffin, and for God sake stop going into the Prevent Defense - it only prevents us from winning. Poz covering Calvin Johnson was a joke. Look at all the games we gave away because we couldn't deliver the death blow !
This was the first time I've seen the Bills win by delivering a back-breaker (as opposed to simply hanging on) in years.
-
Kiss the #1 pick goodbye. If the Bills had that pick it would certainly be a QB. Who may or may not be the answer (and the numbers say not), but either way would command a huge amount of money and at least a 4 year trial. There is a reason teams at the bottom stay at the bottom.
Kiss the #1 pick goodbye, and be gratefull.
-
That being said, its great to compare stats, we could compare stats of Qb's all day long til we are all blue in the face. In the end there is only one stat that matters the most. Wins, period.
Change QB to RB, and you have made an elequent argument for drafting a shiny new runningback with our first pick.
I'm getting to the point where the term "franchise QB" triggers my gag reflex.
From The Amazing Carnac:
What are
- Franchise QB
- Beast
- Stud
- Freak
- Road Grader
Terms that tell you a poster has nothing meaningfull to say.
-
The deduction is still in place for up to 500K.
I know. I was simply putting forward a general thesis: that housing is an example of a market where, when all is said and done, the subsidy actually goes into the pocket of the seller. A buyer buys to fit his budget. But a house is not sold to fit the sellers investment needs, or based on the cost of production. Sellers who need to sell do not have the luxury of holding out indefinately for what they think they need or deserve. Rather, the price is based on what the market will pay. Subsidize home buyers across the board, and average listing prices go up. Remove the subsidies entirely, and prices will fall.
In fact, we often see this phenomona with interest rates. Listing prices move to meet what people can pay, and when rates drop the prices go up.
-
Someone smarter than me (everybody) explain how cutting the mortgage interest deduction doesnt kill "the American Dream" of home ownership deader than Dillinger. Becuase getting that deduction is the ONLY way most can afford a home where I live.
I think it is quite simple.
People approach buying a house different than other purchases. The decide to buy, figure out what they can pay (hence the proliferation of monthly payment calculators), and - factoring in that deduction - figure out a house price they can afford, and then go shopping. Remove the deduction, and you lower the house price they are targeting.
So if you are a house seller and there is no deduction, you will need to adjust your selling price if you want it to move. In other words, I contend that interest deduction inflates the the cost of housing. It does not effect the number of people who buy, but simply the selling price that people name. Removing it will result in a lower priced market, with housing offering slower appreciation as an investment.
-
I'm not saying that Luck or Mallet are Brady or Manning but the point of a Franchise or Elite QB is this.
If you put Trent Edwards on the 2010 Colts, the team is 6-10 at best.
If you put Trent Edwards on the 2010 Pats, the team is 6-10 at best.
I don't think many people that watch football would really argue with the above statements.
Funny, you stick Edwards on a Dick Jauron-coached Buffalo Bills team and he is 7-9. Are you saying the Bills have been better than the Colts and Pats the last few years? Or would Edwards have actually led the Colts and Pats to winning records or - dare I say it - the playoffs?
-
Don't forget JP Losman!
There's always an exception to the rule, I suppose.
Starting QB's 2000-2009 seasons: Rob Johnson, Bledsoe. Losman, Holcomb, Edwards...
Maybe a case can be made, in hindsight, that he *was* the best Bills QB of that decade.
-
Got to hand it to the offensive coaches for cleaning things up during the bye week. Linemen were actually moving their feet and giving up ground to maintain their pass protection. Pocket was narrower but intact. Previously, seems like the o-linemen stopped moving their feet when they made contact with defensive player. Didn't seem like too many missed assignments/penalties either.
I only caught the second half, but I noticed the more compressed-but-intact pockets too. The key thing was that Fitz seemed unfazed and was able to operate quickly and effectively under those circumstances.
-
For those whimsically contemplating a helmet-less NFL, here is the #1 reason why it will never happen:
What is the single most powerfull advertising icon for the NFL? The team logo. The logo *is* the team. And where is the logo? On the helmet. Take away the helmet, and you can no longer identify the uniform in many cases.
The NFL helmet logo is a powerfull advertising asset unlike anything else in professional sports. It will never go away.
-
I don't want to get rid of helmets, but the rest of this identifies the root of the problem: when football became about hitting, rather than tackling, we started to see more injuries and poorer defense. I've seen enough receivers bounce off of a hockey check by the defender and gain ten more yards, when the defender simply could have wrapped up and stopped the play. And of course, classic tackling presents less of an injury risk.
The decline of tackling might not be due to stupidity - it may be a conscious tradeoff. I believe the thinking among coaches is that while big hits will result in more missed tackles and extra yardage than sure tackling, the yardage given up is more than offset by the occasional forced turnover.
-
Rugby and football aren't comparable. The tackling and territoriality aren't the same. Without helmets you would see people splitting their heads open. Take away the facemask and you have quality protection to the top of the head but the risk of damage to the face would be enough of a deterrent to keep people from leading with the head. Also Rugby has an issue with leg and knee injuries as well (Yeah its better then head injuries but its a sport were a lot of its older athletes have sever leg damage).
That's the point: tackling in the NFL has evolved to where it is today (good at intimidation, abysmal at open-space tackling) precisely because the helmet and the equipment have turned defenders into fearless projectile weapons. Take off the helmet and the pads, and see how many safeties are going to launch themselves headfirst into the pumping legs of a charging runningback. You will pretty quickly see defenders changing their technique. Those who don't will be injured pretty quickly.
Which brings us back to the central question. What do we want out of this debate? Less injuries, sure. But do we want defenders who make tackles, or who deliver hits? For over 20 years now the NFL has been drifting in the direction of jarring hits (riskier defensively, but a better chance of a turnover) over simply bringing the guy down, and I don't see why it is neccessarily a good thing for the game.
People think equipment is to protect the offensive player. For the most part, it isn't. It is to protect the guy making the tackle. Think about it: shoulder pads are to protect your shoulder when you are initiating contact while leading with your shoulder, not to protect your shoulder when somebody is hitting you. So change the protection to the tackler, and the tacklers technique will adjust accordingly.
We have our QB
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Yeah, the whole Kelly era was a huge downer and a collossal waste of time. When all is said and done, they accomplished NOTHING. What a collection of losers!