colin

you know chuck dickerson was making comments before about how our O is setting up JP to fail. we are giving him too many reads and not just letting him make a decision quickly and then run if it isn't there. rothlessburger, favre, and mcnabb all had simple game plans in when they started so that they could have a chance to do what they do best, i think our terrible coaches are not doing this with losman and it is costing us.

you still have things backwards. walmart is a business and sells to consumers who won't buy from them if they just magically set their prices to whatever they'd like without considering what people on the other side of the transaction would accept. of course they'd like to charge more but they can't on the other side of their business, they can only pay workers whatever the workers will accept. they'd like to pay as little as possible but can't because people won't work for free. your point of walmart "Again, who sets the wages? Why would Wal-Mart go below that threshold and continue to drive things down. Aren't they harming everybody by being that dishonest? And don't say that is what the market dictates. True it is what the market CAN dictate. Why cross that line and head down that destructive path? is silly. what is that supposed to mean? do you think walmart can just dictate labour prices by fiat alone? what the hell destructive path are you on about anyhow? walmart can no more just lower their wages paid any more than they can just raise prices on their goods: they can but they have to bear the impact of their decisions. the same way that ford and gm are shutting down plants in north america because they agreed to silly wages and benefits any employer will answer to the market if they f@#k up. you are pointing your finger in the wrong direction when it comes to tragedies of the commons. individual market players will be corrected if they make an error and will pay for their own mistakes. when you have pork and worker handouts in the form of unions and subsidies to corporations, you have things like gm going out of business and american unskilled laborours surprised that they are losing the job a child could do to people in far off countries who will do it better and cheaper.

no the comment i made that you responded to with your working for free nonsense was that people deserve to get paid WHAT THEY CAN. this means they "deserve" whatever they can get. the piont is there is no such thing as a fair wage, because if you are willing to accept the job then you are willing to accept the wage.

true, but i was on a roll

our D has been pretty damn good at home and BAD on the road. in 6 road games we are 4-2 and our D has 21 takeaways. that is a great number. the point you made above is important -- today we played straight vanilla and did a solid job overall, even without anyone good at DT, short our #2 corner, and without our best player (TKO) against a great O. it seems like we do have some guys who can play on D, but bad bad coaching. to me it is pretty clear we lost because our O sucks ass. we were in the redzone 3 times and got 3 FGs. you can't do that crap at home. one single TD would have tied it and 2 would have won it going away. i think we need new coaches all over the place, we also need some linemen. i am not on the ditch TD and start over band wagon. we have had the same damn problems for too long now.

the line is about 4 against the bills, no? the bills are very strong at home, terrible on the road. carolina turns the ball over and isn't that good on the road or in the cold. their d line will eat our o line, but their secondary can't cover our WRs, so we should be able to make some plays. they don't run well and our pass d at home is sensational. we should win this one. let's hope so anyway

if the parents earned the money they can give it to whomever they want, including their kids. it isn't a question of the children's merit, but the parent's

Do you have any basic understanding of economics or markets? It appears you don't, or if you do you ignore what you might have once learned for goofy rhetoric that matches some political beliefs you might have. 1. People deserve to get paid what they can-- what this means is that people want to get paid the most they can for what they do (including all the perks and comforts of working a job they like), and if they can get it they will. There is no set number that represents a "fair wage", if you are working for some amount of money, you have agreed to earn that much. That doesn't mean that slavery should still exist. I hope you were drunk when you typed that because it is insane. Of course working for free isn't the best, do you work for free? Do you want to? Of course you don't, so NO working for free isn't the best. 2. You have government aid and the impact of wages and jobs backwards. A given labour market DOES NOT require government assistance, but government assistance changes the dynamics of the market. People work at Wal-Mart for less than they otherwise would BECAUSE they can also get government assistance. If they could not live on the wages provided by Wal-Mart they would not work there, they would seek better wages elsewhere. in order to avoid going out of business Wal-Mart would offer a higher wage to overcome labour shortfalls. Government subsidies in this case lower wages by shifting the burden from the employer to taxpayers, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. 2a. as corollary, minimum wage laws limit the number of people who can can be employed because if an employer would only pay less than minimum wage to hire someone (say because it was a simple job or one that provided valuable training for the employee who would not be of real use till much further down the road) and if an employee were actually willing to work for less than minimum wage (say because it was a fun easy job and they didn't really need the money-- think kids, or because they have no skills or experience and need to develop some -- think the currently unemployable) that employer and employee could not enter into an employment agreement because of minimum wage laws. You ended your above post with some hand waving about time bombs going off and societal models, please review the most basic material you can find on economics and then you will realize that the statement you made is a giant non sequitur. Unions simply attempt to create a MONOPOLY for their members; this means that the employer(s) can no longer hire other able people in the market because they have an exclusive agreement with the union. the way a monopoly works is to INCREASE THE PRICE by LIMITIING THE QUANTITIY SUPPLIED. in other words, by having employers incapable of hiring other workers (and in practice not being able to fire substandard workers employed), union member can obtain greater pay by EXCLUDING NON UNION MEMBERS FROM WORK. This costs: -- Non union members looking for work -- The corporation's (employer) shareholders -- The corporation's management -- MOST IMPORTANTLY THE CONSUMER. This begs the question: why do unions exist? In North America and Europe they exist because of government fiat dictating how employees and employers are allowed to transact with each other. This is not to say that employers are the innocent victims here. They have (as a group anyhow) agreed to government regulation and protection in the favour of their business and the cost of unions is just the cost of doing business. The government subsidies, pork, tariffs, and straight handouts that "offset" the impact of unions only act to ensure that large existing corporations are the only ones who can play the dirty game, deterring new entry into the market. The lack of innovation, low quality of production, and direct costs are the burden of the consumer. For comparison please see examine how the perfectly unionized island of Cuba, (everyone has the same employer! Isn’t that grand, what a perfect societal mode) and the nearly perfectly non unionized island of Hong Kong have done. Please adjust your findings for the greater natural resources that Cuba has and its proximity the largest and riches market in the history of the planet. Unions do not work to avoid this time bomb you girlishly pontificated about above, but simply attempt to earn more for their members, at any and everyone else's expense.

i tivo all the games and take particular care to look over what happens when we blow what looks like easy downs to cover. there have been several 2nd or 3rd and longs (10+) where a dump off pass hits an RB and fletcher just takes a bad bad angle and has no effect on the play. it is one thing if he can't cover, but if he can't catch the guy after the catch and wrap him up then he is a problem in passing plays. i think with our new DT(s) and with spikes and crowell beside him london might have a bounce back season, but he can be upgraded on. IMO with vincent being a non-hitter, posey being blah as hell, and milloy seeming to have lost it, london ends up being the guy who has to make things happen in the middle and he just isn't good enough.

what does prosper and get ahead mean? people deserve to get paid what they CAN get paid. unions have done a good job getting their members more money, but if you are the client you get left holding the bag. i'd rather products get made in china for a better price with equal or better quality for my money, it's not like your ditch digger (or any labourer) in north america deserves my money anymore than one in china does.

he's getting canned

good preview! who wrote that? anyhow, i think the panthers line is about as bad as ours (o line that is). they are a bad running team too, so they should be built to make us look good. i expect our D to bounce back and our O to be OK enough to win.

he is far from perfect, but who else can we sign this offseason? i'd like him here as an OC.

fo sho it's coaching. we don't have anyone, save wyche, who has done anything at any level at the job they walked in here with. Grey IMO rode lebeu and is clearly predictable on D (san diego knew exactly what to do against us every single play, had us bite on fakes, and checked out of deep plays to short ones perfectly) clements has pretty much been canned by mularky taking his job. mularky SEEMED to be solid at some points last year, but is looking sh!!!t this year. i think a new HC can do well if he gets solid people around him, i don't think we have that and i think mularky might be ho hum to start with. i'd like to see martz in here, even though he is insane. he is smart and can run a great passing O. we just need some kind of control measure to ensure he runs enough.

hahahah!

I agree with the point that the management at Ford and GM is bad. I disagree with you on the social safety net impact on buisness. in europe and canada the government picks up the tab for healthcare and pensions (or at least they do to a much greater extent than in the USA), this is an advantage for a unionized corporations cost base. by not having to pay these costs for workers, the employer can save money and avoid legacy contracts that cost the employer well into the former employee's retirement. european corporations (and american operations in europe) get big fat subsidies and tax breaks (the republic of ireland is the best example) to thelp them compete with lower cost competiters, they also get some pork by way of tariffs and trade restrictions (the us does as well, just to a lesser extent). the costs for all of the above is taken out on consumers and taxpayers. the health care system in the USA is far from private in the sense that the government is heavily involved in it at every level (this is more in response to another post above).

GM's number one problem is their labour agreement. they are in the hole over 10 billion dollars a year vs toyota in wages, health care and pensions. that means that they pay 10 yards MORE than what toyota pays, and people who work at toyota auto plants make a hell of a lot more than typical unskilled labours. gm's stupid management is to blame for getting into this agreement, and they are just bad at most things they do anyhow (costs them over $100 every time one department orders something from another, there are giant commitees of been counters messing with design and change implementation etc.). that said, unions aren't some magical robin hood, they are a an attempt by labour to get paid more at the expense of the product producer. unions themselves are organizations with procedures and are as capable of Effing up like GM has. unions end up costing the consumer, and as a consumer i don't want to pay more so some particular unskilled worker can make more while doing a bad job on a car. i'd rather see the product made better and cheaper oversees so i can get a better value than watch someone live high off the hog at my expense. unions only service their members (and with corruption they don't always do that very well) so they don't keep the US from being a third world country or protect the "common man", they only protect their memebers, at the expense of their ultimate customers. if you really want better wages and working conditions do some research and improve your job skills. no one is owed a living

relax. is he your husband or something? did you buy a long snapper jersey to be unique? i'm sure we'll be able to sign him or find a new long snapper

i see us tagging and trading clements, drafting a day 1 corner (will have 5 day one picks, i see DT, LT, then SS, Corner, LB/DT/DE in the first day). with clements gone, we put TV at corner, baker/rook at FS. the next year we are done with milloy. and there we have a new secondary. i don't think we will cut M williams (I am 60% on this, it could happen). I see our team thinking he can still be a good RT, or a very good G and just getting him to blend and extend his contract and avoid a bunch of his upcoming roster bonuses. if he can get say about 3 or 4 bucks a year in FA, it is worth us to pay him a bit more (say 1 buck a year more) for him to stay (assuming he can be a solid RT, I think our team still feels the he can be). this will free up cap room and along with preston/villarial will solidify our right side. i expect 1 or 2 new FA linemen coming in, and either peters or a high rook to be an upgrade at LT. i'd expect bennie and Gandy to stay on as depth. this offseason could improve both of our lines a great deal

WR Sam Aiken (RFA) LB Mario Haggan (RFA) LB Angelo Crowell (RFA) LB Josh Stamer (RFA) ***I'd keep all the above RFAs, they won't be too expensive and all of them can contribute*** CB Nate Clements -- if the money is OK, ow tag and trade (2nd or late 1st?) DE Ryan Denney (he shouldnt' be expensive, so yeah if he ain't too costly) DT Justin Bannan (gone) C Trey Teague (gone) LS Mike Schneck (who?) CB Kevin Thomas (might keep if we need him for dime or nickle, cheap) DT Ron Edwards (should sign cuz we need DTs, he should be cheap) QB Shane Matthews (whatever, min cap hit so keep him) the good thing about having lots of crappy players is that you have a replacement for when another crappy player leaves!! go TD!

we could get in next year playoffs will happen if we go 7-1 at home (which we could still do this year) and sneak in 3 on the road we are in. we could do that next year. we get TKO back (making our linebackers TKO, London, Crowell) we get edwards back, we draft a kick ass DT, we might sign another DT, we will get a FA O lineman or 2 (for christmass i'll take hutch and bentley) and we get everett. losing nate will hurt, but if we get someone of equal value to our team we will be fine, and we could put vincent back at corner (he is too small for safety) and let our young safeties who show promise to fight for a job. that is TE DT G C LT LB S upgraded with a possible decline in corner and JP, evans, roscoe, willis all get better I expect us to cut moulds, prolly milloy, lose TT, and renegotiate with M williams

that was a boom or bust draft and we got hurt in the first round. that happens. the thing that i don't like is the CRAP we picked up afterwords. 4 day one picks including the 4th and 36th overall and NONE of them start on our team. none of them even look like they will start on our team. in later rounds we got nothing too. i still think williams can be a good RT in the NFL, and will have to take a bit of a pay cut to be worth while, but even if that works out for the best the above draft was friggin horrible, especially since we could have gotten henderson and le'charles bently and really improved our team for years to come.

this board must have been totally friggin awesome before if it is that much worse now. other bills boards are REALLY bad. you have clowns with no idea pontificating over what player is better with what attitude when they don't even understand the basics of the game or who is playing it. here you get some stuff back and forth, but it is funny most of the time and there are plenty of great takes, wrong or not, the analysis is interesting. have posts been deleted or changed by mods here a lot? i really can't tell

mckinnie gets on his man well, he just doesn't do too much when he gets there (reminds me of fina a bit). has finess and instincts and all that, but no power. fina was light, but bryant is just fat and lazy. he did like 17 reps or so with 225 in the draft combine bench press, most guys over 215 who lift weights for a few years could do that if they spent a couple months emphasizing bench press for reps. he really doens't have the power to match his blocking tools IMO. williams is sort of the opposite, but i think he real problem is confidence

signed