Fan in Chicago

I saw this article and didn't want to start a new thread. FWIW... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm I wish the scientists would make up their minds so I can decide if my next mode of transportation should be a Hummer or a bicycle.

I don't know about Rivers as a player but arguably, the LB corps is the most stocked group on the team. I rather we trade down than take the best player available for a position of least need.

Depends on your region so you have to look around. With the way you have handled your finances, you will get the best possible rate. Most adjustable rates are currently higher than the 30-yr fixed rates so you may choose to go the 30-yr way. As plenzmd1 said, be aware of total fees required to close. In the past, I have found that lending banks have good loan officers so you may not necessarily have to go to a mortgage broker. The banks are more upfront with their total closing cost estimates. My suggestion is to call 3-4 banks and 1-2 mortgage brokers. This can be done over the phone so the only downside is a sore ear.

Disagree on that one. Fairchild is yet another example of the Peter Principle

The only part I disagree with is the chance of winning back the starting job. I think Jauron & the coaches have made up their minds that TE is their starter come opening day. Agree with the other part as answers to Gordio's question. Plus, if he goes somewhere else to be a backup he will be at risk in being let go next year setting himself up to being a journeyman. Big payday next year or not, he most likely thinks that if he is to step in for any length of time, his best chance to showcase his talent is in Buffalo due to, as you said, familiarity with the system but also with the players and their strengths/weaknesses.

Why would any team want to trade for a player who will be unhappy to be a backup ? If a deal happens, it has to be a win-win for all parties concerned - the Bills, the new team and JP. This year, I am sure JP would rather be a backup in Buffalo than on any other team.

Yep. In other words, big government getting bigger. Goes against free market theory.

No, it is from next year.

Reading through your posts you seem to have a good handle on your cash flow. Pat yourself and your SO on the back for that. I think you should pay off the student loan while making sure you make at least a 20% down payment. Get a pre-approval on your mortgage that will allow you to bargain hard on the house.

I partly agree with what you are saying. However, I do think there is ample scope to have two excellent receivers on the team. From that perspective, the front office should not be gun-shy with respect to signing Lee now. BTW, he is under contract for the next two years (not just this year as you mentioned). I have to disagree with others who said that the front office is busy with draft preps. But the ones responsible for draft boards and those in charge of contracts should be different, no ? Even if they need to have the others' input, it seems logical to me that getting a contract done for one player while the scouts and coaches are strategizing for the draft, should be do-able. And I don't know where the 'one, two day' comment originates from but it has been a fairly long time since the season ended and a few weeks since we made the quick FA moves. There have been plenty of days to negotiate a contract. For all we know, both sides are working on the negotiations.

Weird. I am pretty sure Evans is a UFA after next year.

I really do wonder how we got free agents on defense but are trying to rationalize not getting anyone (significant) on offense. You say getting Bryant Johnson for a year would not be preferable. I make the argument that he would be insurance in case our rookie WR does not immediately contribute. Yes, we did not get Wilford even though the contract he did sign was not too expensive. Which meant we did not think of him much for that money or he did not want to come here. Either way, we did not make it happen. Crumpler would be an upgrade (IMHO) compared to the current set of TE. Again, expecting a rookie TE to make a difference is not a given. We may have been better with a known devil. I am not advocating against patience. All I am saying is that there is no positive changes to date that indicate the O will be better in 2008 than in 2007.

I happen to agree with the point of the OP. I will qualify that the assessment is true as of this minute and things can change prior to the start of the season. But we have too many question marks and no solid positive changes. We don't know if a rookie OC will be better than Fairchild, we don't know if the improvement over the off-season will be adequate for Trent and Lynch. It is questionable how much rookie WR and TE can add to last year's offense. Given how we our off-season hopes have been repeatedly dashed over the last few off-seasons, esp. on O, I cannot feel optimistic about the O compared to last year. I still have a hard time understanding why 2007 was so much below the level of our second half 2006 performance on O. Also, a point has been made regarding the negativity of the OP. I just cannot see the grounds for optimism right now.

Not sure the conclusions will stand up to the scrutiny of a statistical evaluation, but a fun read anyway. Premise is that schools that do well in sports see applications for admission increase. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080323/ap_on_...s/flutie_effect

Well, you are correct. I have been in a particularly pissy mood lately. And I contradict myself when I say you made the correct observation without sufficient data.

Actually, I did not not know that. It just upsets me when anyone makes conclusions without backing it up with (factual) data, especially in a discussion which relies so heavily on quantitative reality.

If he also plays CB, I want him on the Bills too

Does this article have any numbers to back up such broad conclusions ? While I disagree with the Feds actions lately, I cannot discount the need for their existence. Largely, they have done well especially under Greenspan. Bernanke appears to be a bit trigger-happy but that is not a commentary on the Fed itself. The National debt/deficits are based on long term monetary (interest rates) and political policy (spending, tax rebates/cuts, wars) and I would like to see which specific actions of the Fed (quantified) does he refer to that allegedly have such a significant impact on the debt. My guess is if there is any backing to that statement, it will be just philosophical bs without any basis on firm facts.

Seeing how Oneonta Buffalo has already overtaken you ...

The Onion ?

Please PM me your information so I can PayPal some money over.

I think these rates and those for the mortgage/refinance markets don't always move in the same direction. It is perhaps because they are sorta different markets with their own supply-demand balance creating the interest rates. But what do I know ? I am in the market for a refi also and have asked a friend who is a broker to tell me when I should pull the trigger. He called me today to ask me to be reachable on Wednesday.

Does it mean the effort to recover the data is less than your effort to recreate the site design and such ? If yes, then I am all for saving you work and will pitch in as necessary.

First of all let me say I am very happy we all are having this discussion. I get to learn more. The highlighted portion is so key in this discussion as it points to severely flawed fundamentals in such companies. I have to wonder how many others out there are on such a precipice. A company that has operated for ~ 80 years goes under in a matter of days. I am happy to have my average-paying, steady, no-bonus job.

I don't have any knowledge about the 1929 crash but I would guess the Fed's role would be to set policy that allows institutions to function, for the country to grow and to set monetary policy that is forward looking. If true, I do not agree that their role is to support a failing enterprise. That is the essence of a free market economy. For lack of a better cliche - the fittest survive. If the risk is of the sector collapsing, then there are so many underlying problems with that sector that it may be worth it in the long run for it to collapse and rebuild itself with the lessons learned. And GG, I don't think Becker is entirely contradicting himself. This action will not help the economy recover quickly - it simply prevents a panic-driven collapse of the financial sector. I partially agree with you that the result of such a collapse means that the credit crunch will trickle down to smaller companies essentially bringing investment to a grinding halt thus causing or accelerating a recession. But I question this morbid fear of recession. For the long term good of the economy it may be worth having a recession if it means better lending practices, stronger focus towards fee-based financial services and less focus on lopsided leverage by investment banks.