birdog1960

exactly. the ebron talk is negative not an excuse for whaley

who was the gm back then? did he go on to remarkable success?

except we are not comparing long shots to consensus picks in this receiver class. the consensus was that they were all good and so many being drafted in the first round proves that to be the case. they were all expected to be good. everyone drafted in the first round is expected to be good whether or not they actually turn out that way. now the converse, picking someone early who is not a consensus pick is equally risky. the bills have historically called out a few of these names with little to justify them later. and then there's the late round reaches. little risk, big possible reward. but rare. and they've done all right here til it's time to re sign. then everyone here quickly agrees that they're not really worth top dollar and the gm obligingly agrees. whaley is running the same old bills draft show with similar results. don't see why any are eager to defend him.

why do people insist on comparisons to bad teams? you want to be the best, you take on the best and prove you're better at gm or anywhere. whaley hasn't proven that and is quite unlikely to.

it is truly shameless bias. makes you wonder about "astroturf" obd planted posters here except that no one is on the pay clock Christmas day. regardless, it's the type complacency that perpetuates 15 non playoff seasons.

it really doesn't matter where he is relative to other bills suits. it matters where he is relative to the rest of the league. this trade makes him a longshot in a field of proven thoroughbreds.

that the point is even debatable make the trade extremely dubious.

this is the false choice that so many whaley apologists want to make. this argument only points out how bad his judgement is. it appears that he not only got less than the best receiver available (according to chip kelly on nfl.com) but he also spent a first round draft choice in the process. there should be consequences to his career with the bills.

absolutely., Frank rocks. he's what people need.

remove all remnants of the failed previous regime. putting lipstick on a pig still leaves a pig. might work temporarily or partially but what's necessary is fundamental change because this organization remains fundamentally flawed. it's a sinking, old boat with multiple leaks that from the beginning was poor quality. time for replacement, not repair.

not defending marrone (i think he's bottom half at best) but maybe this is why he's so apprehensive about going for 4th downs. no way the odds are as good as 50/50 running for it on 4th and 1 behind this line.

never been. going to a wedding there in the spring. guess i'll see. there's no readily available list that i'm aware of. if things slow down a bit today will search goldman's site for bio's on their c levels. but no one mentioned trust funds. hines likely isn't what would be considered a trust fund kid. but he is privelidged, went to the right schools and he and his parents likely know enough of the right people.

perhaps he will. if he acts more like boner and less like warren he might not get reelected. see it's everyday folks that decide his tenure in the senate unlike his time at goldman sachs. and i guess in this case we can disregard the dozen posts about privilege = lazy. unfortunately, his true colors showed in the cromnibus bill: http://blogs.rollcall.com/218/cromnibus-57-democrats-voted-yes/?dcz=. i doubt it will go unmentioned next election.

you can't fathom outrage without envy can you? they are distinct entities that sometimes occur together. but certainly not necessarily. there is a disporportionate number of ivy league (or european equivalents) grads from old money families inhabiting the c level suites of top financial institutions all over the world. not envy. just not highly merit based,

sure, they trot the outliers out every now and then to support the illusion. but mostly the pedigrees are strikingly similar.

the difference is that nothing is stopping you from getting into med school. it's largely a meritocracy. high finance, insider info, shoulder rubbing? not so much.

i have a fairly close relative (by marriage) in the hedge fund industry (and yes, i know in general they're having a very bad year but he's doing just fine - how, i don't exactly know). i don't and never will have access to the information that he has. i don't have tickets to every big event lined up to be given in exchange for cozying up to insiders. i don't have access too an americas cup yacht to shmooze on. i don't have access to ceo's of big companies that i might be interested in trading in. i don't have super fast computers to trade at lightning speed on trends and to skim and profit on their speed. he (they) have plenty of other advantages that i couldn't possibly obtain even if i all i did was investing 24/7. and that's by design. it's inherent to the system. and it's exploitation. it's insider baseball, legal and sometimes not. it's wrong. it's the basis of much of what happens in high finance. summer wasn't joking when he warned warren that you are either an insider or you are someone without influence. i doubt there's an industry that that is more true in than finance and banking.

when you set up the game to be inherently unfair, that's exploitation. it's unfair to many folks but especially retail investors.

no. this add on was written by citibank. banks have written much of the recent legislation involving their own industry. speaking figuratively of course. literal would be utterly ridiculous

it's a $h#tty game but it's the only game in town and guys like gg make the rules. when in rome... expoitation. it's what your business model is based on.

incorrect. fortunately i wasn't around in 1929 and i did pretty well after 2008 - blood in the street and all that. not really relevant however. no guns were held to the borrowers head but none to the lenders either. and guess who is likely more sophisticated in these matters? no one hold a gun to peoples heads to take out payday loans either. doesn't make their existence moral or palatable. you arer seemingly loathe admit to any significant role of the financial industry in either crash. to any rational person, this should eliminate any thought of objectivity on your part.

except that there are other alternatives. guess what? they involve regulation of the crooks.

interestingly, my spell checker tried to change "dimon" to "demon"... so if y'all are doing such a bang up job, what happened in 2008? 1929? seems your industry is especially prone to calamity. that's fine if it only harms you all but we all know that's not true. this add on to the budget helps literally insure it. we need protection from your incompetency and unbridled greed.

a tired old insult and a new attempted one. i'm thinking i don't mind the novel one so much.

i care about the regulations. i care that the primary consideration isn't the interests of the citizenry. i don't believe that guaranteeing bets of any bank with tax money is in our best interest. care to explain how it is? this wasn't even debated in the senate. they all wanted to get home for the holidays. and they all wanted to please their banking benefactors. they did and will probably continue to.