ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Everybody has a pet theory for why the Bills have missed the playoffs for over a decade. Some blame the players, some blame the front office, some even blame the owner who kept the team in Buffalo when he could have gotten a better stadium deal and made more money elsewhere. But those are just uninformed opinions. Opinions are like noses (clean version) - - everybody has one. But that doesn't make them right. If you simply accept the non-controversial idea that substances like steroids that are deemed "performance-enhancing drugs" actually improve athletic performance, then you should take note of some recent scientific research. Scientists have unambiguously shown that men who are in committed relationships have lower testosterone levels than men who are not. In addition, men who assist their partners with child-raising duties suffer even greater drops in testosterone levels than men who assume the more traditional male role of being a provider and leaving child-raising duties to their partners. Why should we as Bills fans care about this you ask? Here's why: Scientists have long known that increased testosterone levels lead not only to greater virility, but to higher levels of aggression as well. Although further research may be needed to prove it, some scientists also believe that higher testosterone levels can lead to improved athletic performance. The family values crowd won't like it, but this research provides a road map for building a successful football team. For at least the last decade, the Bills have placed a premium on drafting and signing "high-character" players. The unintended consequence has been a roster with too many guys who are in committed relationships, and even worse, who are more involved in raising their kids as compared to other NFL players. So they make great neighbors and members of society, but bad football players. I'm not suggesting that we should draft or sign players who break the rules by artificially increasing their testosterone levels and risking long term adverse health affects. But c'mon, why would you intentionally draft or sign players whose off-the-field life situations make it clear that they will have lower testosterone levels than guys who aren't performing child-rearing duties and aren't in committed relationships? You simply can't credibly argue that increased aggression is an undesireable trait in a football player. It's just one example, but I've read that Fitz has kids and is a great Dad. Well that's just great for his kids and his wife, and it makes him a desireable member of society as a whole. But maybe he wouldn't perform like a career back-up if he was single, prowling the city like Jim Kelly did, and had higher testosterone levels. If we are stuck with being way under the salary cap while Ralph owns the team, let's at least be smarter and draft or sign players that we can reasonably expect to be more aggressive. Just my 2 lira (based on science). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET1062 Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Thank you for wasting 3 minutes of my life that I will never get back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Everybody has a pet theory for why the Bills have missed the playoffs for over a decade. Some blame the players, some blame the front office, some even blame the owner who kept the team in Buffalo when he could have gotten a better stadium deal and made more money elsewhere. But those are just uninformed opinions. Opinions are like noses (clean version) - - everybody has one. But that doesn't make them right. If you simply accept the non-controversial idea that substances like steroids that are deemed "performance-enhancing drugs" actually improve athletic performance, then you should take note of some recent scientific research. Scientists have unambiguously shown that men who are in committed relationships have lower testosterone levels than men who are not. In addition, men who assist their partners with child-raising duties suffer even greater drops in testosterone levels than men who assume the more traditional male role of being a provider and leaving child-raising duties to their partners. Why should we as Bills fans care about this you ask? Here's why: Scientists have long known that increased testosterone levels lead not only to greater virility, but to higher levels of aggression as well. Although further research may be needed to prove it, some scientists also believe that higher testosterone levels can lead to improved athletic performance. The family values crowd won't like it, but this research provides a road map for building a successful football team. For at least the last decade, the Bills have placed a premium on drafting and signing "high-character" players. The unintended consequence has been a roster with too many guys who are in committed relationships, and even worse, who are more involved in raising their kids as compared to other NFL players. So they make great neighbors and members of society, but bad football players. I'm not suggesting that we should draft or sign players who break the rules by artificially increasing their testosterone levels and risking long term adverse health affects. But c'mon, why would you intentionally draft or sign players whose off-the-field life situations make it clear that they will have lower testosterone levels than guys who aren't performing child-rearing duties and aren't in committed relationships? You simply can't credibly argue that increased aggression is an undesireable trait in a football player. It's just one example, but I've read that Fitz has kids and is a great Dad. Well that's just great for his kids and his wife, and it makes him a desireable member of society as a whole. But maybe he wouldn't perform like a career back-up if he was single, prowling the city like Jim Kelly did, and had higher testosterone levels. If we are stuck with being way under the salary cap while Ralph owns the team, let's at least be smarter and draft or sign players that we can reasonably expect to be more aggressive. Just my 2 lira (based on science). Oh, it's Ralph. No doubt about that. The fact that he kept the team in Buffalo does not exclude him from the responsibility for what happened on the field. I agree that they don't draft a lot of tough football players and it certainly has an impact on the result. I do buy your premise that drafting nice guys helps you finish last. But the losing of the past 12 years is the result of poor ownership. The bad draft picks, coaching, free agent decisions etc.. are just like cracks in the windshield all caused by the initial impact of Ralph. I don't hate the guy because it's just a game and I realize that it is HIS team, not Buffalo's. But he is just a lousy football decision maker. VERY lousy. And when you consider that the object of a pro football team is to convince the locals to support you it should not be a surprise that people actually do find him contemptible (as one TBD poster put it so well). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
808 Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 go die Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st. pete gogolak Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 That must be the reason why the Convicts beat the Guards in "The Longest Yard". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted December 20, 2011 Author Share Posted December 20, 2011 Oh, it's Ralph. No doubt about that. The fact that he kept the team in Buffalo does not exclude him from the responsibility for what happened on the field. I agree that they don't draft a lot of tough football players and it certainly has an impact on the result. I do buy your premise that drafting nice guys helps you finish last. But the losing of the past 12 years is the result of poor ownership. The bad draft picks, coaching, free agent decisions etc.. are just like cracks in the windshield all caused by the initial impact of Ralph. I don't hate the guy because it's just a game and I realize that it is HIS team, not Buffalo's. But he is just a lousy football decision maker. VERY lousy. And when you consider that the object of a pro football team is to convince the locals to support you it should not be a surprise that people actually do find him contemptible (as one TBD poster put it so well). You're entitled to your opinion - - but everybody has one. It's not research. Here's just one article describing the recent research showing that a man's testosterone levels are adversely impacted by being in a committed relationship or sharing child-rearing duties: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/context-and-variation/2011/09/16/testosterone-fatherhood/ Over the last decade or so, biological anthropologists have studied the biology of mating, partnering and fatherhood of men (e.g., Burnham et al. 2003; Gettler et al. 2011b; Gray et al. 2002; Gray et al. 2004). As it turns out, these different periods of men’s lives have distinct hormonal milieus, just like the reproductive states of women like fecund, pregnant, breastfeeding and grandmothering. When men are seeking mating opportunities, testosterone is high to support mating behavior, muscle anabolism, and the other secondary sexual characteristics that allow a man to display his good genes. When men are partnered in long-term relationships or become parents, testosterone often declines. And the more a man spends with his offspring, the greater the decline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thisistheyear Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Everybody has a pet theory for why the Bills have missed the playoffs for over a decade. Some blame the players, some blame the front office, some even blame the owner who kept the team in Buffalo when he could have gotten a better stadium deal and made more money elsewhere. But those are just uninformed opinions. Opinions are like noses (clean version) - - everybody has one. But that doesn't make them right. If you simply accept the non-controversial idea that substances like steroids that are deemed "performance-enhancing drugs" actually improve athletic performance, then you should take note of some recent scientific research. Scientists have unambiguously shown that men who are in committed relationships have lower testosterone levels than men who are not. In addition, men who assist their partners with child-raising duties suffer even greater drops in testosterone levels than men who assume the more traditional male role of being a provider and leaving child-raising duties to their partners. Why should we as Bills fans care about this you ask? Here's why: Scientists have long known that increased testosterone levels lead not only to greater virility, but to higher levels of aggression as well. Although further research may be needed to prove it, some scientists also believe that higher testosterone levels can lead to improved athletic performance. The family values crowd won't like it, but this research provides a road map for building a successful football team. For at least the last decade, the Bills have placed a premium on drafting and signing "high-character" players. The unintended consequence has been a roster with too many guys who are in committed relationships, and even worse, who are more involved in raising their kids as compared to other NFL players. So they make great neighbors and members of society, but bad football players. I'm not suggesting that we should draft or sign players who break the rules by artificially increasing their testosterone levels and risking long term adverse health affects. But c'mon, why would you intentionally draft or sign players whose off-the-field life situations make it clear that they will have lower testosterone levels than guys who aren't performing child-rearing duties and aren't in committed relationships? You simply can't credibly argue that increased aggression is an undesireable trait in a football player. It's just one example, but I've read that Fitz has kids and is a great Dad. Well that's just great for his kids and his wife, and it makes him a desireable member of society as a whole. But maybe he wouldn't perform like a career back-up if he was single, prowling the city like Jim Kelly did, and had higher testosterone levels. If we are stuck with being way under the salary cap while Ralph owns the team, let's at least be smarter and draft or sign players that we can reasonably expect to be more aggressive. Just my 2 lira (based on science) That sure was a lot of words. Scientific theories are generally backed up by research, not "scientists have long accepted." Prove to me that the Bills have more player in committed relationships than other teams. Then tell me if this low testosterone thing has affected Tom Brady? That guy's married and gayer than the 1890s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Flowers Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Ralph is cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted December 20, 2011 Author Share Posted December 20, 2011 go die We need more players who display this level of aggression. There's always an "exception that proves the rule," but I'm guessing that even if you are in a committed relationship, you are not currently intimately involved in raising any children. Your testosterone level appears acceptably high. Can you play OLB? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET1062 Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Your whole theory is based on the Bills having "High Character" players. Sorry, but the Bills have had more than their fair share of scumbags, dirtballs and convicts over the past 10 years. Once again, thanks for wasting even more of my time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 You're entitled to your opinion - - but everybody has one. It's not research. That's where you're wrong, it is research. I just researched it. Ralph does in fact own the Bills . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpberr Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 "That guy's married and gayer than the 1890s." Hilarious. Absolutely love it. Literally LOL'ed. (LOL?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilson's Ears Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Everybody has a pet theory for why the Bills have missed the playoffs for over a decade. Some blame the players, some blame the front office, some even blame the owner who kept the team in Buffalo when he could have gotten a better stadium deal and made more money elsewhere. But those are just uninformed opinions. Opinions are like noses (clean version) - - everybody has one. But that doesn't make them right. If you simply accept the non-controversial idea that substances like steroids that are deemed "performance-enhancing drugs" actually improve athletic performance, then you should take note of some recent scientific research. Scientists have unambiguously shown that men who are in committed relationships have lower testosterone levels than men who are not. In addition, men who assist their partners with child-raising duties suffer even greater drops in testosterone levels than men who assume the more traditional male role of being a provider and leaving child-raising duties to their partners. Why should we as Bills fans care about this you ask? Here's why: Scientists have long known that increased testosterone levels lead not only to greater virility, but to higher levels of aggression as well. Although further research may be needed to prove it, some scientists also believe that higher testosterone levels can lead to improved athletic performance. The family values crowd won't like it, but this research provides a road map for building a successful football team. For at least the last decade, the Bills have placed a premium on drafting and signing "high-character" players. The unintended consequence has been a roster with too many guys who are in committed relationships, and even worse, who are more involved in raising their kids as compared to other NFL players. So they make great neighbors and members of society, but bad football players. I'm not suggesting that we should draft or sign players who break the rules by artificially increasing their testosterone levels and risking long term adverse health affects. But c'mon, why would you intentionally draft or sign players whose off-the-field life situations make it clear that they will have lower testosterone levels than guys who aren't performing child-rearing duties and aren't in committed relationships? You simply can't credibly argue that increased aggression is an undesireable trait in a football player. It's just one example, but I've read that Fitz has kids and is a great Dad. Well that's just great for his kids and his wife, and it makes him a desireable member of society as a whole. But maybe he wouldn't perform like a career back-up if he was single, prowling the city like Jim Kelly did, and had higher testosterone levels. If we are stuck with being way under the salary cap while Ralph owns the team, let's at least be smarter and draft or sign players that we can reasonably expect to be more aggressive. Just my 2 lira (based on science). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Don't know about the hormone theory but I do agree bills and their fans have placed too much emphasis on acquiring mother teresa in pads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted December 20, 2011 Author Share Posted December 20, 2011 (edited) . . . Scientific theories are generally backed up by research, not "scientists have long accepted." Peer-reviewed article published in the Proceedings of the National Acadamy of Sciences of the United States of America ("PNAS") good enough for you? http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/09/02/1105403108 How about a scientific article published in the Journal of Endocrinology? http://joe.endocrinology-journals.org/content/170/1/27.full.pdf As for Brady, well, Kim Kardashian and that NBA player were "married," too. Besides, if you're suggesting that Brady is gay and not really married, then aren't you making MY point if you think he's a good player? If he's not really married, then his testosterone levels wouldn't decline, even if he publicly claims he's in a truly committed relationship with a woman. Edited December 20, 2011 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted December 20, 2011 Author Share Posted December 20, 2011 Your whole theory is based on the Bills having "High Character" players. Sorry, but the Bills have had more than their fair share of scumbags, dirtballs and convicts over the past 10 years. Once again, thanks for wasting even more of my time! It's hard to compare the "share of scumbags, dirtballs and convicts" between teams - - all teams have at least a few. But there is anecdotal evidence to suggest the Bills have less than the NFL average. During the lockout, somebody posted a running commentary, backed up by links to news media reports, listing the various crimes that locked-out NFL players were charged with. I was amazed at how few Bills players were on the list as compared to other teams. I don't currently have the TSW link at my fingertips to prove that my memory is right, but if I find it I'll edit this post to add it. And don't you remember how well-known Marv Levy was for seeking out high-character players during his admittedly brief tenure as GM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Ok, let's just say that your theory is true and that bachelors are better at football that married dads. Do you actually know that the Bills of the last decade have had more family men than the other teams or are you just guessing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Ok, let's just say that your theory is true and that bachelors are better at football that married dads. Do you actually know that the Bills of the last decade have had more family men than the other teams or are you just guessing? Well I think a certain Glove Wearing Mary had enough estrogen for four NFL rosters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geno Smith's Arm Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Thank you for wasting 3 minutes of my life that I will never get back. Thank you for letting us know, because I almost read it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted December 20, 2011 Author Share Posted December 20, 2011 (edited) Well I think a certain Glove Wearing Mary had enough estrogen for four NFL rosters. Didn't Trent Edwards' sister move to Buffalo and live with Trent while he was with the Bills? I'm not suggesting incest or anything, but maybe the scientific research should be expanded to see if living with your sister also affects your testosterone levels. Edited December 20, 2011 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts