TPS

Sounds like football Nirvana to me...

I'm torn on this one. EJ has been so nervous in his first starts--the scrimmage and first preseason game. I really don't know if it's good to throw him at Belichek in his first game? If he struggles, like most QBs do against the Pats, will it affect his confidence going forward? I think I'd like to see Kolb get the nod, with EJ coming in for specific situations (like running the read option in short yardage). ????

How many physically gifted but mentally midgeted WRs never make the leap to the NFL? Marrone is not a babysitter. Rogers won't make the final 53.

If they keep only 8 on the active roster (as the OP suggested), I think they would want more than 1 OL on the PS. Certainly it comes down to who you don't want to lose, but also need. I for one will be surprised if they add only 1 OL to the PS with 8 on the active roster.

I think that's the biggest hole in an otherwise decent shot at the roster--I'd be suprised if they kept a total of only 9 OL, especially when you include the PS. I think they will probably keep one more OL on the roster (center/guard) or on the PS for a total of 10.

last I saw, kiko is being held out this game.

Perfect outcome for the first preseason game. It gives the new staff a boost, and cushion from the media and fans criticism, and the young team some confidence. Imagine the reaction if they laid an egg? The negatives for me, confirms the weaknesses at LG and second CB, and also the need to get Byrd back.

Don't know what else is happening for Carolina game, but Pearl Jam is at the arena Saturday October 12th. I'm looking forward to an awesome weekend of Bills and PJ!

Deficit.....zzzzzzzz....snore......

Yes, I thought there were a lot of great set ups for next season. Currently I enjoy the Arya-Hound segments the most.

I've been thinking this could be one of the best Bills' drafts ever....but I'll wait a few more years before I say it....

Yeah, sorry, that was my fault. I started watching GoT between seasons 2 and 3, and my first post was on the season 2 thread. I said something about how unpredictable the show is--you never know who will get whacked! Kevin responded with something like, it will continue. After that last episode, I had to respond to his post. I don't think I've ever had a TV series create so much emotion for me. !@#$! First Ned, then Robb!?!? WTF! It's only a friggin show, but I was literally depressed, much like the past 12 Bills' seasons...

Yeah, sorry for bringing it up in the Season 2 thread, but I remembered Kevin's response and I wanted to respond to it.

Thanks for those. I preferred the first one since the writer hasn't read the books--I haven't either. Last night really left me with a sense of grief, but it's passed. The north better be revenged!

Holy crap! I had a difficult time sleeping after last night's episode. That was disturbing.

3rdnlong

There is always hope...

I liked their body language after they picked EJ in R1. They knew they did a good job--they got their guy AND extra picks.

I wanted to give you a better explanation 3rd.Inflation, as measured by rising consumer prices, has several sources: 1. Too much financed demand relative to the ability to produce goods. 2. Supply shocks (like oil prices) that raise the cost of production. 3. A depreciation of the $ exchange rate can increase the price of imports. 3. Since we import about 20% of our goods, then a depreciation of the $ will tend to raise the price of imports, which also means domestic competitors can raise their prices a bit. 2. I've argued that short run commodity prices are now heavily influenced by financial "bets." That means price spikes caused by those bets can filter into the core CPI by raising input costs. The impact from QE2 is a perfect example of this influence. However, since financial bets can't influence the underlying demand, it's a temporary influence; investors can't influence longer run prices. 1. This is the key driver of inflation--increased demand for goods and services relative to our ability to produce them. As I've constantly argued, inflationary pressures will remain subdued as long as we have high unemployment and low capital capacity utilization rates. What the Fed has done: 1. Bought several trillion dollars in bad assets from Wall Street banks, which increases "excess reserves" held by the Fed--these are electronic credits on the Fed's balance sheet. They represent potential loan power of banks. These have no impact on inflation; bank loans for spending on goods and services does. The level of reserves has almost ZERO influence on bank lending. 2. Bought several trillions of dollars of mortgage assets and treasuries from banks, HFs, and other investors. These are investment funds, so the key question is what those investors will do with the cash? They buy more assets, but which ones? They've "invested" in commodities (especially precious metals), they've taken advantage of the "carry trade" investing in foreign assets (causing the $ to decline); and they buy stocks, because there are very few opportunities for double-digit returns. Much of the activity here was based on "expectations" that the Fed's actions would cause inflation, so the actions of investors can bring about what they expect, but only temporary if the underlying demand is not there. 3. All of the Fed's actions have kept interest rates at historic lows. This is the traditional channel for how monetary policy is supposed to stimulate the economy, but not in a severe balance sheet recession when consumers and firms are focused on paying down debt. Conclusion: the Fed's ineffectiveness has to do with the fact that monetary policy doesn't directly impact aggregate demand, so it's main tool--low interest rates--has not been effective. Balance sheet recessions take longer to recover from. My recent prediction of recovery was based on (for one) the fact that consumers have started borrowing again, which is one of the key economic drivers, but this has recently been tempered by the impact of the payroll tax and sequestration spending cuts. However, it appears to me that the underlying momentum is still there. Conclusion2: Dopes like Tasker have to fudge numbers (of commodity indices) to support their religious economic belief that the Fed's "money printing" has indeed caused inflation. Commodity prices experienced a bubble in 2008 and the recession caused a dramatic collapse in those prices (from a value of 220 in July 08 to 98 in Feb 09). Of course they recovered somewhat from the bottom as the economy stabilized. In my view, the Fed's QE2 caused commodities to rise from nov2010 to May2011, but it was driven by investor bets. His view can't explain why commodity prices are lower today than they were over two years ago DESPITE the ongoing QE3 to infinity. All he can say is don't put him into a "narrow timeline." Rather than admit his worldview from his hilltop is wrong, he has to stubbornly hold to it and say "eventually." And eventually he will be right, but not because of his failed theory. Inflationary pressures will emerge as the economy picks up steam over the next couple years and the Fed's only defense is to raise interest rates in order to reduce the demand for loans. I look forward to that day so he (and Magox) can tell me "I told you so."

No. Monetary Policy is simply not effective in a severe balance sheet recession.

Yes, very good theory; it will happen eventually....

It's been a relatively ineffective policy, but it hasn't led to what you inflationistas predicited...

Funny comment by Brandon to EJ: "Nathan [hackett] is probably upstairs running around the building."