Glory Bound Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 LMAO Not as if some of us haven't been thru this drill before. The funny thing is that at some point like a stopped clock you too may be right. In the meantime you all seem to know that the continued poor or questionable decisions by the team are just going to happen to work out. I'll gladly make a deal, and despite the fact that I haven't predicted that Marrone will fail, and I'm sure others will join me, but if he does fail, all of you talking like you leave the forum permanently. If they don't, we will. What say ye? Somehow I don't see you taking me up on that. All I know is I'm with Beerball. I have a new girlfriend...she's got a new hair style...totally different personality...different body type...nice teeth...& a fresh look about her. What my old sea hag did last year is now totally irrelevant. I'm not even gonna think about her, let alone reference her. It simply doesn't matter at this juncture! I'm gonna give my new chick a chance & go in with a positive tude! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 The guys who are "right" every year are just betting on black every spin. They can't tell you why we suck. Just that we do. Takes no skill or insight to be a d-bag. PTR Now Promo, let's not dehumanize anyone. I'm about to go all Chuck Lester up in here. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 All I know is I'm with Beerball. I have a new girlfriend...she's got a new hair style...totally different personality...different body type...nice teeth...& a fresh look about her. What my old sea hag did last year is now totally irrelevant. I'm not even gonna think about her, let alone reference her. It simply doesn't matter at this juncture! I'm gonna give my new chick a chance & go in with a positive tude! Soo...are you telling us you dated a big girl, with bad hair, and summer teeth, with that not-so-fresh feeling? Um...why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 This is idiocy. Well intentioned, an attempt at thoughtful discourse, but still, idiocy. It's idiocy for 1 reason: 31 out of 32 teams will not win the SB, and only 12 teams of out of 32 will make the playoffs. That means 20 don't. Thus, "realisitic" means the negative people will tend to be "right" automatically... ...due to math... ....and not necessarily due to their ability to analyze, or understand, the game, or the quality of their understanding/analysis. Being negative is simply the easy, and safe, choice. Of course it is the most "realistic". The math means it has to be. But, it certainly doesn't make anyone who tends to be negatve more knowledgeable about football. In fact the person who chooses to be positive, because they have something they've seen that makes them that way, and when the positive outcome they predict occurs? They have a high propensity to know the game better than the negative person does, again, due to the math. To pick against the "baked in" math/trend, and be right, means you almost definitely know WTF you are talking about, or, you just got lucky, Conversely, being right about being negative tells us very little, since again the odds are stacked 2/3 in the negative poster's favor. I'd much rather be a "failing" team that makes the playoffs every once in a while, or at least has a winning record. The Bills are relatively in a league of their own over the last 12 years. But again, speaking for myself, I am fully ready to be "wrong" (though I haven't really predicted anything in this thread, other than not giving much weight to the FO's sound bites). Bring on the wins! Bring on relevancy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meatloaf Sandwich Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 Bullitsh. If Marrone & Co. fail like the others they'll fire some scapegoat, but you can bet it won't be Whaley or Brandon. Brandon shouldn't be there now, he's a joke in the role. Not sure why I should, I haven't predicted that he won't be successful. Talk about trolls. Bills don't start winning I doubt whoever ends up buying the Bills will keep any of the trash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transient Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 Great job by Yahoo that shines a light on the lazy work by some of the folks at the Buffalo News. It's so disappointing how certain members of the News' staff would rather spend time making Mario Williams’ foot a big issue rather than taking the time to do some research and give their readers an interesting piece to read. Do we really need these clowns asking the same question 7 different ways so they can try to get a reaction out of Marrone on which they can fixate? Please give us something insightful for a change. It was a well-researched and well-written piece by Les Carpenter It's hard to imagine that anyone with a pulse who cares about the Bills would not be excited after having read it. However some people are downright reptilian. The interesting thing about this piece is the degree of inside information. Given everything that has happened over the last several weeks, all of the useful information has been from non-local sources, while all of the tabloid pieces have been TBN and the like. Anyone else get the feeling that the locals have bitten the hand that feeds one too many times, and some of their testiness is a reflection of their dwindling access? You could put Marrone's "blowup (hardly)" in the context of one final shot across the bow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 I'd much rather be a "failing" team that makes the playoffs every once in a while, or at least has a winning record. The Bills are relatively in a league of their own over the last 12 years. But again, speaking for myself, I am fully ready to be "wrong" (though I haven't really predicted anything in this thread, other than not giving much weight to the FO's sound bites). Bring on the wins! Bring on relevancy! I call BS because I've been around long enough to know that being an okay team that makes the playoffs once in a while is never good enough. You have to understand the goalposts always move. Whatever the Bills achieve is always one short of what we should have done. Make the playoffs? Big deal. We haven't won a playoff game since 1994. Win a playoff game? Big deal. Get to a Super Bowl and we can talk. Get to a Super Bowl. OMG!! We're gonna lose 5! We are the worst team in history! That's what fuels the negative folks. They always want to be the first to say they knew we weren't good enough. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsBytheBay Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 You can't have you're cake and eat it too. It's a start to national coverage. Even Kolbs knee injury was a story line on NFL network. Bills news seems a little more relevant this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 I call BS because I've been around long enough to know that being an okay team that makes the playoffs once in a while is never good enough. You have to understand the goalposts always move. Whatever the Bills achieve is always one short of what we should have done. Make the playoffs? Big deal. We haven't won a playoff game since 1994. Win a playoff game? Big deal. Get to a Super Bowl and we can talk. Get to a Super Bowl. OMG!! We're gonna lose 5! We are the worst team in history! That's what fuels the negative folks. They always want to be the first to say they knew we weren't good enough. PTR Yes, and by doing this, they create a near mathematical certainty( = 97%), that they will always be: right-->more realistic-->more knowledgeable about football. It's logical fallacy based on poor math skills. I don't know whether it is intentional. However, that really doesn't matter, as the result is always the same = "blah blah I was right about us sucking". Being "objective" '= starting with a 97% chance that you are right, and then taking credit for being right, because you were being "realistic" in your evaluation. No, you simply had the odds, significantly, in your favor. Same thing is true for playoffs = 63%. That's like taking credit for being the house in Vegas. That's not sound, "realistic", analysis: that's taking credit for being exactly in line with a lucrative business model. The people who pick the Bills record are the real objective folks. And, the "every year teams that were 4th in the division end up as 1st...but not the Bills" is a double edged sword. Since that is true, then we can clearly say that the Bills playoff drought is an outlier, and something to abhor. But, we can just as easily say that since it is an abberation, the chances of that abberation being corrected increase every year. The Bills don't live in a vaccuum, and the data based on the entire league shows that we can reasonably expect a correction relatively soon. So, being positive, in terms of expecting that correction, is, if we do our stats properly, because we know how: the most realistic position to take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 Yes, and by doing this, they create a near mathematical certainty( = 97%), that they will always be: right-->more realistic-->more knowledgeable about football. It's logical fallacy based on poor math skills. I don't know whether it is intentional. However, that really doesn't matter, as the result is always the same = "blah blah I was right about us sucking". Being "objective" '= starting with a 97% chance that you are right, and then taking credit for being right, because you were being "realistic" in your evaluation. No, you simply had the odds, significantly, in your favor. Same thing is true for playoffs = 63%. That's like taking credit for being the house in Vegas. That's not sound, "realistic", analysis: that's taking credit for being exactly in line with a lucrative business model. The people who pick the Bills record are the real objective folks. And, the "every year teams that were 4th in the division end up as 1st...but not the Bills" is a double edged sword. Since that is true, then we can clearly say that the Bills playoff drought is an outlier, and something to abhor. But, we can just as easily say that since it is an abberation, the chances of that abberation being corrected increase every year. The Bills don't live in a vaccuum, and the data based on the entire league shows that we can reasonably expect a correction relatively soon. So, being positive, in terms of expecting that correction, is, if we do our stats properly, because we know how: the most realistic position to take. One bit of bad luck for the Bills is playing in one of the best divisions in the NFL in the last decade. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillnutinHouston Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 Brandon shouldn't be there now, he's a joke in the role. Can we agree that Brandon and Bob Kraft have similar roles with their respective teams? If so, please explain how Brandon is less qualified than Bob Kraft for the President/CEO role. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 (edited) One bit of bad luck for the Bills is playing in one of the best divisions in the NFL in the last decade. PTR I've got stuff to do, but, if I get some extra time, I might try and do a proper analysis to see if this is true. I would think that the non-division win % over 10 years would be a good way to measure if that was in fact the case. And, no, the Patriots performance in that would not skew the #s: they are in our division. I might have time to do a thread this week on that. We'll see. Somebody might already have that stuff laying around as well. Edited August 5, 2013 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsVet Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 One of the hallmarks of our 21st century society, as demonstrated on this message board (and specifically in this thread), remains a complete intolerance of contrarian opinion. Those fans who aren't excited about the "new" Bills are deemed negative, told to get another team, and roundly criticized for questioning the happy training camp talk we typically see this time of year. We're left with ad hominem attacks precipitated by those who won't deign to understand why people don't think like them. Brandon can say what he wants, but talk is cheap. Didn't someone once say to show us the baby first? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills44 Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 One of the hallmarks of our 21st century society, as demonstrated on this message board (and specifically in this thread), remains a complete intolerance of contrarian opinion. We're left with ad hominem attacks precipitated by those who won't deign to understand why people don't think like them. That works both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 One of the hallmarks of our 21st century society, as demonstrated on this message board (and specifically in this thread), remains a complete intolerance of contrarian opinion. Those fans who aren't excited about the "new" Bills are deemed negative, told to get another team, and roundly criticized for questioning the happy training camp talk we typically see this time of year. We're left with ad hominem attacks precipitated by those who won't deign to understand why people don't think like them. Brandon can say what he wants, but talk is cheap. Didn't someone once say to show us the baby first? Read my posts in this thread and show me where any part of it is ad hominem, or predicated on anything other than logic and basic statistical method. I have no tolerance for logical fallacy = "negative fans tend to be right". Why should anyone tolerate poor logic/math skills? If you want to talk about the ills of society, we should start with that. The case has been presented to you. If you think you can find fault, by all means, go ahead an try. Good luck! IF there are any problems with society at all, they begin with a lack of critical thinking skills, a willingness to conform to magical thinking, because a celebrity, be they movie star or politician, suggests that not doing so is "evil", and ends with those purporting that the truth, is somehow offensive, and that facts and properly prepared statistics, can somehow be hateful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 I've got stuff to do, but, if I get some extra time, I might try and do a proper analysis to see if this is true. I would think that the non-division win % over 10 years would be a good way to measure if that was in fact the case. And, no, the Patriots performance in that would not skew the #s: they are in our division. I might have time to do a thread this week on that. We'll see. Somebody might already have that stuff laying around as well. Be sure to factor in the entire division. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 Be sure to factor in the entire division. Yeah, I'm sitting here trying to come up with a method for that. In a sense, you would think that a single team consistently winning the division would suggest a lesser division, in terms of toughness. The question is whether parity suggests more difficulty, or whether it has nothing to do with it. The NFC West, for most of the last 10 years, was the worst division in football. We know that both anecdotally and statistically. How many 7-9 division winners have we had? Has anyone ever won any division with a losing record? They've had a lot of turnover re division winner. Does that indicated toughness, nothing, or suckiness? Inversely, does the Patriots record in the AFC East over the last 10 years mean something, or nothing, about the toughness of the division? If every team in the AFC East has to play the Patriots 2x, instead of one, does that make the division inherently more "tough"? This is about weighting. And I'll have to see.... That's why I'm thinking I have to weight the non-division wins vs. non-division wins of all other divisions as a %, over time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San-O Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 Read my posts in this thread and show me where any part of it is ad hominem, or predicated on anything other than logic and basic statistical method. I have no tolerance for logical fallacy = "negative fans tend to be right". Why should anyone tolerate poor logic/math skills? You seem to have no tolerance for anything that you don't agree with. And stop misquoting people. It's ignorant. And there was no logical fallacy , or poor logic/math skills involved, it's history: check the record, get a grip. Oh, and back away from yourself. This board has declined over the years, it used to be a fun place. IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endless Ike Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 (edited) It is people like you i wish would find another team. I also wonder what you would do if/when the Bills win a SB. At what point during the season will you go from negative Nancy to bandwagon Bill?? The thing about being a realist is you get to respond to REALITY, and so can go from being a Negative Nancy to a Bandwagon Bill when the team has shown to be more than atrocious. You don't get extra points for hoping really hard that THIS TIME WILL BE DIFFERENT. Being negative is more than justified by everyone's personal experience. Why should anyone be surprised, or try to talk anyone out of it? Edited August 5, 2013 by Endless Ike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 (edited) Yeah, I'm sitting here trying to come up with a method for that. In a sense, you would think that a single team consistently winning the division would suggest a lesser division, in terms of toughness. The question is whether parity suggests more difficulty, or whether it has nothing to do with it. The NFC West, for most of the last 10 years, was the worst division in football. We know that both anecdotally and statistically. How many 7-9 division winners have we had? Has anyone ever won any division with a losing record? They've had a lot of turnover re division winner. Does that indicated toughness, nothing, or suckiness? Inversely, does the Patriots record in the AFC East over the last 10 years mean something, or nothing, about the toughness of the division? If every team in the AFC East has to play the Patriots 2x, instead of one, does that make the division inherently more "tough"? This is about weighting. And I'll have to see.... That's why I'm thinking I have to weight the non-division wins vs. non-division wins of all other divisions as a %, over time. Since 2000 the Bills are 23-56 vs the AFC East, with only 3 wins vs New England. That is a winning % of just .291 The Bills record vs everyone else since 2000 is 59-70, or a winning % of .457. So it appears the Bills were still not that great out of the division but they were totally dominated by their division opponents. PTR Edited August 5, 2013 by PromoTheRobot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts