JuanGuzman

We would not of missed out on Cordy Glenn - Rather we lose our 2nd round draft pick in 2013. Its really all hypothetical but i guess the question is would you trade a 2nd round pick for Josh Gordon. Sometimes the 2nd rounders are great e.g. Cordy Glenn, Janoris Jenkins othertimes their Brian Quick or Torrell Troupe.

I'd be willing to give Wanny another shot... not really basing this off of anything other than a gut feel. I think the defense has gotten it's act together and if they continue to play well over the last 3 games I'd be fine with giving him another shot.

Hindsight is 20/20, but it looks to me like Gordon turned out to be worth a 2nd round pick. His stats are a bit inflated because he is the #1 option on the Browns and the play from behind a lot -- but it looks like Gordon will probably catch for close to 1000 yards and 6 or 7 TDs. He has 42 receptions on 78 targets (54%) so not the greatest catch percentage but Brandon Weeden doesn't strike me as all that accurate so I'm not sure if we can fault him for a low catch percentage. Gordon's catch percentage is similar to the rest of browns WR and higher than Stevie Johnsons (61/117 = 52%). Consensus on in the topic seemed to be that the bills should consider using a 4th or 5th round pick on him, some indicated that they wouldn't bother wasting a pick on him at all all.

In a deep league and injuries to McCoy, Amendola, and ineffectiveness Rashad Jennings has me looking for a Flex player to start this week - my problem is they're all bums. I have scoured the waiver wire but there doesn't seem to be anyone decent, tihs a really competitive 14 team league. My options (pick 1 to start): Daryl Richardson RB, STL @ Zona Donnie Avery IND (coming off a concussion) vs. Buffalo Chris Givens WR, STL @ Zona Donald Jones WR Buf @ IND Right now I'm leaning towards Donald Jones... Chris Givens might get some targets though if Ammendola is out....

Number 1 for me would be the defensive line: Maybe my expectations were too high but I thought we would have a top 3 defensive line in the league, we'd be able to get pressure with out needing to blitz. Basically I thought "we'd stop the run our way to the quarterback" - the D-line would control and dictate games.There are some legitimate excuses, Mario's injury, Mark Anderson injury, also Dareus personal tragedy. I'm holding out hope that that D-line evolves into a top unit.... but my expectations are diminished.

CHIP Kelly read - Patriots no-huddle relies on power of one - Sports - The Boston Globe http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2012/10/08/patriots-huddle-relies-power-one/nHTapuVnBOwfFlffwTrN6J/story.html

Chip Kelly would be my vote. Not normally high on college coaches but what I've read and heard about Chip gas been impressive.

Bill Barnwell Grantlant I thought this was a good article by Bill Barnwell, he makes the case that Dolphins won't be terrible next year. I kind of buy the argument a bit...

The ignorant comment was intended for World Traveller, should of specified his name... figured since I referred his quotes above. Sorry for the confusion.

Ignorance refers to the quotes I had above it by world traveller. re-read those quotes if you have a second, if you don't think that's ignorance than so be it but i call a spade a spade. As you to your point about market manipulation and magic. Again I don't consider this to be market manipulation or magic. The market already failed, right now we have borrowers who are underwater, and lenders who wrote bad loans. A policy such as principal debt write downs goal is to expedite the process, avoid the death spiral of foreclosures and increase economic mobility so that families may move to areas where the economy is stronger and jobs are available (this also benefits familes that don't move as there are 1 less person looking for a job in Tempe arizona) e.g. Texas, North Dakota. If you want to argue the logic than do so, but don't give me platitudes and generalities, argue merits and specifics.

You're ignorance doesn't do you any favor. I get that these are hype-polarized times in the U.S., but I would have preferred if you just said at the beginning you would oppose anything and everything from the current administration than we could have skipped the whole part where I use logic to try justify a policy... Look there are some legitimate criticism of the principal writedown program: One I would accept is that 1) maybe cost of program is underestimated, 2) the cost of the program is so high would require additional taxation and that would hurt the economy. I do not think that to be the case, but there is at least a degree of plausibility to the arguments - I think the reality is this would be a good program to pursue and it would assist and aid a recovery of the U.S. Economy. But there is no sense having this discussion if you can't carry your own weight, your arguments lack integrity. I think it would benefit you in the future if you opened your mind to at least considering the other side rather than covering you eyes and ears, when you do that, you end up blind and deaf.

welp, your responses lately have just be 1 line useless platitudes. I really don't think your making much a merit based case against the policy, I prefer substantive and cause and effect analysis but if you just want to throw generalities against the wall and see if any of them stick its hard to have a meaningful discussion.

This idea that it needs to naturally hit bottom argument is ludicrous. Principle write downs isn't trying to avoid the "real market price" the purpose of writedowns is try to achieve a more optimal result than the current death spiral of foreclosures and inability for families to move from an under performing part of the country to a part of the country that needs labour. A lot of estimates actually think writedowns would benefit F&F books but I can see how some estimates show a significantly loss if there is a strong emphasis on Moral hazard. The reality is even assuming DeMarco's calculations are correct (Which many economist find dubious), there would be winners, e.g., those that saw there mortgage reduced, and there would be losers (F&F books). But and this is the crux of the argument -- debt reductionss would benefit the economy by having less homeowners underwater, so that they either sell there home and move to state that is doing well (I hear real-estate is booming in North Dakota)or have more coin in there pocket to stimulate private demand. Also another point, your either confusing the concept of "external benefits" or being deliberately vague because my last post showed that I wasn't "making stuff up" when I linked to the line in the article you were disputing. But once and for all, there are two parties directly involved are (1) homeowners who stand to see reductions in their mortgage and (2) F&F and so by extension the American tax payer. The external party that isn't accounted for right now by Mr. Demarco is the benefit to American economy if these homeowners are able to avoid foreclosure, stimulate private demand, or move to different parts of the country where there is more work. It's an error on his part not to consider this.

Again I don't follow your logic, on one hand you're saying it's been discussed ad nauseum (I don't think much of the discussion at all has surrounded whether it made sense for Mr. DeMarco to not consider economic benefits and only consider F&F cost benefit analysis)..... but then on the other hand you're saying I'm making stuff up and that I can't know whether he said that. The original article which sparked this discussion and is quoted in my second post in this thread specifically made it clear that Mr. Demarco did not that he did not consider whether lower levels of debt might bolster the economic growth. Here is a link Unless the reporting is false I stand by what I said. I am a big believer in free markets, but I also outlined reasons why markets sometime fail (in this case the housing market) and that results in sub-optimal outcomes for the economy as a whole. Perhaps to narrow down the conversation I'll just ask you this question. Do you think it made sense for DeMarco to only consider F&F's bottomline and ignore any of the broader benefits of the economy as a whole? My viewpoint is that is a terrible way to conduct cost-benefit analysis.

I'm also proponent of taking a risk on "bad character guys" if their talent is there but Santonio strikes me as a guy, despite all the talent, who will just destroy a locker room. I remember watching a Jet's game last year and Plaxico Burress caught a TD and Santonio's body language was so negative cause they didn't pass it to him, I was like dude your offense just scored a TD. He just strikes me as selfish player who puts his own success well ahead of the teams.

I made my point in thread about why I think it's good policy. Nothing is 100 per cent when it comes to policy and I agree that there is a chance that this policy might not have the desired effect of stemming the death spiral of foreclosures that is holding back the housing market, as well as preventing economic mobility in families. But all things considered I think its a worthwhile risk to take, with the upside significantly out weighing the downside. One thing I am not hearing argued from those that think DeMarco made the right call is a defense of DeMarco not even considering or evaluating the chances that write-downs might spur a wider recover in the American economy. For DeMarco to only consider the cost/benefit analysis of F&F books, and ignore external benefits that might come out of this seems to be an error on his part. I would have been satisfied if they had considered the argument during their decision making process and than rejected but they didn't even both to look at it.

Didn't mean to make it sound it sound like it was the final hurdle, but I do think it's positive step for a stronger turn around in the economy. I just wanted to articulate that there is a reason why policy makes and economist think this would benefit the economy...

Got to jump in here. First of all actors in the housing market aren't rational its been shown many times - for markets to be efficient the assumption is made that all actors are rational. If you buy a home for $100 and two years later its only worth $75, buyers will be reluctant to seel at that $70 price even thought it's the current market value. That reluctancy to sell at a loss will prevent a market from hitting bottom for some time. In fact, to take the analogy one step further if you bought that house and your unemployed living in some place where unemployment is high and teh house cost $100, but you have a chance to move to somewhere like Texas where unemployment is low, the fact that your house is only with 70 cents on the dollar might prevent you moving to Texas which would be something beneficial to the U.S. Economy. Why because there would be 1 new body in a state that needs workers, and 1 less body in a state that has an over supply of workers. On a grandeur scale you can see how this might benefit an economy. The whole point is that there will be an external economic benefit created by this program, the infuriating part is Demarco did not even consider the wider imnplications for the economy is his analysis. If the deal was rejected on evidence that it wouldn't provide a benefit to the U.S. Economy than so be it, but since the only thing considered was F&F bottomline I feel like they missed the big picture. Lastly, someone raised the "Moral Hazard" problem, and its a good point. This is why private mortgage lenders haven't went that far done the road on write downs. But again if you bought your home at 100, and the remaining mortgage is 90 but the home is worth only 75 on the open market than it might make sense to walk away if you can live with the implications on the credit rating. From a lenders perspective you don't want people walking away from the mortgage, the property could be vacant for months or years, damage from squatters etc only to re-sell the property at much lower value. Lenders and Borrowers (esp when there is a risk of foreclosure) actually mutual incentives to write down a loan to a reasonable value, the problem is finding a way to filter out those trying to game the system. Finally I thought NewBills was doing a credible job of explaining a complicated subject such as home owner debt relief and how it might benefit the economy. The whole "you don't understand what a recovery or what money is" is just as much of logical fallacy on your part to discredit his point of view. There are some very smart people who are advocating that such a program would benefit the U.S. Economy. These smart people may not be right but there is a reason for the argument ( Personally I think it would benefit the U.S. write down homeowner debt), it may be a the wrong idea but your conviction in your own argument is a little disconcerting... In one fail swoop you dismiss the housing bubble as something created by " artificial demand created by lax lending standards" without acknowledging how the private market failed miserably to manage their own risk and when the music stopped the entire financial system stopped being able to function, or how independent financial institutions cheated each other and homeowners by re-packing debt agreements and selling worthless products to others to make a quick bonus, or how the repeal-ment of regulation such as the Glass-Steagle led to massive financial institutions rolling the dice like gambler in vegas. The answer isn't always black and white.

Agreed! Lindell's earned his place, carry Potter as the dedicated kickoff guy and maybe give him a shot once in a while to hit 1 of those desperation 55+ FG at the end of half or regulation.... but lets not jump gun based on some practices or even pre-season performance. The way I look at the is there is minimal upside to making Potter theonly kicker, yes Potter could be better than Lindell but Lindell is already a very good kicker with a strong track record. The risk is weighted to the downside that is we replace Lindell and Potter is unable to handle the job.

This part strikes me as idiotic: "Mr. DeMarco also said that the agency did not consider whether lower levels of debt might bolster economic growth. Economists have long argued that this is a primary reason for the government to support debt reduction." That is the primary reason to advocate a debt reduction program, to reduce broader macro-economic consequences related to foreclosures and in fact boost economic growth by avoiding them. Its one thing to consider the question and find that the arguments saying preventing foreclosures through debt reductions will improve economic growth is invalid --- it's a complete idiotic mess though when you don't even address the question your analysis. The football equivalent of this would be to remove all running plays from playbook because Fitzpatrick yards per pass attempted were greater than Fred Jackson yards per rush attempt, without actually considering whether eliminating all running plays would help the bills win more games...

Enjoyed reading peoples takes on this. Agree completely with people who mentioned his ability beat press and unorthodox moves.... I'm honestly a bit stumped on this question and I think that what makes Stevie such a fun Bill to watch, they way he does in such an unconventional manner. Here is my take but its really just guessing.... I think Stevie is a gamer and a competitor, in every sport you see guys whose production exceed their physical measurements... just like you also guys who under perform in relation to their physical ability. I think Stevie lines up against the other team, he has a belief in himself and as well as commitment to his team that he will be better than the guy in front of him that day. Its an abstract concept, but I believe some guys in sport just bring that extra 2 percent of effort and consistency to every play and I think Stevie is one of them. A few other points; you hear Stevie talk about basketball being his first sport and I think he incorporates a lot basketball moves in his route running e.g., hesitations, cross overs, the way he uses his hands well to gain leverage at the top of the route, and positions his body to shield the defender from the pass, I can see a bit of basketball moves in his game..... Another thing I think Stevie does well is just an understanding of space and timing on the football field, he finds the open passing window and can vary his speed and route running to get open at the right time.

Found this on the interwebs. Sounds like Dickerson is having a bumpy camp so far... Link

Personally I'd pick Foster but it depends on your own appetite for risk. I think Ray Rice is the safer pick based on track record, but Foster has the higher upside IMO. I could see him running away with the rushing title if he stays healthy, but that's a big if. Looking at their playoff schedules week 14-16 for Rice is @was, vsDen, and vs.NYG For Foster it's @NE, vs.IND, vs.Min Given that the Texan's play in a dome and have on game against Indy, I would give a slight schedule edge to Foster.

I'm not ready to write off McGee of either. I still think the guy has some useful games left in the tank. Brooks is an interesting guy, we took him high enough to warrent a roster spot. The guy plays violent but did not start at LSU because he was backing up arguably the two best corners in College Football. Looking forward to see if Brooks he can cover on the outside....

As I said not without flaws, all I am saying is this is guy who has played starters minutes for the last two years on arguably the best team in football. My take on Peprah from games that I've watched is that he is a playmaker with good anticipation who is better suited for zone-schemes, I am not sure what Wanny's Defense will ask the safeties to do but as a backup I think he suits the team. You're not going to pick up a flawless player for cheap off of the waiver wire. There is a reason Peprah got cut.... but in mind he is a qualified to back-up Byrd and Wilison, and could fill in as a starter should there be an injury.