colin

by the way most guys rate an nfl qb, there are about 10 catagories that have more or less equal measure. jp has athletic ability, arm power, and deep ball (seperate from the power as he really does have great touch on the bombs). so he smokes 3 of those catagories, but is bad to terrible in all the others. the issue is he hasn't really done much to improve those other areas. the accuracy issue isn't necessarily about the % of passes jp completes, but where he puts the pass when he throws it. he flat out misses open WRs (as in doesn't see them) and ends up getting sacked, fumbling, or throwing picks when there was a play there. he is poor at reading the d, and really has negative body language when we get down early. if he was a kordel stewart type (altho kordel eventually wanted to be the man) who came in as qb or even an other back on some plays, and ran gadgets that were either him running or throwing a missle deep i think he would be a great additional weapon. he just isn't a qb tho.

trent is a 2nd year guy who showed some promise in his 2nd year. he has a good pedigree (2nd best HS prospect next to vince young) but lacks quality reps in ncaa or the nfl. he needs to learn a lot in just a little while to be good for us. he is certainly the best qb on our team tho. jp losman just isn't an nfl qb, never was and never will be. his best year and games came when he was completly controlled and limited by our conservative coaching. he had games where we won or were competitive vs good teams and he had less production than top 10qbs have in many quarters. like the jax game last year, he was horrible and had some luck late after the game was blown open. he's just a non factor too often.

wb. name calling aside (and some of the usual suspects on here who don't work under the same rules as everone else did plenty themselves) you were pretty correct in your jp assesment there. i saw the tampa and atlanta games from that year after seeing trent start his first few games last season. i feel pretty safe in saying that trent will be a better qb this season than jp has ever been.

what if you didn't know that you hit someone?

the leverage is: greater for the player the fewer years left on his contract greater for the player the closer to opening day greater for the player if he's in a skill position (team practice needs the player more, more specific skills to practice) if we push this to the end game, peters could simply not sit out 3 years. because of that i think the bills have the greater position. i think when he has 2 years left on his contract (perhaps even during this season) he will be extended with a giant bunch of money. lots of guys hold out and then play, it isn't necessarily the biggest deal.

i think we extend evans this year, like 7 or 8 per, 20 up front. 5 for 38, something like that. as far as peters goes why should we extend him? he's had one season at LT, got hurt, and has 3 years on his deal left. is he gonna sit out for 3 years? no way. will he sit out this year? uh uh. he'll play this year, we'll make sure he is as good or better, then we can extend him after this season. 2 years left is fine for a renegotiation, but 3 is too many.

i laugh my ass off at guys who just outright trust the da and cops like they are something other than guys with jobs that give them the power to destroy people's lives. i bet when someone has an insurance claim you guys are all "well if that's the insurance company sees fit to pay you you should thank them. they are always fair and most people are just scamming them anyway". on your knees for authority figures like good little germans.

nyc bill, when you say the police can't talk to him cuz he's lawyered up, do you mean that they won't ask him questions as having his lawyer present will ensure that he won't say anything stupid that the police could use against him? if the cops can't prove it was marshawn driving, and there isn't strong enough evidence to link the car to the scene of the crime (the damage is just a scratch or something, witness can't say what the plate number was, etc.) can't he just ignore the whole thing and no one will press charges?

i heard (made up) that they are gonna give him the death penalty, no trial. tough but fair i say.

he really was a stud at times tho. i wonder if his lack of conditioning, work ethic and pain taking ability is the cause.

if trent is as bad in 3 years as he was last year, he will be a bust and equal to jp. i expect him to be a good steady player most of the time this year, with some bad looking picks at times, and an efficient quick strike O at other times. i think/hope we will be putting miles on our RBs legs. jackson, lynch, omon, and wright could all get a lot of touches over the year if our D and special teams are good and we just go to town beating people up.

i think we'll end up mid 20s or so in points and yards. that IMO would be a big improvement

ok, i take it back, you really are a fool. you and your gay uncle GG are circle jerking with tps over all of this, but you're all just clowns. gg (and you) don't understand the risks that bear was supposed to hold wrt the financial system. it wasn't that they themselves go under damaging their creditors (like when delphi went under) but that they would damage the counterparty system. this is a problem banks should have to fix themselves (and they have lots of ways of doing this, but they are expensive and difficult so they don't want to) and forcing some hard and expensive settlement and collections that SHOULD occur when a big house fails would provide this correction. you and gg are both too ignorant to see this, and too stupid to put 2 and 2 together to understand the implications. tps is just a down the middle sophomoric economist who thinks his particular prof or text is the oracle. i'll leave you to your toe tapping festival.

k, i might have been mean calling the other guy a fool, but it was because you are a fool (gg, not other guy). 2 things 1 -- do you understand what the counterparty risk with cds' is? i don't think you do. you have no clue. it has nothing to do with a delivery squeeze. there's a cash settlement market that people can just use when they are short the credit with a cds. the point you cannot understand is that the problem the fed was trying to avoid was not the impact on cds contracts that reference bear, but contracts (and not just cds at all) that had bear as a counter party. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CASH OR PHYSICAL SETTLEMENT OF CDS CONTRACTS THAT REFERENCE BEAR, ZERO DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU IGNORANT BLOW HARD? 2 -- the point of the self regulation is that the market WILL NOT self regulate IN ITS OWN SELF INTEREST if they have that crowded out by the fed. while dealers couldn't exactly predict that bear would be bailed out, the effect of the big brother fed is that dealers simply don't push for good controls (internal and external) since they feel they are doing enough as long as they meet the feds obligations. the fed has certainly bailed out people in the past (LTC happened barely 10 years ago), and frankly only now are many big banks looking into good modern (CCDS, do you have any idea what that is GG? of course you, right?) counterparty risk control. do you have the slightest idea what the counterparty risk, where bank A faces bank B on a cds contract referencing bank C for example, is? i don't think you do.

delphi wasnt' a COUNTERPARTY. it was the name on cds contracts being protected against. the CDS' all served their purpose just fine when delphi or anyone else goes under, that's what they are for. don't you understand what the issue with bear going under was? hint: it wasn't cds contracts with bear as the ref entity, it was contracts (and not just cds) where bear was the counterparty.

no you fool. i said the fed actually crowds out reponsible counterparty risk management. management of banks were correct to not bother hedging their bear counterparty exposure (or under hedging it) as the regulator obviously bailed them out.

do you know what a ccds is? do you understand what it means wrt counterparty credit? it protects against counterparty (as in the otherside of the cds or any other contract) losses. do you understand how the fed crowds out ccds usage? the actual losses of a counterparty going bust is a function of the net risk netted between the institutions. i could be any amount of notional and still be flat. 2 trill is just a guess. the real embarassing thing about the cds and other derivatives contracts is how poorly managed they are from a back and middle office POV. a ccds model actually provides what the costs will be in the case of a bust (given a specific recovery rate). so yeah, i am sure. and the only thing that is embarrassing is that i have to give you a lesson for you to begin to understand how wrong you are. do you know what a ccds is? just tell me what you think it stands for, and how it CAN protect against counterparty exposure, and why you think it is embarassing to state that it can?

2 trill is the notional, not the risk, not even close. after netting the actual risks are small, the opperational aspect would be expensive but that's just because the players are under invested and undermanaged wrt back and middle office. a ccds market could account for and protect all the counterparty credit exposures, and the effect of the fed on this market is people won't adopt them unless the fed makes them, because it's cheaper just to get bailed out. this is an example how the regulator's effect on the market crowds out the self regulation that would otherwise exist. have you ever traded any of these things? reality can be a little different than how tps and dc tom agree it is.

i did no such thing you goof. economic scarcity of money is a well established term, it essentially means the amount of money wrt the amount of real wealth in a given economy. it is absolutely a function of supply and demand, yet you've just accused me of saying it isn't. and you called me a dumbass, even tho you didn't even understand my very simple post. there have been dozens of economists, including nobel prize winners, using these terms for decades. i think your TPS lust has made you mad.

it's economic scarcity. were the market to set this value (completely as the credit market for different consumers gives us an idea of what prices the market will bare) it would be interest rates. interest rates without a credit element would represent the intertemporal demand for money. do you think inflation is too much demand?

the poster talking about all the states obama can't win is a bigger obama bear than i am. i think PA, OH, and FLA are the real battle grounds, repubs winning 2 of them (with OH and FLA being the main ones) is a lock for mccain getting the presidency. obama is a total stud with the minorities, college kids, single women, and people who suffer from white guilt. the thing is those guys are dems anyway, and are concentrated in CA, wisconsin, NY, mass, etc. at the end of it people vote for presidents they trust as being strong and american. clinton only won due to ross perot hurting his opponenet. so since regean, without perot, we have america showing that it likes republican presidents. obama isn't a strong enough substitute (a war hero dem who seemed like a tough guy would be a slam dunk IMO due to bush's bad rep). mccain is an iffy candidate by most measures, but obama is unelectable. i can't wait to see how the put the attack ads on his wife.

the bolded part is junk. although the fed might not be able to just hand out cash, but they can very much expand and contract the money supply via the banks. as this is done, the liquidity will leak out in the market. the thing is it doesn't spread evenly (which is why the cpi/ppi is a waste of time). when they inflated the money supply in the late 90s, the new cash went into tech (start ups, expansion, massive capacity upgrades, tech equities) in the last expansion of the money supply it got dumped into consumer lending (houses, credit cards, cdo's and cmo's, house builders, and lbo's a plenty). this is worse for the man in the street that bills form the sky, because they will be the last in and last out. the real junk part of that comment is the value judgement you pretend to make on supply and demand. you are essentialy saying that inflation is a problem with supply or demand (or perhaps both), something that you are ostensibly supporting the government or fed "fixing". as AD pointed out, you are saying the market is wrong and the government will be able to correct the too high demand, or "supply side shock". if this were the case the government could just fix north korea and cuba, but they can't. they can't because the market creates wealth, nothing else. this is a joke. the market sets prices (except for the price/supply of the dollar/interest rates which the fed just sets by fiat). its that simple. if you have more demand, you get a higher price. less supply, higher price. the thing is the market will respond with more supply, more alternatives or subsitites, and as a poster pointed out about demand for oil, if people can't pay the price they will just do without. so to conclude: inflation is a decrease in the value of the currency, government fiat controlling supply and interest rates (the price of money) even if that supply increase is filtered through private institutions is the real cause of this. the market setting prices in a way that you don't agree with isn't inflation.

i agree -- the bills rule. i'm gonna have a smile on my face while chest kicking pats fans.

you like mine tho right!? :>?

no. inflation is growth in the money supply. the fed has control of the money supply. the ultimate level of the money supply is influenced heavily by credit expansion, but the ability of the banks to expand credit is dominated by the fed's influence. and prices ARE NOT cost plus some margin, they are what the market will bare. the do not just go up because costs go up, they go up because the market will clear at higher prices. if your labor costs went up and you decided to charg for your posts, no one would pay a nickle. supply and demand determines prices, with the exception of interest rates (in the usa at least) as they are set by the fed. when the fed inflates the money supply, you see inflation in prices, not because of costs changing, but because the value of the dollar (its economic scarcity) is reduced due to an inflated supply of dollars. dc tom, before you get your popcorn and lube and butt plug to wank to TPS' intro to eco posts, you might want to look up how the fed managed themselves under volker, and milton friedman's helicopter argument on inflation. TPS' text book isn't the only one