birdog1960

so tis morning the buffalo news states the bills best offer to byrd was about $7.5 mil per year. Where did the much bandied $10 mil figure come from? i don't think anyone appreciates being lied to.

perhaps but are you then admitting bills fans were lied to? i think that's likely. and they still had the power to make him stay. i think they should have used it. using your logic we'll never re sign a highly desired fa.

how does the 10 mil claim pass the smell test when he signed for less in fa and the bills had the option franchise tag him and match that offer?

it's as good an explanation as anyone else here has come up with.

wilson probably ripped one in his bed and one of the henchman thought he heard him say "rivers" instead.

$800,000/ year with the giants last year and $5mil/2years with the bills? wtf?

great finale imo. i don't agree with this critics conclusions on this episode but think his interpretations of the shows allegories are right on: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/television/true-detectives-journey-was-better-than-its-disappointing-destination/article17411255/. the only thing i didn't like about the last episode is that i couldn't sleep well last night. nihilism, even blunted nihilism, isn't conducive to a good nights sleep for me.

even if this point is granted, it's not much of an accomplishment. when we see a seattle like turnaround we'll have cause for excitement. don't hold your breath.

if it was either/or i wouldn't buy the ticket. i don't believe it's either/or for the bills. they have the cap space and the cash. they lack the will.

not to poke a hole but aren't we significantly below the salary cap? i think wilson's kids are out of school...

exactly. if you payed twice face value to obtain a scarce a ticket to the superbowl in the fantasyland when the bills actually win it, would you have overpaid? nope, not if you really wanted it and it was worth that much to you. and not paying for it and missing your chance would likely seem pretty hollow. it's all about what you're trying to achieve and the bills aren't trying to achieve what we fans want them to.

so why not the franchise tag? the way it worked out, the bills could have matched the N.O. deal for less than their advertised last offer. or was it really not 30mil or at least not 30mil guaranteed? i think it's likely the offer wasn't as good as advertised. otherwise, choosing not to do the franchise tag either makes no sense or was just stupid or both.

i don't think this is the samew ole bills. i think it's worse. this is now, more clearly than ever, asset protection only. the board of directors goal is to make the team as valuable and simultaneously sellable as possible. signing or resigning high priced free agents clearly isn't part of the calculus. neither is retaining good coaches. as a consequence, neither is winning.

so is a free market defined as lack of regulation? would you be happier with no transportation safety admin? is there some litmus test for equal enforcement of regulations? how do we know that renault oir fiat aren't less closely scrutinized than gm or ford? we don't. this is conclusion jumping without adequate data.

it's not good. no doubt. but it's not sensational either. i'd rather the car turn off than the gas pedal stick and be forced with the choice of hard braking, throwing the car into neutral or turning the car off. maybe that's just me but at that point i'm controlling the car more than it's controlling me. and i'm not at all certain the steering wheel locks in that scenario. now that would be a good test for one of the big car mags.

uh huh, motors liquidation corp. sounds like biz as usual in the good ole us of a. but the cars turned off. they didn't runaway into walls, people and traffic. it's a different scenario especially for tabloids. what are your options for a car turning off as you drive? coasting to a stop on the shoulder would seem logical. it's less sensational and in most instances seemingly less dangerous. maybe C&D will do a test on the most effective emergency maneuvers in such a predicament but i doubt it. there aren't many options but the one i mentioned seems petty good. that doesn't let gm off the hook for likely culpability and likely lost huge sums in lawsuits. it doesn't excuse them for not owning up and and fixing the problem. but it's understandable why cars turning off unexpectedly didn't make the primetime national news. i've got a subaru that's blown three turbos in 10 years. it's widely agreed that there's a design fault (banjo filter that frequently clogs and starves the turbo of oil). the most recent turbo that was put in was under warranty but the new one was only warrantied if a new oil supply line was also installed. that sucks for owners of later model subaru's but it's business as usual: get away with what you can, weigh the cost of litigation against the cost of recall and doing the right thing). subaru seems to be winning. their market share keeps increasing and their earnings grow. and that's what it's about if your subaru, toyota or gm. has anyone died from a blown turbo? maybe. it's not much worse than a car turning off in my estimation. but it's still not 6:30 pm national news. as a conservative i'd think you'd understand this reasoning. i wouldn't expect you to understand the importance in saving 10's of 1000ands of middle class jobs in america. but, yes that's pretty important, too. but it doesn't follow that there was some inside the ballpark conspiracy to ignore this problem on a government regulatory level. even if there were, isn't less regulation what ya'll are all about?

except that there aren't 2 sets of rules. the nhtsa is going after gm on this issue. gm will likely pay dearly. are you implying that nhtsa was aware of this issue and ignored it til now? what basis do you have for this contention?

anticipated. you're very predictable. have you looked at the thread title? a discussion on runaway cars, emergency manuevers and toyota's versus gm's response to the problem seems appropriate as did a personal story on a stuck gas pedal.

it addresses the point of the thread that i had an interest in. it addressed the question that tom, characteristically, thought there was only one valid answer to and also characteristically, was incorrect. but if you want to ignore the fact the the nhsta is currently going guns blazing at gm over this potential air bag issue, then carry on.

here's the answer to the issue and gm has already addressed it: http://www.autoblog....nsmission-vehi/. hit the brakes and problem solved.

ithe level of your arrogance never ceases to amaze me. how often have you seen the "obvious", intuitive answer to a question disproven in controlled studies? yup, putting in in neutral "works" in the car and driver tests and intuitively. but why might that not have been so? firstly, the transmission on an automatic may not have allowed the shift to neutral as c&d tested. we still can't assume that any model of car would allow it. Secondly, the high revs produced might blow the engine or engage a rate limiter. apparently it didn't in c&D tests but i've bumped against the rev limiter in a couple of cars and it's a strange and sobering experience. once again, the c&D tests can't be generalized to all models and years of cars. finally, even c&d didn't definitively prove safety superiority of one method over another in it's tests. it may well be that stomping with both feet on the brake while ignoring the stuck pedal is the safest. in the lower horse power cars with excellent brakes there was little marginal difference in stopping distance between a car with a stuck pedal and one without, going the same speed. so, in a similar leap of logic, i'll make the statement that the difference between your reasoning on this issue and mine is generally illustrative of the difference between the reasoning of liberals and conservatives.

i wondered the same thing. maybe turn the car off with the key? probably my choice if on a fairly straight highway. the steering gets tight especially at that speed but you can still brake. neutral would throw the rpm's up so high that the governor would prolly kick in and kill the engine anyway. does that car have a limiter? and the answer is: http://www.caranddriver.com/features/how-to-deal-with-unintended-acceleration. neutral! cool test in car and driver. stomping on the brakes on a runaway roush mustang? that takes some balls.

i see the analogy as more: the doctor was increasing my risk of cancer with all the unnecessary xrays. now he's not. gee, thanks. i don't yet have cancer. hopefully, he won't start ordering unnecessary xrays again.

responding to "obd stepped up and now you have to reward them with dollars". i'm saying there's no need to reward corporate behavior that is the norm for every other franchise. to require extra payment for this move implies it's extraordinary when in fact having 9 road games a year is the only thing that's extraordinary.

exactly. as if having home field advantage for half the games is a luxury in the nfl. the stockholm complex is so engrained in some fans that having a disadvantage reversed to parity with every other franchise is now considered an advantage.