PatPatPatSack
-
Posts
279 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by PatPatPatSack
-
-
Here's some more Chad Chat...this one is about him being sued for allegedly promising to give away a car at a raffle, and reneging on that and other things...
http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...S0103/803260385
Yeah I do. I am sick of fans expecting better behavior out of the players than they themselves exhibit. Especially their behavior at the games! All because players get "a lot of money". Guys like ocho get a lot of money because they play football at a world class level. If we want a team that performs at world class level, then we simply have to have players that play like it. We'll get our humanitarians elsewhere.
And these charges, they are knucklehead things that you read about in a football book and laugh at the crazy antics. Sandwiched in between stories about Super Bowl visits.
To the best of my knowledge, Jim Kelly has never paid the iceman. But I don't call for Jim's execution either.
Many football players are indeed great quality human beings. Some ain't. Just like the rest of the world that I have come to know. If you were an owner of a company would you fire your lead programmer, or top salesguy for this behavior? Naw, you would be working with HR to figure out a way to keep him functioning.
That is if you were one of the few companies that even cared.
Chad does have some downsides. This ain't one of them.
-
I can't see any of that happening, unless she can really sing (which is highly unlikely).
She had almost 2 million downloads on MYplace . that is crazy publicity.
I think being an independent business woman, she is in a good position to capitalize on her talents.
Umm. Of course none of those puns were intentional.
-
I give TD no credit. The Parish pick was complete arrogance, drafting a 3rd WR/ kick returner when we were very weak on both lines.
I don't think there was a weaker OL than the one TD left us.
Worse? I don't know, Arizona signed one of our guys and is calling it a positive upgrade...
-
Maybe he should have said that. But let's face it, Willis isn't the exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer.
I'm not too terribly sure he has the wherewithal to communicate multiple ideas and nuances within a single sentence - unless the multiple ideas and nuances consist of him interrupting himself every fourth word to ask "know what I'm sayin'."
This is oh so true. And it's not a subject for ridicule. He is a talented young man who is strong in some areas, and very weak in others.
Which is why he won't be a stranger to WNY. He'll be back frequently. Seems he impregnated and infected a number of our gals, it is whispered.
We should remember him as someone who left it all on the field.
Hah, hah, that's funnier than I meant it!
-
You're a much better dancer than a writer. Even as you admit that there's still ongoing debate among the scientific community about global warming, you waste no time praising Al Gore's efforts to highlight a problem that you admit may not even exist.
So, do you want that cookie now or later?
You really don't understand do you? It's not an act.
-
My position is the same as it's always been: No one actually knows enough about the variables and the "accepted" method of calculation is incredibly flawed by the human factor. I guess all the stuff I've put out there is confusing. It should be, it's a huge topic, and our "scientists" are barely able to scratch the surface. Which makes the conclusions and resulting fear mongering that much more ridiculous.
Wrong again. It's the conclusions I have a problem with. There are certainly some studies that are flawed and biased, which is very obvious when the data is interpreted.
You mean putting two unbiased groups together, not allowing them to ever meet one another, with the data available and seeing what they come out with is a tough concept for you?
You're in no position to make demands.
No, you have the balls of a gnat because you're a wishy-washy guy when called out. It's cool that you're declaring yourself the victor. That's new and pretty novel.
I care why?
Actually your position is changing. At first you discounted all GW research as junk science. Now you have updated that to suggesting that the problem is too intractable for science. And you have upgraded junk science to "science" (with quotes). That is wishy washy. Therefore it must be you with the gnat balls.
I don't recollect your calling me out, as if you somehow got my goat. I believe I continue to restate my original proposition, though from here out I will leave out the name calling. Hope you don't find that too wimpy.
But I am in the position to make demands. You need to back up your spew. You can't. You still won't give me a yea or a nay on the most simple question of all. I not only demand it, your unwillingness to show what you think is because it is a pretty weak position. And one you don't even believe yourself. Go ahead, say it. Say there is NO Global warming trend. Say that everyone who thinks so is wrong.
C'mon mr. balls o'steel. Al Gore isn't here to beat up on.
and then I'll shut up. I'm even getting tired of listening to me...
-
I thought that the gallery was fairly unequivocal. If you didn't mean to imply that Gore wasn't a scientist nor using science to back his cause, why did you bring up the comparison between an evangelist and a scientist, when the post you responded to specifically chided Gore for using the pretext of science to further his manbearpug hunt.
Perhaps you should change your name to TapTapTapDance. What is your point anyway? You don't want to admit that you carry Gore's luggage for his conclusion of global warming, yet you expect an answer to your nebulous question of what is science? What definition of science do you want? I don't think there's much dispute over the warming trend. The disputes are the causes, severity and potential remedies.
I must not be a very good writer.
Gore has become a prophet. A man with a vision. A person with a set of ideals, reasons, and what you should do's. That is similar to religion. My hats off to him for taking the time and the flak. He states his case better than I could. You asked if that wasn't religion. I agreed it sure sounded like it. He may buttress his arguments with science, but he himself is not a scientist. Just like a salesman is not an engineer. Different jobs.
But I don't want to argue with you guys about Al Gore's motivations or his facts. That discussion obscures the real discussion. You weighed in on my question. You said that there is not much dispute over the warming trend. That is one vote cast toward that. You then are a yea. AD I think is a nay. I am a yea.
"The disputes are the causes, severity and potential remedies." I am with you 100%. And that is a huge dialog for science to still continue to test and figure out. And for policy makers to figure out during and after. And I don't want to touch it because the tone is way too shrill.
But we still have some folks who actually dispute this warming trend. Right here on our show. AD disputes it on the basis that it is all junk science.
We are down to brass tacks here. Are you a yea? Or a nay?
-
Which, of course, ignores the fact that Gore is NOT A SCIENTIST in any way, shape, form, or fashion.
There's your gnat balls trying to show themselves. You either respect Mr. Gore or you don't. Why be wishy-washy about it?
There's plenty of evidence out there in science, from respected and published Climatologists. Of course, the media doesn't report their views. I wonder why that is. Couldn't be "if it bleeds, it leads", could it?
Jeesh.
I ask the gallery. Is there any one else out there that didn't understand what I just wrote? Why would I ignore the fact that Gore is not a scientist? He isn't is he? Did I say he was? Didn't I just agree with the poster that Al was being a prophet and ergo - more evangelist than scientist? Man you are impossible. You may be a diick, but you usually have good arguments. Not this time. You are just disintegrating into a puddle of mush.
I don't suppose we are getting anywhere...
-
Really? You mean because there's no one out there questioning the gathering of the temperature data or the biases in allowance for "Urban heating"? Because you'd be wrong on both counts. Oh, but 90% of the science "community" whose increased funding pretty much depends on this being serious business, all agree that it's getting warmer (as long as the charts don't go back a whole lot further) and now have made the leap to "humans are causing it" (which you linked but aren't apparently now behind).
Again, I ask: Where are the double blind studies on "Global Warming"?
And you've got the balls of a gnat. Since no one has refuted that statement, it's also now law. I can live with being a "diick" and a "dick". Especially considering the source.
None of the things I've posted are term papers. They are each from accepted scientific research in the field, including papers from the same entity you used, that only 5 years ago said pretty much the opposite of what they're now saying.
Huh? How can I be wrong on both counts. Those aren't my counts. I only have one proposition here. And you constantly keep bringing up the human factor. It's not necessary. I'm trying to keep this simple for you. But I think we are closing in on your answer which is - No, there is no Global Warming. All studies are flawed or biased. Your definition of science includes a double blind study. And how you conduct one of those I'd like to see. Cool. That's where you stand. I think. You should directly confirm it or not.
Balls of a gnat. Are you saying I'm not up to challenging you directly? Or are you saying I'm not accepting a pistol duel? Or are you saying because I don't rant that somehow I am less of a man. I think I am more of a man because I have the better argument. And because you have lost this argument in spite of your asking stupid and unrefineded questions. I have spoken directly to the issue. You haven't.
Oh and BTW. I've proven you are a dick. You haven't proven I have balls of a gnat.
-
Let's be brutally clear on one thing, though: NOTHING Al Gore has done is science. Nothing. At best, it's politicking based on science. At worst, it's propaganda based on science.
Personally, I think Gore's BS qualifies as religion, being as it is defined as unfalsifiable and untestable. But it's certainly not science.
Anytime you set yourself up as Prophet or ideological leader, you become more akin to an evangelist than to a scientist.
Now I might respect Al for it and view his reasons as being sincere, and you might feel otherwise and view him as having more sinister, or ulterior motives.
That's certainly more in the opinion camp than the science camp. You saw the movie, you came away with an opinion way way or the other. I would not call your opinion stupid. Our original discussion, that I have now beat to death, was over the issue of GW in general. Human caused or not. And whether or not the body of evidence was junk science.
-
Antarticaaaugh!
This link requires a login. Most of you won't bother, so here's the "interesting part" - most of which doesn't contain the fear mongering of the article.
Highlights:
But the IPCC can now directly attribute "Global Warming" to human action.
At no time have I championed anthropogenic global warming. I made two claims.
For those that need brevity:
a. the globe is gettin warmer. and it ain't "junk science" that indicates it.
b. Alaska Darin is a dick.
so far, thru thousands of words, no one has refuted either proposition. I have been name called (hey I asked for that
) and other strawmen have been burned at the stake, but still nothing on a or b. I've gotten hints of term papers and all kinds of attacks on my writing. I even have given linkies for them that need them. You guys are so used to quarrelling, you don't even know how to present an argument. So what is it? T or F ?
-
What is worse is polarization on what is fundamentally a scientific question.
For some this seems locked shut - and they will not be convinced either way.
If the hypothesis is that global warming is primarily attributed to man made carbon emissions and that the Earth is heating up at an alarming rate - you have to account for data that doesn't fit the hypothesis.
Not being able to account for it means either the hypothesis is wrong, the data is wrong, or there is something else going on.
Skepticism is the check on bad science.
I just called my broker to sell cold fusion stocks - I took quite a hit.
I think the hypothesis is that there is a warming trend. And that it may have a great effect on the environment and it's current stastis.
I would suggest that skepticism is not the check on bad science. Good science is the check. Skepticism should be what motivates good science. Skepticism without good science is just an unbalanced belief system. Heck I subscribe to The Skeptic Magazine (from right here in Amherst! good stuff!). But to be a skeptic comes with it a responsibility for a higher degree of proof. Otherwise you are just a crank. Or you/it becomes the province of religion and matters become accepted "on faith".
Can good science produce incorrect conclusions? Sure. I consider bad science not incorrect conclusions, but poorly done science. But it takes a very high degree of insight and knowlege to be able to pan someones efforts as "bad science" It requires a greater degree of proof. It is a problem because everyone wants to discover something and noone wants to spend a career checking out someones else's work and saying - yep, it's good.
So I agree mostly with your post. And only differ in making the hypothesis and our argument today a bit simpler. There is still tremendous power in a conclusion that the is such of a thing as Global Warming. And it's presence is going to be not insignificant.
I wonder, who feels that this hypothesis is true, not true, or unproven?
And who would agree that this report, conclusions notwithstanding, is a product of junk science?
-
.................................
As far as "not caring a whit" (whatever the fukk that is), you're wrong. I simply don't care what your opinion of me is. Try and figure out the difference.
Actually, I think I know you better than maybe I care to. I've read well over 1000 of your posts and the responses to them. That is a body of work that is pretty indicative of either what you believe, or some persona you are spending way too much time to cultivate.
And it is having witnessed that, that I feel pretty safe in calling out your attitude as a, well since the kids are in bed and you prefer it, a dick. That really is based upon your body of work mind you, not your claims today.
As to the difference between caring and this macho beer he-man attitude, I think I am pretty safe there too. You don't much care for anybody. Not that I've seen. So let the chips fall where they may, but you have been pretty eloquent in stating that. Hey if I am wrong, show me why. But don't pretend that after 10,000 posts (god, I just looked and it was 25k), you give a pretty good picture of yourself and your character. Alaska Darin = Great Humanitarian doesn't seem to be the phrase of choice around here. Maybe I missed the post.
Back to the real reason I picked this fight. "Junk Science" as mantra. After Ramius gives some evidence that he has actually studied the issue and applied some scientific reasoning to the issue and seems well on the way to contributing, you do a throw up of a few unrelated items and disparage the entire body of scientific thought, publications, discourse, freakin issues of Scientific American. You know if you are going to throw GW under the bus (global not greggo), you got to do better than that. That is precisely my point. And here it is yet agin for those who can't glean it from my writing.
It is the height of stupidity, to ignore learned men, discussing learned things, by saying ahh.... they don't know what they are talking about.
They do. They attempt to prove it using time and world tested techniques. Your ranting does not change that. What your ranting does, is give obviously less than able thinkers like silver and gold (sorry Silv, you just don't seem to have the cleverness to hang in this battle) a rally point. Yours is a sort of leadership position for the less capable.
I'm just hoping that, like in the creation vs. evolution dialog, we keep reminding folks that we are not the wackos. We represent what is the search for truth. The aspiration for man to improve himself. And the hope that our children are free from fear and harm.
Seems like it should be a popular strategy. My disappointment is that it isn't.
-
Why "walk the walk and talk the talk" about something that NO ONE has consensus on? Yes, they all agree there is warming. They do NOT all agree on why.
If you kill American business in the name of enforcing ridiculous co2 caps, then you're only further empowering the nations who won't enforce to make greater progress in weakening our competitive advantage.
Global warming is a liberal "guilt" issue, nothing more, nothing less. I'm supposed to feel guilty for driving a car. It's the same as the inane "slavery reparations" argument.
Thanks for the reply. I shifted gears a bit and guess I left you in the dust. My bad.
In reference to walking and talking, I meant our collective responsibility to fellow man. I was noting the rather calloused attitudes of two posters who both felt that they cared nothing about another opinion and the mental picture of watching humanity perish in the flames. Maybe I am putting words in the mouths, but I would not mind be called out about that. And being reassured that indeed, our responsibility to fellow man DID mean a great deal. Hope I'm wrong.
What I referred to was not only being concerned, but acting concerned.
As to Kyoto accords or CO2 emissions, I do not propose those as solutions - or not. I'd rather get agreement on a problem and a willingness to solve it. This thread is NOT about policy.
But it's about stupidness. Like saying GW is a liberal guilt issue. Nope. GW is a thing. And it's either happening or it's not. It's a yes or no proposition. It's true or it's false. It's not hysteria, it's not white man's burden. It's not Al Gore's public service announcement.
And what exactly does Liberal Guilt Issue mean? Just tell me: Is the planet warming, cooling, or staying the same. And by how much? And what is the rate of change? Could this be any simpler?
You guys have yet to put one good argument on the table. Not one. Shows the depth of your thinking.
-
I'm more into the science than the actual policy.
Nothing liek kicking back, grabbing a few brews, and watching utter chaos ensue as people try to save and cling to their pathetic little lives.
Ouch. OK, we'll keep you away from policy decisions then!
Funny how the anti-Al crowd (dindt say I was pro-Al) has such a calloused and outspoken disregard for fellow man.
Our society has gotten here today precisely because of a joint effort against common threats, against common enemies, and working toward mutual benefits. Because life is so cushy today and we are so independent thinking, we have lost touch with the sense of community that has gotten us here.
But it hasn't gone away. We exist on the basis of others. Try as you might think you can do as you damn well please, that is not true. The "pull yourself up from your own bootstrap mentality is a great one". But don't forget for a minute that you have quite a few that put you here in the first place and quite a few more that keep you here.
My family, all college educated, working, and raising families is here today because my grandfather had something to eat during the depression. He didnt work for over 10 years. Meantime the government/welfare fed, clothed, and educated the rest of the family. This family continues and will continue for many years. My responsibilities are to pay back, and to salt away for future generations. That means both to my family, country, and fellow man.
To do less is not a crime in our present society. But to do less means someone else has to do more. Able bodied men (as are many of us) are expected to do more.
But not only is it important for me to do more, it is important to challenge others to do as well. I'll try to walk the walk AND talk the talk. Hopefully you will too.
but you can be sure I am not one to encourage others to wallow in ignorance or uncaring.
-
I was so waiting for someone's permission. Thank goodness it was yours.
ah, so much flak, so little time.
First off as to the spelling. I dislike using language with people that I would feel comfortable using if I knew them, but might be offensive if I didn't. I figure I am capable of conveying ideas without being a jerk. But the term is just so appropriate in the Igloo Darwin's case that I felt it was right. Spelling it wrong was probably a stupid concession on my part. But I do care and respect what other people - young or old think. Especially those people who feel that profanity is wrong. I'm not one of them, enjoying selective and frequent use of the stuff, but also realize that some people have different sensibilities. My right to freedoms end at your nose. And you likewise to mine.
Which is a lead in back to our subject - global warming.
Much of your and others bullying and braying is that there ain't no such of a thing. You used a term "junk science" as if you had the corner on exactly what science was, and that as the arbitrator, you could take it and dump it. You bring up commonly held falsehoods like the earth is flat and say that scientists were wrong about that.
At one time in history, I'm quite sure you could have found over 90% of the scientific community would agree that the earth was flat, was the center of the solar system, etc. Science is never wrong. That's why I'm pulling Africanized honey bees outta my igloo this Spring.
The ancient greeks who pretty much invented the use of the scientific method knew that the earth was round. Among the literate and educated greeks, the only scientists as it were, the idea that the earth was round and the earth revolved around the sun was the more common belief. Since by math, they could prove it. It was only after people with your type abilities got in control of the situation that much of this information was lost.
And what was lost, was indeed the scientific method or process.
I directly stated that your calling global warming "junk science" as an attempt to portray the whole thing as a fraud - is flat out stupid. Next you'll be telling me the earth is really 10,000 years old, and that man does not share common ancestors with monkeys. Why? Because some people have been wrong befor. Therefore, science in the year 2007 is quite likely, no, absolutely wrong. Unfortunetly this common mantra is beginning to create a whole sub class of humans. Those who deny the power of knowledge. And make stuff up as they go along to fit their personal comfort.
Their slogans have even been bandied today and are mentally challenged:
"believe Al, it's better than thinking"
"Not that a consensus in the scientific community confirms anything. There was scientific resistance to AC current, wireless communication, and the earth being round back in the day. And in the 70's, scientists were freaking out about global cooling. The scientific community always agrees on something until they decide to agree on something else."
Jeesh guys, when was it that ignorance became a badge of honor? Was it that these concepts started getting a little hard to wrap your head around after a full night of CSI and Cold Case? Or is it that a couple of failing grades in Earth Science bruised your self esteem? Or is it that the internet gives you a soapbox that allows your inner ignoramus a chance to wail?
Believe Al or not, please do the thinking. Thinking involves reading. It involves listening. And it involves the use of logic and the scientific method as means of divining truth. Indeed a consensus in the scientific community does confirm something! Most of the time, it's right. That's what the statistics part of science is doing - fer the love of pete. The scientific community got us to the moon. It got us the internet (Al Gore notwithstanding). It got us hard disk drives and CPU's. These things were not done by one guy bitching about how everyone else is wrong. Nope that ain't it. It was done by teams of people working off of other teams of people. Not assuming the other was wrong, BUT ASSUMING THAT THE OTHER WAS RIGHT.
I shout because I love.
Why did I pick on Igloo Dan? Because trendy stupidity is the ultimate danger to our republic. And nowhere is this more glaring than in the global warming debate. Allow science to work on the problem. It is ultimately our best hope. What? You disagree that science is the best hope for avoiding a potential disaster? I guess bombing and praying are preferred solutions. Or wishing. That's the ticket. Let's wish it away. No, no no. I got it. Let's pretend that there is no problem. Let's not look for a problem. And let's just continue going about our merry way. Hey guys, let's just go with Alaska Darin. A self professed, I don't care a whit for anyone else. Yeah, you be the leader today. I'm with you, Dude.
Just so you don't have to restate your case, AD, I will answer your initial post.
You shared a research paper - a product of the "junk science community" that you despise. That paper identifies a pattern and brings some data to the table. It suggests that Global warming is not consistent across the planet. And suggests that anyone studying the phenomenon, go back and factor that into their model. Great. Thanks for bringing that up. Hear hear. Good news if true.
BUT - To go off half cocked and start screaming about how Al's got it wrong and see here so does 90% of the folks who devote their lives to it and there isn't any warming, and ....
That is what I find indefensible - and just flat stupid.
-
I didn't neglect anything. I posted the data in full. I also asked people to draw their own conclusions. To me, Global Warming is junk science. I don't at all disagree that the human race is a terrible steward of the environment and we need to be far more careful and cognizant of what we're doing to the planet, but that doesn't mean that I at all accept what Gore and the money grubbing scum who join him are selling.
Oh yeah. Al Gore has decided to spend his time preaching about a problem that could negatively impact the human race. Just a wee little thing.
And that makes him money grubbing? If he were pursuing the presidency, I'd allow that insight. If he were (like the scumbag Ron Regan) shilling for foreign companies after his political career was over, I'd accept that. If he were working for a pharmaceutical company trying to get drugs approved by using his political influence to trump the scientists (ala Rummey) I'd believe that.
But since you have trumpeted that what 90% of scientists believe: that the earth is in involved in a general warming progression that could fundamently change our society, since you have declared that junk science, then it must be so. Hah.
Your opinions on the Bills are entertaining. Your pompous political posturing in the face of real scientists who do this for a living; is just plain retarded.
The boy who said the emperor had no clothes was just in it for the money too.
Those self same scientists practicing "junk science" have given you a pretty cushy life. But you should join the portion of the human race that forever believes that their dogma is better than science - well, just because.
Most consider you a diick. Now you are a stupid diick.
Rock on.
-
think about it, we got 5-6 possible starters out of last years draft. if we can get 3-4 out of this years, combined with the fact that we have ZERO starters becoming UFAs next year... THEN we can package some picks together and trade up and get our playmaker.
Hey if we do that, I don't care who we take. That would go a long way to building a franchise.
OK, I change my mind. I'd like the potential playmaker, but after deliberation, I'd prefer the group of franchise builders.
Or both?? (spoken by a true fan, not a realist).
-
lol, ben is FAR from the best QB of that class. he lucked out his first year and was a small part of a great team that already knew how to win.
eli has just been horrible. worse than JP in his first couple of years.
and Rivers got lucky that he has LT and all that talent around him.
this may come off as a homer assessment, but in my opinion, JP is becoming (and will become) the best QB from that class.
Darn that Donahoe. Spawn of Satan he is....
-
I know this sounds like a cop-out, but my answer is simply: WHOMEVER OUR SCOUTS have RANKED THE HIGHEST. That is really the only bright side to having so many needs... aside from QB and SS, I think you could make an argument to draft the best available player at almost any other position. I am no scout and do not pretend to be. There are however, many scouts employed by the team that are paid to make these kinds of decisions. Based on the early returns from last year's draft, I am inclined to trust their judgment. Assuming that these guys are all ranked very close, that is where I'd try to trade down.
Agree with the initial part of your answer (let the pro coaches figger it out). But assuming for the sake of argument that the four are all equally ranked, and are of top 12 caliber, I would like to see the halfback. RB's are generally the quickest out of the chute to produce at superstar levels. And we have a chance at 12 to get rare talent. I think this year we don't have to get cute or try to fill holes (last year makes even more sense this year). But this year we can trully take top flight talent. We don't have to find a diamond. And at 12 we will get a number of shots at a diamond.
-
So we keep him because we OWE him?!?!? I don't think so. Didn't WM work hard to get back? If Marv has the oppurtunity to move Takeo, he would in a heartbeat, IMO. Sentiment doesn't come into play here.
Yep.
Works both ways. We expect it from the players (and get it to some extent). It's called honor. And there is some of it left in the nfl. It's not sentiment. Fair play is appreciated by all parties. Ball players aren't like socks. They are human beings and as such you have to motivate them like human beings.
Too long a subject to treat here. Just consider my answer - yep.
-
Does character issues come to mind anyone? I thought thats what the Bills preach?
What is it about Rickys character that you find objectionable? He layed his body down in the snow that day in Rich Stadium. It was brutal. I myself would never have played another game in the NFL. But he put it ALL on the line. I saw it. It was like something from another era.
Now Rickky might be a bit, ahh say crazy. But tell me Chris Speilman wasnt crazy. Art Still was crazy. Freaking Todd Collins was crazy. Alot of ball players were/are crazy. Marv has no problem with that. Are they football players though?
Ricky was a football player. Then he wasn't. Question is simple. Is he now?
And neither you or I knows that answer. But the answer to that question is the big million dollar question. Looks like someone will have to gamble a bit on it. Hopefully, our staff can see it and make the call.
-
THIS is anything but logical........
Man I want Spikes just because of what he has given us. All that time spent getting back? He got back to being a Bill! Good for him. Now we pay him his contract. Because that is what we do. And we hope he has it. But if he doesn't? We got his back. That is team mentality. That is what makes players - believers. And believers win.
Just ask marv.
-
Sources deep within?
I hear the choir warming up. And it's the soprano's turn to sing!!!
Superbowl passing trends since 1989
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Sorry I'm so lazy that I wont even run the numbers, but assuming my eyeball average is 14, that is much lower than I would have guessed. To the point where it looks like you need to have a number under 15 but after that, your passing stats are not a great predictor of Super Bowl success.
Without sounding stupid, (like I would if I said the most relevant predictor is W/L percentage during the playoffs), I'd say the best predictor is the plus/minus factor. Your average game day difference between points scored and points given up.
But the way to build a team is the time honored way. Find your weaknesses and eliminate them. Always be trying to make your team better. Or at least not suck in particular areas.
I think the Bills' pass rush is a weakness, middle run defense, and right side run blocking. Other than when I need QB, I think I would be drafting linemen at the 1-2 position nearly every year. Heck, linemen represent nearly half the team!
I hope someone does this same excercise for defense.