TPS

It's pretty clear that appointing industry leaders has not led to effective regulation as well. I think there are a lot of people with the skill set to effectively regulate, and they don't need to be former/current CEOs. Someone mentioned Bill Black. I think there are a lot of people with his type of background that were good regulators and would make an excellent head of an agency. The problem is that those kind of people tend to get run out or ignored--good regulators will never be put into place. Why? Because the political-industry nexus has corrupted the system in general.

I thought that was the "new normal"?

This isn't about effups. The fact is that the same people who "regulate" industry come from those same industries, and they will never bite the hand that feeds them. It's the same thing in every regulatory agency. They go back to making their millions in those same industries when their stints are up. They protect their interests. Wall Street paid for deregulation. Finance accounted for almost 40% of total corporate profits in 2006 and 07. Finance makes money by spinning as much paper as it can. No one worries about the consequences of bubbles, because no one will ever go to jail--except for a few patsies; Madoff in this crisis, Regas and the Worldcom guy in the last one. It's a nice little system. Career politicians do what industry wants; industry finances their elections. When the public gets outraged, the pols pass a psuedo law like the financial reform act last summer. Finance then spends as much as it takes to get the "rules" to conform to their desires. Schumer, Dodd and Frank et al pretend that they did something for the public, but when all is said and done, nothing changes. The "act" is broad legislation, but it's the rules that matter. Industry always gets its way. It allows us to complain about "government" or democrats or republicans and career politicians, when in fact the guys making all the rules are the industry insiders. It's the appointees who matter. For the top finance positions, whoever is elected appoints the CEOs from Citi and GS. I guess these guys only eff up when they are doing their government stints....how can they be so smart when they run a Wall STreet bank, but so stupid when they work for government? But, hey, it's an article by Matt Taibbi; end of story. Rant over.

Matt Taibi's new Rolling Stone article. I'm sure the usual suspects will shoot the messenger and defend the corrupt system that is. Taibi

I think that sums it up pretty well. I can't wait to see Carrington on a full-time basis.

There will be only a handful of (global) exchanges in another few years. And it's not the NYSE, it's NYSE Euronext, the French exchange they merged with a couple of years ago. I'm sure you'll be able to trade your favorite stock 24-7 soon as well.

LA Fans? I think you mean residents. Maybe it has changed since I grew up in SoCal, but in my experience the majority of fans for most sports games (with the exception of the Lakers--more celebrity driven thanks to Jack N)) were transplants rooting for the other team. My dad grew up in Wisconsin so we only went to a Rams game whenever the Pack played them (one time I can remember; his baseball team was the White Sox. My brother and I became Rams/Angels fans. I think that's one of the reasons why LA was never able to support and keep a football team. Maybe it is a little different now that the transplants' kids root for the local teams like my brother and I did?

So what you guys are saying is that we should draft rookies that have "instincts" to know what they should be doing before they are taught what to do?

Why?

That's why I compared him to Harrison. Not trying to say he is going to be "the man" next year, but has the potential to be quite a player by that Key 3rd year. I think it took Harrison at least to his 4th year. Moats is ahead of schedule I'd say.

Good points. Of any year, I hope this is the one where they can work a deal to trade back a few slots--they could really use 4 picks in the top 70.

With all of the talk about Von Miller, is the #1 need really a pass-rushing OLB specialist? Or, the real question, do we already have one on the roster in the name of Arthur Moats? - He had a statistically decent year (33TT and 2.5 Sacks) for someone who: came from a small school; became a starter mid-season; had an injury; and started the pre-season at a different position. - If you focus on his last 6 games and "annualize" those stats, it works out to 5-6 sacks and 50-60 tackles for the year. That would be a very strong showing for any first year player who started 16 games. - Moats is about the same size as James Harrison, a MAC product. I've certainly been on King Arthur's bandwagon, and I think he has shown he can be a legitimate starting ROLB...maybe even an excellent ROLB. While I like Miller, I think the more pressing needs for the D are the line and ILBs, and hope those get addressed early in the draft.

Nice article in the B-News today about Capers and LeBeau and the development of the 3-4 defense when they were together in Pittsburgh in '92. Towards the end of the article you'll find this quote by Lebeau: "Any maneuver you can implement that keeps a QB [from getting] a dead read on you is what you're looking for...You've got to at least level the playing field enough that they have to gather information after the snap or at least as close to the snap as you can keep it. If they know before, you don't have much chance." This is one of Fitz's strengths, reading and reacting. A big strong-armed QB can only get you so far if he doesn't have the smarts or experience to read where the blitz is coming AND quickly go through his progressions. It's extremely rare to find a QB who has it all. Fitz has yet to play a full season as the starter. While he has some weaknesses, he has the smarts to take the Bills to playoffs. I expect to see the offense take another leap forward in the second year of the Fitz/Chan (Chitz?) era. Build the defense in the off-season (put the 3-4 pieces in place) and the Bills could find a playoff spot next year.

It doesn't change the conclusion. It's a wager, or more so a call option, that he can return to form, and it seems to be a relatively cheap premium to pay in terms of NFL salaries. If he turns out to be a bust, Wilson loses the cost of the premium--$2.5 mil? If it pays off, and he returns to form, helps bring in other FAs, and the Bills return to the playoffs in the next 2 years, then it was a good bet--the return will be significantly > $2.5 million/year. Turn that frown upside down mr N.

Pros: an all-pro at a position of dire need at a discount; attacting more FAs to Buffalo; solid team leader. Cons: he gets injured and is a waste of money. I like the pro arguments over the con.

I wouldn't take the phrase "best player available" so literal. It comes into play when there is a significant difference in the ranking criteria. If you have a need and the BPA is not at that position, but the difference in your rating is marginal, you take the need; if there is a player you rated as should've been gone 5+ picks ago (or whatever number tips the decision), then you nab him.

While, Nix's expertise is in personnel, I would argue most of the issues you raise can be attributed to Chan. I would wager a lot of money that Chan talked everyone into taking Spiller given his familiarity with him and his offensive bias. Chan was also enamored with both Edwards and Lynch. It wasn't until he actually saw them under fire, that he realized he was wrong. If Chan wanted Lynch, Nix wasn't going to trade. And I don't know that Green was a poor evaluation; I think it was desperation after Butler's unexpected retirement--they had no one. It will be very interesting if Fairley and Dareus are gone 1-2. Chan will be salivating over Green, but will Nix nix him this time?

Well, that's just your opinion man. Yes, early to judge the draft, but one can also say the initial outlook is excellent. 1. Disappointing that he made little difference; next year is judgment year. 2. Better than expected, given he was behind an all-pro; still put up numbers equal to Pitt's Hampton. 3. Small school prospect who showed flashes of things to come. Could be a steal as a R3 pick. 4. Showed big play ability in practice before injury. Reminds me of Moulds. Could be a steal as a R4 pick. 5. Injuries hindered development. Hit or miss R5 pick. 6. R6 starter in first year--a steal; Injury made it difficult to judge Batten. 7. No harm no foul. If you judge this draft solely on Spiller, then "the outlook is grim." Looking at the entire draft, I would argue they created the foundation for the turn around. As for this draft, Would like to see Dareus or Fairley at 3, but would be very with the scenario of a trade down and pick up V.Miller.

You are correct mr chums. Does anyone know who the front 3 is for Pitt without a search? I'm sure most of us know who their LBs are. Carrington, Troup and Edwards will be equal to what Pitt has up front. The Bills maybe have 1-2 LBs necessary to play the 3-4 and stop the run. They desparately need 2 playmakers at LB in this draft, one inside and one out.

The Bills were competitive against most teams, and 3 out of 4 non-competitive losses came against the elite teams of the NFL (Pats, Jets, and Packers). While the Bills' record should improve significantly next year, it's unrealistic to expect that they can jump to elite level and compete with the Pats and Jets. The only possible way to make the playoffs is if they are one of two AFC east teams to make the wildcard slots. That's extremely unlikely. On a related note, using the Bills as a barometer suggests that the Packers and Jets will meet in the SuperBowl, since the Bills nearly beat both Pitt and Chicago.

Hey, we're football fans; it's always fun to speculate. Of course you need a dance partner. A trade down will only happen if 1) there is no one the Bills covet at #3; and 2) someone else does (covet a player). A speculative scenario: Fairley and Bowers go 1 and 2, and Bills prefer a front 7 D player; Cleveland covets Green; teams swap picks and Bills get Cleveland's 2nd + a later round pick (whatever adds up). Bills get Dareus or Quinn. Who knows? It's snowing outside, the Bills are done, and I'm procrastinating...

The debate is coming to a climax: CFTC

This is a new place downtown that has had some decent reviews. http://www.avantbuffalo.com/ You can also walk to most of the restaurants and bars. Highly recommend Seabar resaurant for dinner. Seabar There are all kinds of great places for dinner though, depending on your tastes. If you like Belgian beers, hit the Blue Monk on Elmwood (old Merlins). Food is good too.

If you look at the CFTC data, they provide the long, short and spread positions for each category. Index traders and other "investors" at net long holders; commercial traders are net short. They are simply saying that at least half of the money that comes in from index funds are in net long positions. Yes, the CFTC is now trying to determine what the position limits should be, which is what the report's recommendation was. They aren't arguing to end speculation/investing in futures, rather the argument is about putting position limits on these traders and treating them for what they are--speculators, not commercial traders. Also, they want to force OTC trades to exchanges. Personally, I would eliminate this type of passive investment strategy in futures. Real speculators bet on movements up or down; these guys are one-way buyers. As I've said, if one wants to bet on commodities, then buy stocks of the companies that mine, drill, etc. So I should get rid of my bumper sticker that says "Economists Rock"?

Letter in today's FT from the guys who critcized the OECD article: FT