colin

i always was a massive pat williams fan. i tried to justify that williams was let go because he signed for too much, I head he was getting 24 mill over 5 years. what was his contract anyhow? i think he is clearly worth 24 mill over 5 years, he has played at a pro bowl level for years, he just didn't get credit for it.

i think JP gives Ds fits when he runs and should do it more. when he gets that happy feet look i always yell at my tv for him to take off, but i think the mic on my tv is broken. he never listens.

1. both of course. if you want to make a chicken and egg argument out of it demand drives production so you might say consumption drives the economy, but you can't have one without the other. 2. Canada consumes more resources per capita than the US. The UEA prolly tops all, but if your point is that the US consumes more than other nations, sure. 3. It is good for the world. The world is better off for the US being a productive economy. if you are getting at resource scarcity and environmental impact, sure that is an issue, but it is superior to the alternative of (more) poverty. 4. Wages don't decrease in a vacuum, and not all wages decrease, and wages decreasing isn't exactly a bad thing. if innovation, outsourcing of unskilled labour and competition lower prices of goods more than wages, then one's lower wages are worth more. did i pass?

way to keep your head in the sand on things you'd rather not bother to think about. i didn't mention ceo salaries, i certainly haven't said big business is good in fact i did write about pork, cronyism, big business digging themselves this hole, but since you can't see beyond the edges of your copy of the daily worker. and economic ignorance isn't independant thought, it is just wrong.

seconded

our coaches do suck, we should see if we can draft some. i think it is pretty clear that MM is not a good offensive mind. anyhow, i'd like to see this as our O line next year: Peters/Gandy, Hutch, Bently, Preston, Williams/Peters i could also see us just getting one of the 2 fa guys and plugging someone else

i am starting to like JP, but i still think we need to run a more young QB friendly scheme, it's not like we are tearing it up with our current mess of an O. anyhow, yeah this is clearly a rebuilding year, but i wonder if TD and MM et al are good enough to get it done. i also think JP needs to run more, 3-6 more carries a game would open stuff up for us.

walmart sells gas as a loss leader, they want you to buy products in their store and try to get you there with gas. the idea that walmart walks into towns and shuts them down is silly. all they do is move out bad business. they aren't exactly a monopoly, they can't just raise prices after "shutting down" bad business. they have a tough time competing with other large retailers and with internet and specialty shops they don't exactly have a whole lot of room to increase prices because they "eliminated" competition. you sound like you just walked out of a mike moore movie, you are missing the forrest for the trees. sure it sucks to work for walmart, and if you can't afford to shop anywhere else AND you just happen to live in a tiny hamlet that has no other business (which means you are very rural isolated place) then maybe you should consider moving. crying over the terrible society we would all live in if the entry level positions at the least discriminating employers don't pay a multiple of what they otherwise would is a bit like crying about how the dragons under the bed will eat you if you don't get your new playstation game thiw christmass. it's wrong and is borne of a sense of entitlement.

player wise it is the oline, but overall i'd say it is coaching

no, your common pastures analagy is backwards. the only thing walmart is doing (beyond jockying for position with the government which is the other side of the union/minimum wage/worker pork equation from the government that costs the consumer) is trying to compete as a business and manage their work force. they aren't effing anyone, if you don't want to work there then don't. walmart employs the least skilled, least experience people in their markets. they do so in order to keep costs down so they can sell products at the cheapest price they can. the common pastures analagy might apply AGAINST your position. minimum wages, unions, and so on SEEM to support workers, but in order to attempt to offset it (or just for politicians to play the game really) the government provides pork and tarriffs for corporations. this is where the tragedy of the commons can occur, everyone is trying to beat each other out for the helping hand from the government. what you end up with is underemployement, inflated wages for some people in unproductive unskilled jobs and inflated costs, a lack of innovation and a stagnant economy. if you want to see what would happen with more unions and protectionism in the US, look to france, italy or germany. if you want to see what an equal effort in macro policy does, look to japan. the solution is less government intervention, not more.

the reason why the trade would make sense is if pennington is cooked it will still cost the jets a bad cap hit to ditch him. if they trade vilma for rivers they won't have to pay the massive bonus that rivers got when he signed as the high pick that he was, so they can manage to fit him under their cap. obviously the best thing for the jests is if pennington is OK and the get bush. SD may well get a top 10 pick for rivers because he will come with a good contract (bonus and first couple years money has been paid allready)

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.