TPS

I am so done with this team! They are so bad, they can't even lose when they're supposed to...

An offensive juggernaut coming to town. Time for a statement game...on Defense at least. I hope the D is angry.

Was just thinking that...

Gms don't bring in assistant coaches, the head coach does. I actually believe that Marrone was interested in Schwartz once he was fired, and was not happy with Pettine's run D. He was more than happy to prep Pettine for the Brown's job. That said, I do like Schwartz as the next HC. He has a very similar background to Belicheck, who also failed at his first HC job.

I agree that he was short, but I don't think this was a call that mattered. The Robey penalty, whatever they ended up getting penalized for on the Gilmore breakup, and the two calls on the INT returns are the real questionable calls, until further review.

I've said enough times that the two key 3rd down penalties cost the Bills a minimum of 10 points; then the two penalties on the INTs cost them points on offense. I can't say anything for certain yet because of those INT penalties, but given those 4 KEy calls, and when you lose by 7, it's hard not to put the refs #1. Btw, there was also a huge Freddy run that was called back on a penalty. Anyone see that on replay?

I'm shocked, shocked that there's gambling going on in this establishment...there is money to be made. It doesn't have to be a conspiracy. Money is made in a lot of ways.

Unfortunately they also want Rogers to face one of those two, so lookout next Sunday...

Did you think Robey committed a penalty? The Gilmore call was a crucial one. The two penalties on the INT returns took them out of great field position--I don't think they ever showed replays of those, so I can't judge. Those are minimum 6 points taken away from the Bills and two scores given to the Broncos.

I expected that response, and to a small degree yes. However, they moved the ball well most of the time. Early on they stalled just as they were getting into Denver territory. Orton's first INT ruined a good drive (Chandler was open on that play). They moved ball pretty well against a good D in their house. This game turned on the Ref's calls.

Freddy's big run was brought back on another phantom call.

That's what I'm wondering as well, IF there were penalties, were they shown on any replays? I never saw replays of the penalties on the two INT returns.

The penalty they ended up taking was a personal foul against Hughes on that play. I never saw a replay of the Hughes penalty. I'm wondering if Hughes reacted to the bad call against Gilmore?

400+ yards today. I thought they actually had good play calling and decent drives. Refs and Orton INT in endzone made the difference.

RE #6. IT's one thing to have bad calls, but when they happen on key plays constantly, that makes it difficult to beat a good team. They never showed the replays for the INT returns, so I don't know how legit those were, but the Robey penalty was bogus. Don't know if Hughes would've been called for a penalty if they didn't throw a flag on the Gilmore play, but don't think they showed that replay either.

I normally think things average out, but almost every call against the Bills happened on a key play; not so for Denver. The Robey penalty could be called on every pass play in every game.

Interesting interview with Steve Young which was linked off the article in the thread "The Demise of the Running QB". Young talks about how he made a commitment to become a pocket passer and "exhaust the play," then running as a last resort. He argues that the best QBs are the pocket passers who work hard at the craft so that their progressions are second nature. I think this supports the idea that the best offensive minds only look like the best because they work with the QBs who are the masters of their craft. You can be a creative genius, but if you don't have the guy who can implement your strategy, then you're going to look like Hackett. Steve Young

It's interesting how people rant and rave about $18 trillion debt but can't explain why it's a problem. It's one thing to rant against big government or Obama and his bad policies, and you are right about both. Those are different issues. The OP says we're all getting !@#$ed. I'd like him or anyone to explain why and how that debt will !@#$ us? Meanwhile, since the end of 2007 the debt has increased by $6 trillion, and the Fed has purchased about $1.8 trillion of of that additional debt, so it now holds about $2.8 trillion. Many here have stated all that money printing by the Fed will cause inflation, yet the US and EU are now moving toward deflation. And speaking of Europe, serious people are now calling for radical ways to stimulate demand. Willem Buiter, the chief economist at Citigroup suggests the following as a remedy: Full article So he's effectively arguing that the central bank should buy the bonds that "finance" the stimulus, then declare a debt jubilee. "Print the money" to fund the spending. I'd love to hear any arguments for why this is a problem. Back to our $18 trillion !@#$ing... Based on that same idea, what if the Fed cancelled the entire $2.8 trillion in treasury debt it holds? Know what would happen? The debt clock would "fall backwards" and that's about it. If anyone thinks it would cause a problem, I'd love to hear about it....

If you read what I wrote, you'll see that I said "some ends up in savings accounts of public workers". I'll try to express it in terms of ACC101 so AD can follow along...and I'll exclude the international sector to make it even easier for him. S-I = G-T Private sector surplus is the combined surplus of Households and Firms, and G-T is the combined balances of all levels of government. These are annual flow variables. What the identity states is if G-T (a deficit) =$1 trillion, then by accounting identity there is a $1 trillion surplus accumulated by HHs and Firms. This means that HH savings + business profits = $1 trillion for the year. For the year, the government spent in excess of its revenues by $1 trillion which generated greater profits for firms and savings for HHs of an equal amount. It's the net difference, after your tax issue. So that net government spending will increase revenues 1) directly by its purchases from firms; and 2) indirectly by the consumption spending by public employees, who will also save some of their income. You, as usual, want to change what I've said. I never said tax cuts increase revenues. I said the deficit, the excess in SPENDING over taxes increases business revenues except for the savings of public sector workers. And that deficit is = the savings of HHs + profits of firms. Now, to address your obvious tax issue. If the government cuts business taxes during the year, then 1) the deficit increases from the lost revenue and 2) after-tax profits increase--revenues don't. Of course. But, the increased "surplus" or profit in the business sector is = the government's tax revenue loss or change in its deficit. That's the accounting.

It's an accounting identity used by economists. Did the payroll tax cut from 2011-12 NOT increase deficits and NOT increase consumption spending?

I wish you would take an accounting course. Read up on something called the sector balances approach. It's utilized by a lot of Wall Street economists to analyze the macroeconomy. So consumption spending by government workers doesn't increase the revenue of firms? REally?

You beat me to that one! I was thinking the same.

You can blame BO for some, but you can't blame him for the lower revenues that are a consequence of the recession. If the debt has increased by $6 trillion and his stimulus was $1 trillion, what caused the remainder? If anyone can read here, you'll note I didn't say anything about his policies or impact, I'm simply saying "you're an idiot" if you blame the entire accumulation of debt on BO, and I'm asking anyone to explain why we should worry about the number 18? Now, if you want my opinion on some of those other issues, it was a good thing that the federal government delayed the actions that state and local governments would have had to take to balance their budgets in 2009, the recession year. If they had cut spending and raised taxes in that year, then a severe recession would've been made more so. In 2010 and 11, as the S&Ls started cutting, those actions were offset for the next 2 years by the federal government's spending, but the TOTAL government spending was actually stagnant in real terms. Real federal government spending and total government spending actually declined in 2012 and 2013. Regarding the impact of stimulus and G spending in general, almost all of that spending eventually ends up in the coffers of some business whether it's public employees spending on consumption or direct purchases from (defense) contractors. We can argue about what type of spending is more effective, but it still ends up as revenues for businesses at some point. When G runs a deficit, then it's putting more money into economic circulation than it's taking out, so the net effect of a $1.5 trillion deficit is that it ends up adding revenues to businesses (or some ends up in the savings accounts of public workers who don't spend all of their income). Government deficits create surpluses in the private sector. The impact of ANY stimulus then depends on what those firms do with their funds, and, as most of us know, it's been sitting in their coffers, and over the past 2 years they have used it to buy back shares or funded takeovers. Why would they use it to expand when they can meet demand with current capacity? So, from my perspective, the stimulus did exactly what one would expect in those first 2-3 years: it halted the contraction, and the economy began to expand again, albeit slowly. Since 2010 government spending has actually been declining in real terms and as a percent of GDP. So you call it a failure, and I look at the fact that we went from -2,8% GDP in 2009 to +2.5% in 2010, then policy has actually been contractionary ever since. I think you have to agree because those are the facts...

Since the deficit was about $1.5 trillion in 2009, the way I do math says the current deficit is significantly lower than half of that. Love these guys who focus on nominal numbers. Wow! The current deficit is still a larger number than any president in history! Lions, and tigers, and bears...oh my! What a meaningless comparison. The current deficit/GDP ratio of 2.8% is lower than all but 2 years of Reagan's 8 years. Does Obama deserve blame for the amount of debt generated from higher unemployment and therefore lower tax revenues during this so-called "great recession"? Yes, it's ALL Obama's fault. I guess it's ok to say everything that happened under Bush was his fault too? And so on... Regarding the debt, can someone please explain why it's a problem? What calamity is it going to cause and when?