OCinBuffalo

Yeah. In my view, and based on what I saw DW saying tonight: that's exactly who Watkins is. Never mind supposed. IS. And, yeah: I don't think there's anything wrong with us progressively setting the bar at: 1. "contribute" for the first 4 games. 2. (provided EJ is not melting down going forward)"make a difference" for the next 4 games. 3. "significant factor in the game" for the next 4 4. "dominate, and help us win 2 of the last 4 games of the season...which are a nightmare, with 3/4 of them being on the road, and all of them against good teams"

With this speed? How's about we call it the shoot and run? Shoot: Ej snaps the ball from shotgun, counts 1 mississippi, and chucks it. Run: Any of the WRs listed above run under it, because short of a PI/illegal contact, the only way to stop this to park the safties 40 yards down the field!

But that is the problem. There is no "right" here, at this point in time. Right implies certainty. We cannot be certain, when we are dealing with future prediction....otherwise, it wouldn't be prediction. We can NEVER be right at this point...which is why ESPN taking about "EJ is a wasted pick" is patently retarded. One should never over commit to a probability that is so nebulous/dependent on so many external factors. (I see this all the time in my job tho...) What we are dealing with is probability. There is a chance that Watkins fails. There is a larger chance that EJ fails. But, given the talent on the team, the largest chance is: next year's #1 was never going to be high enough to get a sure-fire 10 year answer at QB. Exactly like: the greatest chance for our 6th round pick...was to not make the team. So, you trade it away for Mike Williams. Given these realistic() chances, you go with the thing that is most likely to yield success, but, you accept the fact that you can be wrong. That's it: there is a chance that this is a bad move, however, there is > chance it isn't, and the notion that we are giving away a chance at a viable QB solution next year? Barely a chance at all.

Last year the lions used Reggie Bush, lining up at RB, then shifting to WR depending on whatever side Megatron lined up at/what the D did in repsonse to great effect.... ...well... when and if Stafford didn't F things up. The play was open all the time. I would line up Stevie on one side, and pre-snap shift Spiller to the other, behind two WR setting up the screen blocking. That could be damn dangerous, because now you have a S trying to cover Spiller in space(if you do it right).

It's a risk that is fully supported by the probabilities involved. In fact, the greater risk is not taking the guy who you "know"(scouting...what Whaley gets paid to do, etc.) can put you over the top... ...when... compared to the probability that the value of the #1 pick given away: was actually going to be high enough next year to have a chance of "working" = picking a 10-year answer QB.

Um. No. Again, there is no transmutation going on here. This is simply an exercise in probability. The probability that we have given away a chance to draft our 10 year answer at QB next year, given the talent on the team this year, is nearly negligable. You need to be picking top 5 to maximize the chance that you get your answer QB. The pick is the pick. It's the team, that likely pushes the value of the pick down to "very unlikely to select answer QB" territory. Consider: the reason the 6th round pick we gave away for Mike Williams was so expendable? Because the talent on this team says: that 6th round pick wasn't going to make this team.

Nice matter, I was gonna start a thread sorta like this one. It boils down to this: What is the starting lineup for the Bills O/what is the "base offense"? Answer: O line QB RB 4 WR That means 4 of your starters....play the same position. You can't have 2nd/3rd best players....as starters. Consider: If the O line was thought of the same (old) way we think of WR = #1 WR, #2 WR, Slot WR, etc.? Let me tell you: we'd have more than a few posters here losing their minds. No. You need STARTERS at every STARTING position. Therefore, you need 4 STARTING WRs, every bit as much as you need 5 STARTING O lineman.

The only people upset about this trade are ones who stuggle with logic! Summarized: There is a perhaps a 20% chance we are picking in the top 10 next year. You need to be picking in the top 5 to get elite QB. Therefore, the notion that we gave away our #1 next year, which represents the QB we would need to select because EJ is bad....is a tenuous conclusion at best. It's a calculation to be sure. But, you don't make decisions based on 20% chances(which means 80% against). The chance that we gave away an opportunity to select a stud QB next year is simply too small when weighed against the probability of the other outcomes = 1. EJ good/>21st overall 2. EJ mediocre/>15th overall 3. EJ bad/>10th overall Thus, the team would have to completely implode for the pick we gave away to be capable of picking us a stud QB.

And once again, this brings the obligatory: And how about this as well? Oh sure, blame us. Typical. Well, since we already have Bryan Cox posted....

You have this exactly reversed. Neo Conservatives became Bush/Cheney types, not the other way around. They successfully fooled even the Rush Limbaugh types, by focusing people on Bush's religious "evolution" while in the other hand, played down his fiscal liberalism. They did this, largely because they knew: Bush was soft on government spending(see: Medicare, Part D)...which, any neo conservative likes....because s/he is, again, merely a liberal that hates the Democratic party's approach to Israel/Foreign policy. They co-opted Bush into their way of thinking, largely because they could offer him a path to getting elected, in spite of the towering Clinton results that he faced, and ALGORE, inc. squandered. So, Bush got elected and shocker: Ari Fleischer(ahem, remember when I said "Mostly Jewish ex-Liberals"? Well, there you go.) was his press secretary, who immediately set about delivering the "compassionate conservative" message. Again, the hate liberals have for neo-conservatives has very little to do with ideology. How do you go about "hating" someone politically, who agrees with 85% of what you say, politically? Democrats, rank and file party Democrats, hate neo-conservatives because they are turncoats. It is the far-left, as usual, trading on ignorance and propaganda, that has made a neo-con into a social conservative, when nothing could be further from the truth. Ask any evangelist Christian, if he is a neo-con, wants anything to do with them, or thinks that they share the same values. You will get 3 "NO!s" in a row. Ask Mitt Romney why these people didn't show up to vote for him in Ohio, Florida, basically everywhere they did show up for Bush. Answer: Bush fooled them once. Mitt Romney was unsuccessful in fooling them twice. EDIT: There, Rob's House, the above is all fact, no insults. Fair enough? But, one more sweeping conclusion based on sheer ignorance....well? You know what happens.

Nailed it! The "popular" or dare I say "consensus" TSW thinking has been right about only 2(two) draft picks since I've been here: Aaron Maybin and Marcell Dareus. And, that's largey due to being right that Orakpo was the better player than Maybin. "We" knew that Orakpo was the guy we wanted over Maybin, and when he was there, we knew it was a mistake not to take him. (Donte Whitner is a Pro-Bowler, and a statistical/PFF hoss, which, is what you are looking for when you draft somebody at #8. Those that hate the Whitner pick just can't admit they were wrong.) Everybody in North America was right about the Dareus pick...so that's a push. I don't see anything even approaching that kind of certainty in this draft, at our position. I do see a lot of posters saying the same thing they say every year. Therefore, I'm going to find it extremely difficult to take anyone who "hates the pick" seriously this year, unless something very, very bizarre happens.

Sal Capaccio doing the job when either of B+S is out makes the afternoon show decent at times, and downright good at others. I have no idea why Sal hasn't taken over Schopp's job yet, but I assume he will soon. This way, Schopp would be free to pursue the "big offers from other towns he gets all the time". (Direct quote from Schopp surrogate I have...on file ) I see that as a win/win. Let us poor, uncivilized, D-bags, who simply aren't capable of appreciating Schopp's ability, get what we deserve: Sal Capaccio, the low-end annoucer who is only capable of discussing dumb topics like the Bill's draft, and the hockey prospects we have because, you know, he's wasted his time watching them play. Then, let some other enlightened city benefit from the sheer brilliance that is Mike Schopp. Everybody wins. Well, sort of. Buffalo stays dumb. But, hey that's Buffalo for ya! What can Mike really do about us being so dumb? It's not his fault we're dumb. He's done the very best he could with us, and you know, there are those big offers from other cities to consider....

The only reality here: you've packaged opinion, and a small bit of reasoned analysis, and stamped "Fact" on that package. In the immortal words of Tommy Boy, "Hey, if you want me to take a dump in a box and mark it guaranteed, I will." The other reality here? When anyone talks about stadium, ownership, etc., and classifies that as "reality"? They are doing it wrong. They are merely making a bet. There are plenty of posters who would take the other side of your bet. Neither side of a bet reflects "reality". Otherwise, no one would take the bet. It merely reflects: opinion. Reasoned opinion? Perhaps, but still: opinion. If you win your bet? You weren't being "realistic". You were being "lucky".

In... before thread closure.

Bad vibes about taking the 3rd best player, at any position, never mind O line, at #9, due solely to some out-dated mantra. If we are drafting at 20-25? I have no problem with the third best OT, for the same reason I have no problem with the third best WR/QB/C whatever: we are drafting 20-25. Not at 9. 3rd best anything, or high-risk/reward bust like Maybin(notice how Bill left Maybin out? Convenient, huh? D line = too close to O line, since neither is a skill player...so...we forgetz it!), is not who you draft at #9. You draft graded out, consensus, stud player, that your entire scouting staff has rated in the Top 10...and if he fails, you fire your scouting staff. Otherwise? Why have a scouting staff at all? If the only thing that ever makes sense is drafting an O lineman in the first round? You don't need a scouting staff. Just look online/see what everybody else is saying about the O line prospects, and take one of them. But....we do have a scouting staff, don't we? I wonder why....... EDIT: And after careful consideration, I've come the conclusion that 31 other teams have scouting departments as well. Gee, all this wasted $. Don't they know that the only position you should ever draft in Rounds 1-3 is O line, and perhaps D-line? Man, the NFL loves to waste money on people it doesn't need. All this talk of them being a greedy business, but, look at all these make-work jobs they hand out to useless scouts! And, these scouts don't even do their jobs right, since for years, all their teams have not been following proper drafting procedure. They've been drafting LB, RB, CB, S, WR, TE and of course QB in the first round, never mind the other 3. Man, it just doesn't make sense.

Oh Christ, here we go.... Then you have no idea what a neo conservative is, and you've just proved it. When are the unmitigated moron sheep of the left going to realize that the only reason their sheep herders are so pissed at, specifically, NEO conservatives...is that neo conservatives used to be liberals, and remain liberals in every sense of the word...except when it comes to Israel/being a foreign policy candy ass? Mostly Jewish Liberals...that now refuse to vote Democrat, and look for ways to vote Republican? Yeah, you can't blame the right for this. This is the left's problem. The trouble? Clearly they don't explain their problem to their rank and file, as evidenced above. I fully expect a whole new brood of neo conservatives to be spawned via Obama's child-like behavior. And if that wasn't enough, John Kerry's "apartheid" comments are almost certain to have spawned a few more million neo conservatives. Meanwhile, libertarians and paleo-conservatives just laugh at all of this. The neo-conservative has nowhere else to go, by definiton, so why should we pay attention to them? The liberal yapping about them, means they aren't yapping about us, so why should we discourage it? (Of course we should publicly deride all liberals, at all times, for all the stupid things they do, including being woefully ignorant with the use of term "neo-coservative"...this goes without saying, but, we shouldn't discourage them from exposing their ignorance. ) They never seem to get it: if there's nothing to sell, then, there's nothing to buy! It's a simple concept, yet...untenable for so many. They don't seem to understand that one cannot be: 1. For campaign finance reform 2. For expansion of government power without also being properly judged an obtuse assclown. If you want to remove the #1 lobby from government? You really want to get lobbyists out of the system? You really want to "do the right thing"? Bar all government employee unions from political campaign donation. Yeah, Oh My God.....we can't do that.... Right. We can't do the very thing we said we wanted to do with: "lobbying"....because that means actually doing something, major, when it comes to: "lobbying". We love to talk about "Big Money" in politics, but we never acknowledge where the, literal, biggest money comes from. Unmitigated morons.

It seems neither of you get it. The "it" here is not whether or not one lazy/needy person gets benefits. It's about forcing many people, who otherwise could "fend for themselves" , into a government-controlled system. Once this forcing has been done: the electoral math becomes "vote for me and I'll increase your Obamacare". Also,"it" becomes: "vote for me, and I'll get you a job working for/next door to the government, from which you can never be fired, and for which you eternally owe me a vote". But....you really think any of these people(politicians/needy/lazy/scammers/employed by government people) care if they get scammed? Not in the slighest. Why? Solution to being scammed: hire more government people, who have more time, to see more people, who therefore can get $ easier, and this all requires more money....so....vote for me because I bring "Teh Justiss". /facepalm You care about people, you want to make sure the needy get what they need, and you don't care if that means some overage to the lazy/scammer. Great. That attitude is admirable, and exactly what I would expect from a WNY person. Unfortunately? That attitude is about as naive as it gets, and is also exactly what I would expect from a WNY person. This ain't about needy people, and it never was. This is ALWAYS about stealing more money from somewhere, and moving it on in return for votes.

No. Simple, yet effective. Impressive would be a bad fit. Impressive is what Romney tried to do. Get it? You are exactly the type of poster that doesn't see....largely because you choose not to. You have a pre-disposition towards not seeing, and you expect your deficiency to be regarded by us as....what exactly? "Waterboarding is how we baptie terrorists" is genius. It is the type of thing I've recently come to expect from Sarah Palin. And, what's more? You don't get to be offended. Sorry, but, you cashed in those chips over the last couple of elections. When you and the rest of the clowns were howling about waterboarding...as though Bush invented it, and then directly ordered it carried out? Yeah...you made that political, and no longer a legitimate policy question. Now? Palin throws the very thing you CHOSE to make political, back in your face. She's dunking it on you, and you have no legitimate claim to being offended by it. If you wanted to retain "decency" as an tenet of your position/existence? You should have begun your entire approach to the policy question of waterboarding....with decency. As such, your offense, being a Christian or otherwise, is laughable.

I cut it there, because, that is all that matters. Whenever the left gets done talking, the results beat them every time. Consider: if the goal for the left is to win, then, the opposite of "get elected" is what they want. They, as per normal, choose this opposite. They choose it because they have based their view on a fundamental contradiction, and rather than copping to it, they do everything they can to avoid admitting that this: "women can have and believe in whatever they want, as long as it's our thing, that works our way." is how they really feel about women. Women are merely a means to an end. For the left, they are merely an unregulated currency market, and that means they can say all sorts of retarded crap, get the return they want, and never have to worry about being held accountable. What confounds the left: Palin has learned to play the same market. You can call her phony, pandering, etc. But, if you want to call Sarah Palin names/accuse her of pandering to the worst sort of people on the right? Then, whether you like it or not, you must be accept that as the very definition of the pandering lefist activity with the worst sort of people on the left. You've defined the rules of the game, now you have to live with them. That's all this is: Palin has become better than the pandering left at their own game. Why should anybody care if they are being beaten at it?

We've all known of the concept of "argument of convenience" for quite some time. Most of us heard it the first time we were asked "if Jimmy jumps off of Niagara Falls, does that mean you have to?" Regardless of the supposed parental wisdom ensconced in that question, it is nonetheless an argument of convenience. Now? We have "evolved". In addition to various arguments of convenience like "the unemployment rate is going down, therefore Obama Good... (never mind that Republican "obstruction" of Obama policies has directly coincided with, and is correlated directly to, the decrease of the unemployment rate) we now have to deal with? Nuance by Convenience! Nuance, and it's calibration, apparently is under the sole province of Democrats. Things can/can not be nuanced, when and if they say they can. Therefore, all thinking about the Iraq war is at bumper sticker lever, while, all thinking about Benghazi hinges on a myriad of fine points. You don't get to control the nuance setting, DC_Tom. Only the enlightened people get to determine what is nuanced and what is not. It's about time you figured that out. After all, your master's degree in physics is nothing compared to a law degree, with an undergrad in Poly Sci/various forms of identity majors.

God help the environtologists. A soon-to-be-character-assassinated, empirical scientist is on the loose, being about as dry and non-controversial, as we would expect someone who has exclusively studied polar bears for 35 years to be. (And what a life that must have been. ) But Wait! There's More! Let's pretend we're ex-ALGORE employees looking for a job/grant money! Ready...Go...Environtologist...Nuts: "Hey! She studies bears! Not Climate! That's it. She studies bears....so what does she know about Climate!?!???? Hmmm...not "clicky" enough. I know! She studies bears for the Oil Companies! She studies bears for Big Oil, because....she's trying to cover up the effects oil production, which we know is terrible for bears, because....oil prodution has been correlated to polar bear and seal population. We have the data from 2006! Skinny Bears! There was more oil production in 2006 than in 2005! Wham! Science! The DATA is in. The tech has been standardized! Bam! In review: She's not a real scientist, she doesn't know anything about Climate, she's a climate denier who studies bears for Big Oil, and her entire claim is based on covering up the skinny bears of 2006 that were a direct, scientifically settled result of oil production AND Climate Change. And....that's settled. Actually thank Ron it is settled, all that empirical evidence had me worried for a second. But, now I'm like, "what the hell were you thinking? This lady is just trying to suppress the truth. But too late, we have the truth. Sorry lady!". Now, nobody can say anything else, because this debate is over. I'm already so tired of these people and their petty arguments trying to deny or disprove this is so obviously settled matter. This lady is a schill for Big Oil, and only the unserious people dispute that. Now...what else ya got for us to settle?" You know that the above flys right over "plausible" and lands in "likely". All that's missing from the above to make it a full blown Scientologist Internet "discussion"? The question: "What are your crimes?" Literally that is the only thing I didn't paraphrase from the latest Scientologist screed I took from another board and used here as the basis for the above. Thus, me calling these people "environtologists"....that's settled too!

I wonder what percentage of the total words used here....are at least in part an excuse to make an "X" reference? Lord knows I go out of my way to get it done. I would guess 20% at least. Thus proving the JA Theorm: there is no irony JA is not intelligent enough to generate. Think on this..... ....and laugh.

Peg them to each other. Be creative. And, in being creative go for pissing off as many special interest clowns as possible. This is how we break the stranglehold that lobbyists have on DC, but, this is also how we destroy the abuse of Federal power we see with the IRS. Examples: If you want to increase regulations on banks, that automatically increases regulations on abortion clinics. If you want to increase regulations on businesses, that automatically increases regulations on public employees. If you want to increase taxes(ahem, "fees") on some industry, you have to cut the budget of an related(unrelated?) department by the same amount. That's the gist. I am sure you guys can come up with better/funnier/more painful ones. Tie people that "hate" each other, to each other. Or, like in the first example, tie the biggest lobbys, which have nothing else in common with each other, to each other. Everything must be arbitrary, or it doesn't work. Unfettered idiotic regulations are a real problem in this country, largely because it's entirely too easy for the Federal government to come down on an industry who has little ability to defend itself, and, there's no consequences for the government. Worse, often these regs are used as a justification for growth of government. In reality, the cause and effect are reversed: new regs are the effect of growing government, because all these new people need something to do. Obama himself has talked about getting rid of regulations(and done nothing, shocker). That's because the solution to the problem, reduce regulations, is just as obvious as why he does nothing: it hurts his constituency. Thus, it's time to add some pain to the gain. And of course the reverse is also true: if you want to decrease regs, then some Federal agency gets their regs reduced. Fair, is fair, but, as long as we live in a ridiculously over-regulated environment, that can be changed solely based on the whinings of a tiny minority of our people with enough $, we don't even know what fair is.

There can be only one.... ....response, on any of the boards here, to blatant flippage of the bird: We're just doing things in reverse order this time around.

Hmmm....Super hero... or one-man-show song and dance performer? I'm gonna say you were going for super hero, so this is my reply. Also, the Jackman photos are very exploitable. They could be used to make a comparison....say: US Foreign Policy: Before Obama After Obama. ****Fixed****