OCinBuffalo

Why 2005? Last time the media's confidence/approval/whatever was >=50%: 2005. For many here, 2005 was like a lifetime ago. It was for me anyhow. It's only 13 years, but literally everything has changed, for me anyway. I believe we were talking Iraq war, and the Surge and stuff like that back then. But, maybe there was other stuff too. Certainly Asian Carp/Great Lakes was on the agenda. The media's rating is someplace around 32% as I write this...clearly something/many things have changed. What has changed for you, if anything, in terms of your views on the media? Think a little, please, what were you thinking about then, and how much did the media inform those thoughts vs how much your own work did? Now, how much does the media inform you vs how much research do you do yourself/live TV(or unfiltered clips on the internet) do you watch? Same/less/more? And, why do you think they've lost 18 points? What can be realistically done about this?

265 pages....and I wonder what exactly is in there that I missed. Did I miss something? All those hours spent....talking about what exactly, as we now know things today? What a waste of man hours. All this, for literally nothing. Oh, I am certain there's some humor in here....but you're high if you think I'm gonna start at page one of this...monstrosity. Almost makes me pine for the days of Molson Golden: at least you knew the thread was going to die in 3 or less pages, with a punchline.

BTW, so how's this thread going? 55 pages about 400 pages....that all lead to: Nothing. Wonder why I don't feel bad that I missed it.

This is hilarious. I've only been giving advice as a job for decades. I look at it as coaching. Sure, we do things for some people some of the time, but, mostly, we spend our time teaching, in some form or another, each other, clients, even partners. And, apparently an amazing aspect: literally no one has doubted my knowing what I am doing all this time, regardless of whether I've been working for myself or others. I wonder: given this logic, should every coach in the NFL, every CEO in the Fortune 500, be forced to confront the fact that most of what they do now is teach/advise, and, because they didn't "do" enough being worker bees...should fire themselves...after they were promoted? Better: For every 1 coder Oracle has, each year they have between 5-7 "teachers". Sometimes they have as many as 10 "trainers" per coder. What a way to run a company....all those people who have no idea what they are doing, because they don't do....billing an average of $150/hr at .8 utilization.

You laugh at something that is literally proven to be valid by every draft trade since 2012. What else do you laugh at: the earth being round?

Basic 8th grade math, which both of you should be made to re-take. God where is Ramius when we need him...this is approaching 3.5 status. Possible combinations are not probable results. And results are not outcomes. Possible combinations have no predictive value whatsoever. Multiplying things to 7th power....does something somewhere, I am sure(perhaps it cures Madonna's Hep C?)...but it does not predict outcomes of flipping a coin. Great post. Wanna try posting something that isn't garbage. Better: do you actually know anything about the draft? CB play? Or hey how about O line play? Let's start with an easy one: given our personnel so far, are we setting up to be a power or zone blocking team? Can you answer that?

It's going great: notice how the crap stopped and people started posting substance again? Works. Every. Single. Time.

You can ask anybody this also: Do I care? Never. Do the mods care? Never. I run my threads the way I run them, precisely because it ensures quality...which is all SDS cares about, and what this board is known for. You think you'll be able to whine to a mod because you are being crushed for posting garbage in one of my threads? Good luck with that. Gugny wouldn't do that. He and I get along far too well. And, also: Gugny knows what's best for Gugny, and what's best isn't posting crap in my threads.

This past year: 1 time out of 10 that was true. So, I suppose we just write off the other 9...in a division...with Tom Brady. Oh, yeah, makes tons of sense. Hey, in general, I'm finally happy about what we have going into this season: I haven't been for 14 seasons before this one. So, what, am I supposed to just forget the 14 years of people complaining when we draft a CB high, or at any position? I'll be happy if we pick up one more quality DB, one way or another, that I can see can play, before the season. This thread is about waste: if we take a OT at #9, and a G for our 3rd I'll be happy. Why? Because for all the FAs? I have no idea if we have 5 starting caliber OLs on this team. Even with Dawkins, who took a step back last year. I have NEVER been supportive of an O line pick at 1 or 2(looking at you Kouandjio)...but last year's O line was a dumpster fire, and no it wasn't preventable via the draft: you can't predict both Wood and Incognito being gone so abruptly, and you can't do anything about it when you need to draft a QB.

No, I have substantiated it...by comparing each draft pick traded on one side, to picks trades on the other, and they add up...to exactly what the value chart requires. Tell me about the trade of Polian's you found that didn't. Go on. Don't be shy.

The sheer nonsense of this might be enough to power a warp engine. But be careful, we don't have much experience containing nonsense like this, there could be an accident.

Jesus....and how did you arrive at that? Show your work.

Yet he used it for every single trade he made as the Colts GM. I did the work on ALL NFL trades, including and especially his, back when the RG3 debacle came up. Curious: what work have you done on Polian's trades? Do you have any specific trade you can point to that deviates from the value chart? Let's hear it. I'd be very interested to hear about that...because I haven't found a single one, ever.

Nope, I've just been here for 10 years and I don't put up with pissants posting nothing of value in my threads. Again, ask anybody. Same thing as above: it's not like there's a shortage of places for you to post, substance-free, here. Do it elsewhere. Nothing to do with power, everything to do with: this is how I run my threads, you're free to run yours your way.

This has nothing to do with you, but everything to do with: 0 tolerance for substance free posts in my threads. You want to F about: take it elsewhere, I mean it's not like there's a shortage of places for you to post here.

Refusing to post anything of substance will 100% of the time get you crushed in my threads. Ask anybody. You can start: now. Or GTFO of my thread.

No. Each flip, 50% of heads, 50% of tails. Why is this so hard? Look, if I flip a coin one time and get heads, the universe doesn't tilt on it's axis, bend the coin....time...space...and create a 25% chance that I will get heads again. The second time there are only 2 outcomes, same as the first. Past outcomes of coin flips don't predict future outcomes. 7 coin flips = 50% chance of heads or tails for each, with no predictive...anything. 7 heads in a row has a chance of 50% 2 heads, 1 tails, 3 tails, 1 heads? 50% chance...exactly. Get it...yet?

So, you just post crap instead?

But, I thought you were sleepy. I'm just trying to help you out. Perhaps after you rest you can add something substantive to this thread?

Ok, I'll wake you up when I find a way to flip 121 on a coin. Then you can post.

Yeah, somehow, I doubt the even mildly educated observer of this thread would say that I'm the one who is "struggling". No. Never. Not ever. Each spin/flip is totally and completely independent and has NO BEARING on the next. The odds never change. They stay exactly the same. Just like whether or not pick #160 makes the team, has no bearing on whether pick #159 or #162 or #1 makes their team...if that's how we define "hit". They hit, or miss, completely independently from each other. Man, I am glad I no longer give NYS ANY of my $, if this is what their education looks like. You should ask for a refund/start voting for different people. You are confusing combinations with outcomes. And, you are falsely implying that combinations are predictive of outcomes. There are only 2 outcomes: heads or tails, the possible combinations are a nice exercise for you...but they predict nothing. The only prediction for a coin flip: it will be heads, tails, or magically land, and stay, on its edge. Heads 50%, Tails 50%, magic 0%.

No there are 2 outcomes. Heads or tails. I've never heard of somebody flipping 121 on a coin. Maybe that's possible in another dimension? It's not possible here.

No, it means you have 50% chance that any of them, all of them, some of them, or none of them...will be a hit. Again, using the statement "hit on draft pick", and as I said in the beginning, "setting aside the subjective evaluation, of a hit, being a hit". If a guy is drafted and makes the team, is that a hit? How about the PS? Is that a hit? These are subjective evaluations. If a guy is drafted #9 overall, makes the team but doesn't make the Pro-Bowl, is that a hit? That's a subjective standard AND a subjective expectation. But, if that's the standard then he is either a hit, or a miss. Regardless of how we define "hit", once we have, the guy either meets the subjective criteria of being a "hit", or he doesn't, so he's a "miss". Thus, this is a binary, as defined. One can come up with irrational standards, like "if every pick the Bills make isn't a starter, they are not a hit, but every pick other teams make are hits if the merely make the team". That's not just subjective, it's irrational, and therefore must be rejected. No. Once you decide on a rational methodology of determining which pick is a hit, and apply it rationally and evenly, then, every pick is STILL: either a hit or a miss, and STILL has a chance of 50% for either. Then you should ask for your parent's property tax $ back and/or sue your teachers, because that is flat out wrong. On every single spin you have 1/38 chance or 37 to 1 odds of 23 hitting. If 23 comes up 3 times, or never, it had 37 to 1 odds each time, every time. For the rest time, for each spin of that wheel 23 has a 37 to 1 chance, no matter what.

Look, if I have to get a 8th grade math textbook, I will. I suggest you stop now. Here's the right way to look at the relationship between players and picks, which also explains exactly WHY the value chart works the way it does. 1. If I pick #1, I can literally pick any 1 player. If I pick #2, I can pick any player - the player that was picked #1. If I pick #3, I can pick any player minus the ones picked at #1 and #2. Thus the value of each successive pick is defined by what players are excluded from the players that are available for that pick. 2. Thus, the 161st pick's value is defined by the fact that 160 players are no longer available to be taken. 3. However, hitting on 161 has nothing to do with who was picked at 160, or who will be picked at 162. Player #161 will make plays/make the team/be considered a hit, regardless of whether each of the 160 players before before him, or after him, "hit". 4. What we get by trading all of 4-7 for 1 #3 is: a chance to pick when less players have already been taken. That's it. Whether that player hits, or whether players 4-7 hit, using the binary definition, is and ALWAYS WILL BE: 50%. Yes it is, if we use the "chance to hit on a draft pick" statement. You either hit or you don't. Jesus: they must love you at the roulette table. If you pick 23 for 10 spins one night, and then 100 spins the next, do you think you have a better chance to win the 2nd night? NO! Bad! You don't, and therefore, you should lifetime ban yourself from playing roulette.

Yes, I did, because they are absolutely == to 50%.