TPS

Nice! The Bills get Mayock's #25 rated player, fill their biggest need, and still the complaints roll in... Good job Buddy!

Nix and Gailey obviously place a premium on character. It is rare for them to draft anyone not described as a high-character, hard-working, team player. For the draft experts (astro et al), of the OTs and WRs, who does that rule out for R2? The only one I know for sure is Adams.

There is a lot of evidence to suggest that Modrak had a lot of sway in that draft, as Nix did not complete the regime change until after the first year. True or not, I'd prefer to judge Nix starting last year when the entire draft/personnel department became "his people."

Rams pick first, so Glenn could be it. Colts are second and Fleener is there, who would also be a nice fit.

It's a crap shoot when you have a crappy draft department. I'd take nix over a coin toss any day...

I have to go with Buddy's comment, if you trade up and the guy turns out to be a bust, you lost two picks and it really sets you back.

Wow, revolutionary work. Standard Keynesian theory: deficits are expanasionary; so, yes, raising taxes in general is contractionary (see Spain and Britain). However, demand side theory also suggests that the impact depends on the marginal propensity to consume of those facing a tax cut/increase. A tax cut for those who spend all of their income has a greater effect on spending than a tax cut targeted at those who save 25% of their income. Therefore, any tax increase will have a lesser impact on demand if targeted at the top--those who don't spend all of their income. I'm sure the Romers would agree. As for the article, since the majority of the tax increase is target at the top, the negative impact will be a little less than they estimate, but negative still.

As usual, I responded to what I thought was an extreme position by you, and you are doing the same. The truth is in between. I think we've both stated and agreed that there are many factors that "explain" the crisis, and there is no single explanation. My overall point is that the level of debt taken on by finance reached all-time highs, and with that leverage comes more risk. I accepted your point about the rollover problem with short term liabilities, but it is a two-sided coin. The FED took over a trillion $s worth of assets off the balance sheets of the big banks, so, yeah, maybe the remaining assets performed "just like before," both good and bad. The fact that the IBs all became bank holding companies also gave them the "phone a friend" option at the Fed....

Wow! Where to start... Of course net leverage is lower since government securities are given a zero weight in the "risk-adjusted" leverage ratio calculation. The gross ratio captures the change in the net because it darn well was not an increase in risk-free assets that were rising during the bubble. It's well known that Paulson got the SEC to relax the leverage standards, and the result was the dramatic rise in assets held by the IBs. Your comment about liabilities...It's a balance sheet, so if the leverage ratio is rising, of course you have to fund assets with more liabilities. No regulator views this as "effectively hedged." Increased leverage means increased risk. The issue was all about the risk of their assets, because that's what covers your liabilities. As long as you have performing assets, then you are ok. Short term liabilities (CP for example) require trust so that you can continue to rollover, which of course means more risk with a greater proportion of short term, but it's the assets that matter. They didn't fail because they had too much short term debt, they failed because they held too much crap on and or off their balance sheet. You can always meet your obligations by selling assets, but if you can't sell your crappy assets, your in the shitter.

According to Casserly, he's a top 10 pick. My link

The more I think about it, with McKelvin in his last year, and I think Florence as well, it makes sense--as long as they feel good about getting a LT in R2-3.

Another reason to believe this, Whaley mentioned wanting to have a roster where if someone goes down, the drop off from the player coming in is minimal. Right now there is no other LT on the roster. They have decent depth at CB and WR. Several weeks ago Nix said he thought there were 3 LTs that were worthy at 10. I think Buscaglia has it right.

He ended by telling "sully" that if an LT allows you to throw the ball down the field and open up the offense, then you could consider that an impact position.

Interesting. I was just thinking about posting a topic on "Will the Bills surprise and do something unexpected?" Given so many questions about the players of need who are expected to be there at 10, do they go with the BPA at any position? Thank God it's almost here!

Just took a quick look at GS' balance sheet. Total assets nearly tripled from 2003 to 2007, from $400 bill to $1.1 trillion, whereas equity doubled from $21 bil to $43 bil. That's a recipe for a bubble and crisis.

I'm with you on this one, since the models assumed house prices would not fall past historical price declines.

So Paulson convincing the SEC to allow GS (and the other IBs) to increase their leverage from 12:1 to 33:1 was minor?

J. White barely saw any playing time at his RB position; whereas, Searcy started several games when Wilson went down, handle and showed he could play, despite rookie mistakes. Hairston, Searcy, and Rogers had to play because of injuries and I'd say they all showed they could play in the NFL, despite making rookie mistakes. J.White couldn't beat out the late season pick up of T. Choice for playing time after FJ's injury.

Yep, I'd say he should have been on the list over J. White; in fact, I'd even say C. White had a bigger impact. Def a great draft.

No disagreement, but it made me wonder why he was lumped in with the others. I don't remember anything that stood out about him. I actually thought he was a good pick after the draft, but he didn't do much as an RB. Still time for him to pan out though.

It's a stretch to call Johnny White a "key contributor" last year.

Don't disagree that a big part has been people dropping out, but some of it is the demographic change.

If you are referring to the labor force participation rate, then you need to be careful about interpreting a decline as a negative. The rate is expected to steadily decline over the next 15-20 years as the babyboom generation retires. There will be more people leaving the workforce than new entrants.

That article hits at why I don't like taking WR in R1. OT in R1, then get your WR later. I'm leaning OT in R1, then either WR/OLB in R2.

Exactly. While Easley hasn't played a snap, he has been around the system for two years. The odds are greater that he will contribute more than any rookie. Gotta have another body at LT who will most likely see action during the year.