Jauronimo

Can't small and large banks oppose this legislation for reasons I've already provided? First line of the WSJ article lays it all out. Big banks always hated Volcker. What about it? Whats the context of that comment? What about everything I just discussed? Like specifics. I'm really not interested in limiting this discussion solely to an appeal to authority based on who's for it and who's against it.

Wrong. One side from someone who works in finance and thought the NPR article was a total puff piece and one side from birdog who doesn't hold my industry in such high regard. Not an opinion. Got one thing right. More cop outs. Not an opinion.

I've yet to read anything which even begins to adequately outline the potential risks posed by this legislation. Not all swaps are credit default swaps. In fact, very few swaps are credit default swaps which are popularly attributed to the "bail outs" or forced liquidity measures. Further, derivatives are not inherently risky. Derivatives were created to mitigate or "hedge" risk. The NPR article read to me like the equivalent of "derivatives bad" and based on what I've linked below, failed to actually explain which parties want the regulation on swaps lifted. http://www.wsj.com/a...rule-1414677032 Looks more to me like a response to heavy handed and poorly defined legislation than a move to make bigger, riskier bets. Its easy to say that this gives big banks a license to gamble with Uncle Sam's backing, but anyone with some financial background immediately asks "which derivatives are we talking about?". Saying "no swaps" sounds to me like taking away a major tool in limiting risk. Again, most swaps limit exposure. CDS was an arcane and almost extinct tool before AIG (which isn't a bank) started backing every tranche of CDO, CLO, CMO 30 times over. I'd agree that banks shouldn't be able to write options on publicly traded securities, credit defaults, or effectively place bets with federally insured funds, but there is definitely a place for derivatives.

Love it. Anyway they can get the ball in his hands. Screens, end arounds, backfield packages. If we can't get him involved in the passing game then find a way to get him touches.

Win the next 2 and get us into the playoffs and I think he'd at least be in the discussion. But at this point I'd say its unlikely.

http://imgur.com/gallery/WGT2YE3 Selective coverage?

Great. Ain't got no learnin' and proud of it. Now shut the f@#$ up while adults who did bother to educate themselves on the subject and Birdog discuss the topic at hand. What continues to escape your limited grasp, like chasin greased up chickns' at night I tell ya, is that there are people participating that are still in the process of forming opinions and educating themselves on the topic. There are people reading and lurking who haven't even heard about this particular legislation yet. In replying to even the biggest troll posts, I'm not trying to change their minds, but to put down rationale thought that someone else might read, consider and respond to. Or to get a few jabs in because thats fun for me. Your point of view is the biggest !@#$ing cop out. Claiming that this is a waste of time because no one will change their minds is not only false, but by that logic theres no reason to discuss anything, theres no reason for this board. How many people are changing their opinions about hackett on the main board today? You don't understand this thread or this subforum at all.

Well that was worthless. Just as profound as your last post. Well intentioned nit wits like you who have no comprehension of the subject matter but insist that some sort of "compromise" is necessarily the solution to everything do little to advance the conversation as well. I know you fancy yourself to unbiased and enlightened because you think the answer to all things falls somewhere in between Tasker and Birdog, but thats not an opinion. Thats a cop out.

I disagree. He publicly stated he would retire but that was purely a negotiation tactic. He wanted out of Dallas and a chance to compete for a starting job. He also wanted to keep the money he had pocketed and forced Dallas to let him go. If he quit, he would have owed them a lot of money. Questions about whether he wanted to play were a byproduct of his agent floating that he was questioning retirement, which we've already discussed. You claimed Orton's heart isn't in it anymore and he doesn't want to take hits. You supported this position with his supposed plans to retire, which is why its being discussed. No one is skewing the conversation.

A lesson Bills fans forget quickly. "[Fire/bench/sign/blow it up] already!!! Its not like it can get any worse!!"

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/394635/its-still-tarp-kevin-d-williamson

Not sure but Pags hired him.

Its not his fault ESPN made him famous and made Johnny Football the new Tebow. Hes been doing the money sign thing since highschool. Becoming the first freshman to win a Heisman might count toward accomplishments.

It'd be nice if Ruben elaborated considering guys are getting open and Kyle is missing them. I don't see any rhyme or reason behind which throws he can make and which he can't right now. Hes pretty erratic. What plays should Hackett call where you can still throw 8 feet behind the guy, into the dirt, or 10 yards past your WR and still be successful?

He did have some real nice tosses in his first three games to go along with the 5 feet behind his guy, can't connect on even a dump off type throws. Since his TD pass to Hogan against KC its been pretty miserable. Hes been just as wild but without any of the upside.

They definitely looked at the old notes. However, every DC would be left guessing to certain extent without having seen Orton operate in this offense. Now with a few weeks of tape on how Orton operates in this offense, its been tougher sledding.

Why?

If the all blue unis impact the officiating and we beat the Packers does that mean we've already beaten the Pats?

Rename thread to "Are you a heterosexual male?"

I'm not crazy about Panera either for that reason, but I don't think most people know or care how the sausage gets made. At any rate, McD's stuff is assembled and Panera is a little less offensive. Chipotle actually cooks food and on the premises. What a revelation.

That would be the philosophical argument I alluded to. Thats a valid argument, in my opinion, that trading future first round picks for one first rounder now is never a good idea. Given the history of such trades and the relative hit rate of supposed once in a generation type players, how much should a GM trust their board? But thats a topic for another thread.

A GM who really wants out but is too afraid to quit.

Perhaps for some. I've got 11 pages of evidence to the contrary though.

The fact that you offered an analogy about buying a house and then followed up with over payment screams to me that you do not understand the draft, value and price. Until you understand value vs. price and how those two ideas relate to the draft then you will not be able to assess the decision. First, hindsight arguments are as lazy as it gets and as foolish as they come after 12 games. Especially so when they include players that "I would've taken instead" since you have no guarantee that people's champ ODB was still going to be on board in this fantasy scenario. Decisions are made based on what is known at the time and they must judged by what is known or knowable at the time they're made. I don't remember anyone talking about Odell Beckham or Zach Martin as once in a generation type talents. Moving on, what it is the value of any draft pick? For that matter, what is the price? The draft isn't a liquid market like the housing market where you have easily observable and accessible metrics like $ per square foot. You don't have a rich transactional history to draw from in the draft like you do in the housing market. And even if you did, comparing players is far more subjective than comparing houses or even comparing stocks. Thats why even the best scouts still miss quite a bit. The value of any one draft pick is a function of the player available at that pick as determined individually by each of the 32 teams and varies widely based on the subjective nature of scouting and synergistic qualities based on team's schemes and their players. Next year's first overall isn't necessarily as valuable as this year's first overall. No one was willing to sell the farm RG3 style for this year's 2nd overall because the right to select Greg Robinson wasn't nearly as valuable to teams as the right to select RG3. The price of a draft pick is what a team is willing to pay. What a team is willing to pay is based largely on the value they place on the player they're trading for. Just like the stock market, there is no such thing as a price which is simply too high. A stock selling for $500 a share is pretty expensive. But if you believe its worth $1,000 a share, then $500 is a bargain compared to a $5 stock which you believe is only worth $3. If your draft board identifies one generational talent in a pool of scrubs, then who gives a **** about giving up your 6 other picks in that same draft? If you trust your assessment and only see one player available in the draft that can help your team whats the value in passing up on that player in favor of 7 guys that you don't expect to dress on Sundays? You can't save your picks for future talent like you can wait on a stock or a house for a more favorable market cycle. They have to be used that day to take players or to trade for future consideration. If you want to tell me that the Bills over paid, then tell me what value you've placed on Sammy, a little background on how you arrived at that conclusion, and then define the price (i.e.,who is available in next year's draft, what is their value, or what is the implicit cost of trading away the right to select an unknown individual in 2015?) using only information available as of April 2014. If you can't do that, then don't tell me how its "obvious" that they over paid. You can disagree with the trading future first round picks to move up in the draft from a philosophical standpoint. As I've laid out above, theres a lot of moving pieces and significant unknown costs in trading away future picks. There's also some history of such transactions which we can view in hindsight and assess how often they work out. In a few years we can all say whether the decision to trade up for Sammy has worked out or not. However, any argument offered which declares that the decision to trade up for Sammy was bad at the time and egregiously, obviously bad at that, which fails to touch on any of the points I've raised is just absurd.