colin

if wright has talent but not necessarily the work ethic, then a young guy who might take his job is exactly what the dr ordered

the fed is a bad thing. we have the fed because the government will do bad things if it thinks it will expand its power.

while markets can get pushed around, the argument that speculators tend to make markets swing more wildly is silly. if speculators make the highs higher, they must do so by buying. if they make the lows lower they must do so by selling. this would make speculators losers -- they'd end up buying high and selling low. now this isn't to say that speculators can't push markets, they can and do, but this is about the true economic effect of free markets. free markets improve liquidity, anyone who's ever traded anything knows that a market without real liquidity either barely trades or just gets pinned in one direction on a fairly regular basis. speculators are a good thing.

i've had violent battles with ramius and labillz over the qb's right on on tsw, but on most other things we tend to agree. this is one of those things -- i h8 the pats so damn much! i so want porter to flip the eff out gangsta roid rage style and put his helmet through brady's knee. i want brady to come back early and look like a hero until he gets sacked double digit times by the bills in a horrible faketriot loss that pushes him to a smack habit and into his true calling of being an sfv gay pr0n star dying of aids in 18 months.

i almost spat coffee cuz of this post. lulz!!

unless you are actually violating the contract, you or a football player or anyone can demand anything. the bills can cut peters in the morning if he loses a leg in a car accident. peters has the right to hold out without forfitting his signing bonus. the bills have the right to cut him, ending the contract. that's the bottom line. in baseball and basket ball you have guaranteed contracts, so the whole contract is guaranteed up front. it's terrible.

i was thinking the bills were gonna sign evans this year, and re do peters next year. i don't think they want to drop an additional 35 or so guaranteed bucks right now at once. maybe they can arrang something -- have a two tiered bonus incase he gets hurt this year or something.

best ever o is pretty established. they set the scoring record, right?

just like how the colts have been built, or greenbay before them, or dallas before them, we are built as a team with the specific purpose of knocking off the big dawgs on the block. that's the faketriots obviously. pass D, pass blocking, power back, ball control, kick ass special teams. if we can take away the big play, and then throw some blitzes and confusion at brady we can make new england go from best o ever to average. if we can hold the ball we can wear out the old d. with marshawn we can get to the red zone and punch them in the effing mouth. with our special teams we can play on their side of the field and possibly break one. i've got my chest kicking shoes ready, THIS IS THE YEAR WE DO IT!111

100 is more than 97

fair point right there imo. if we have a decent D and O, then you go for roscoe who is more consistent with some but not as much big play %. those extra yards and 40 and 50 yardline starts can add up if we can convert some red zone tries. if our o is worthless again then you want the scores. as far as AP and lynch go, i think ap is better. i thought he was a ton better, but this thread did point out some very interesting things to me. for a rookie on the second worst O in the nfl with qb problems (and a rook much of the season) and a bad D that doesn't force punts for more chances to never have a game under 50 yards is impressive. with our oline togther for another season and some passing threats in the end zone i could see marshawn just bulling his way to some big touchdown numbers. if we only face 7 in the box i think he could absolutely gash some teams for big fat runs. marshawn might break some bills rushing records in his career (talk about a serious standard!). not for sure, but he really does have a shot.

this article really points out to me the need for changing up, guarding signals, and a little trickery. i hate the pats and want them all to get a disease that turns their legs into giant puss filled sores, but still our team needs to protect its neck.

that's a good friggen post cat. now that we have some horses i think we'll be able to go with the change up on D. i want brady in a wheelchair blowing into a straw to move since his arms don't work. i want billicheat violently gang raped by the trannies ronaldo was caught with, giving him a version of super aids that leaves him like the victims in aliens.

STOP IT BILL!! lol so this whole thread aside, yeah of course the fo is mortified. so was i when i first read this. let's hope this is the shot in the ass everyone needs to keep everything wired tight.

nonsense. things don't and can't go to infinity. that doesn't happen, it can't happen. being short is not riskier than being long, it just isn't. wrt stocks and credit products, being long is riskier than short, the downward moves are faster and sharper (heard of put premiums, crash-o-phobia, and empirically it's easily observable). even based on your argument about my assumptions (which i'm not making, that's irrelevant, i only pointed out the cover price because it is simply a mark to market loss until covered) you are wrong. infinity minus some finite number is still infinity, the point is it's impossible in securities trading. the problem with the short infinite loss garbage is it makes people make the wrong assumptions about the risks of being long vs short. kelly, you are really reaching on this. where the hell does talking about bombs on a plane come from? what's your point, that there are bad times and places to say certain things? what the hell does that have to do with anything?

you ever hang aroud the locker room, after gym class?

i still maintain nothing is off limit to jokes. i didn't admit anything differently. what i pointed out is actually putting a burning cross on someone's lawn is wrong, not because it is a joke but because it is clearly a violation of someone else's property. joking about some violation of someone's property is fine tho. is this really that hard to understand? and what the hell makes you think the closest black guy hearing that joke will be hysterical? what if i'm 100 pounds bigger than he is? what if he is my friend and finds the joke funny? you make assumptions about the closest black guy that GG finds offensive, and thus you aren't even a person in the 21st century. honestly dude, one bills fan to another, get some work done on your face and teeth. you aren't gonna make it as a smart one, but you MIGHT be able to make it as a pretty one! work your core too!

lol do you like movies about gladiators?

nope. short selling an asset can only lose the value of the asset (less the entry point) when covered. that patently cannot be infinity. and it is no more risky than being long (squeeze and exchange rules might make it more cumbesom tho). in fact empirically being long a cash security (with the possible exceptions of UST) is much riskier. prices are more apt to drop than ralley suddenly and sharply. WE LIVE IN A WORLD OF LIES!!!!

yup. think i'll ever see an infinite bid to hit on my screens?

nearly every single book about investing (in stocks particularly) say that if you go short you can lose an infinite amount of money. this is wrong across the board. when a word arises from being an often commonly made mistake, IT DOES NOT MAKE IT CORRECT, EVEN IF IN THE DICTIONARY. laughing all the way to the bank was taken from something else entirely, so the irony is lost there. i could care less is one that makes me angry as well. and what the hell is your point about racism? i think racism can be really funny, doesn't make it ok to burn crosses in people lawns. i think someone punching someone else in the mouth can be funny, doesn't make it ok to do it. this isn't complicated. you honestly should think about being good looking, your mind chops aren't gonna win you any prizes.

OH I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE COMMON USAGE OF THESE "WORDS"!!!! that doesn't make it right! now that is something we can agree to be offended over! some **** makes a mistake saying disconnect instead of disconnection and every fag around copies him. eff that! the brits say orientated when they mean oriented. and people talk about unchartered waters when the mean uncharted waters. DON'T GET ME STARTED11!!

AND THEN I ASKED IF YOU ARE ON DRUGS. CAN YOU NOT UNDERSTAND SIMPLE SARCASM!?!?!?!? i went on for a paragraph explaining how a t shirt and a friggen burning cross on someone's lawn is very different. leverage is a noun. to have, via a lever, an advantage is to have leverage. people say "i will leverage my position" which means in their mind means to use leverage, but is in fact levering. disconnect is a verb, if two things have disconnected, there is a disconnection between them, not a disconnect. i hope you are good looking.

it's lever leverage is a noun. tell me about how laughing at a t shirt is the same as putting a burning cross on someone's lawn.

not buying it. like prideful or disconnect (as a noun) or leverage (as a verb) this is a incorrect word that has leaked into common usage.