finknottle

Welcome to the forum Here's a serious answer: I doubt it very very much, at least right now. I don't see the fire in the belly, but I don't think it's because he thinks he's on his way out. But if the season goes bad you might see him holding back starting around week 12.

I find the numbers surprising... I stand by my position that his cumulative yardage contribution over the length of the contract should meet the norm for his slot, and you've shown he is on the pace to compensate for the lost year. Ok, I'll buy it.

The cap is the difference. Money payed to WM while he takes off a year to reab still counts against it. In terms of what you can afford to field, you wind up one good player short for a year.

Well, I'm sure we'll have no problems staying under the radar until we actually win.

Same old talk about whether or not WM is a top 5 back, and whether or not it was a brilliant move to draft him if it works out... By taking a running back you *know* will be injured the first year of the five years you are paying him for, you should expect him to perform 25% better than comparably drafted backs in years 2-5 to recoup your investment. I havn't seen anything more than average 1st round output. And as a first rounder you get for 4 years but are paying 5 for, an expensive one at that. It was a stupid gamble - we won on his rehab, but got nothing extra for our risk.

My take, unburdened by actual research: Drafting OL high (1st round, not second) hurts you as a franchise because you are locked in to a higher salary curve than (other than left tackle) what you would expect for the position (see Mike Williams); and for a player who is unlikely to contribute for a year or two at that! So the real recipe is to draft OL in rounds 2-4, and simply be better at evaluating the talent. It would be nice to see if the facts back this up or not.

With regard to the Dallas-Super Bowl with or without TO thread, I say they have a good shot at an appearance without... but no chance of the wheels staying on with!

Not to nit-pick, but I'm getting very optimistic about our team and your citing those stats is actually bringing me down. Having a starting qb lead preseason yardage is troubling since it only emphasizes that he needs the work. Look at the company: 1. Cassel (NE) 2. Romo (Dallas) 3. JP 4. Gradkowski (TB) Just as troubling is that JP is #1 in attempts! However, his rating is #18 among qb's who threw 30+ times; I normally don't care about that, and 18 is nothing to get excited about, but given his dismal numbers last year I see that as a genuine step forward.

One: How do you know he is in football shape? Players come into camp looking sculpted all the time, only to disappoint - just read our own training camp archives. Weren't we gushing last year about how WM's off-season body-work was going to make him more explosive? All we know about TO's shape is that he biked a lot the last month and spent last season working out with a private trainer in his driveway. Two: That point is irrelevant, unless you would have also said after the national championship that he wouldn't make it past an NFL training camp - that would have shocked even the Clarett haters. It only shores up my point: take a guy with great promise, leave him to his own devices for a year or two, and maybe he loses it. Three: Ancient history. By your logic, nobody good gets old. When you are a receiver in your thirties with 10+ years under your belt, you can suddenly lose a step in an off-season. And most skill players, once in decline, fall off quickly and dramatically. Not practicing increases the risk. So yes, I do think an 11 year old tank can empty in 10 months. Or at least be leaking badly. It's not like anybody has taken him out for a ride recently. I'm certainly not claiming TO has hit the wall - how could I know? - just that if I were the coach I'd damn well need to see in action a 32 year old signee who doesn't practice because he has a hamstring, and hasn't prepared for a game since October 05.

That's actually a pretty good idea. I'm picturing a weekly 10 minute face off on topics around the NFL, with RJ arguing conventional wisdom and DF the contrarian opinions.

So does Jerry Rice. All this talk about TO being a great WR means nothing. Even putting aside the personality disorder issue, you've got a guy who is on a new team, learning a new system, has (according to him) an injury which prevents him from even practicing, and you havn't seen him play in an actual game in almost a year. This is TO's 11'th season. How is Parcells supposed to know that he has anything left in the tank? That he didn't hit the wall already? Does the name Maurice Clarrett mean anything any more, or have we already forgotten how fast you can go from stud to slug when you spend the season working out in your driveway?

And we've paid already him three years of salary! That's a lot of money for 2,300 yards.

I would disagree with that. Lebanon is one of the most attractive places to go in the Middle East; historically it was one of the most diverse, tolerant, and western. Prior to the civil war, Beirut was the financial capital and jewel of the region. You've said several times that people have been warned against traveling there. Are you refering to Lebanon specifically, or to any Middle East or Muslim country? Are you saying that the State Department knew the Israelis would bomb? I was unaware of any travel advisories - do you have a link?

I agree in principal. The annoying thing is that many of those who would otherwise sell at a loss cannot because the banks will not let them unless they can cover the mortgage. So it's a foreclose-or-nothing situation. This is part of the reason you almost never see steep declines in house values. A slump is reflected less in prices than in the time-on-market.

Rather than just doling out winners and losers, a collapse in the housing market effects the overall economy in a way that might not be obvious. When prices fall sharply, people are not able to downsize their housing (banks won't let you sell unless you can recover the outstanding balance), and have difficulty obtaining a second mortgage. This forces those who are financially distressed to reduce their discretionary spending in favor of their mortgage. If widespread enough, this can slow-down the economy and nudge it towards a recession.

Higher interest rates don't hurt you as much if you have plenty of cash on hand. If you are looking for a safe haven instead of an investment per se, it might make sense. When interest rates are high, investments which rely on capital (such as stocks) tend to suffer, making them a less attractive alternative.

Are suggesting that if instead Brady had turned in JP numbers over that season they still wouldn't have gone back to Bledsoe, and would have waived him at seasons end? I think NE waived Drew because of Brady showed them he was as good as Drew already. Not might-be-someday.

Drew was good enough for NE to send him packing... knowing that they had Brady ready and saw what kind of season he was capable of. Do you really think they would have cut him loose had he not been injured, and turned it over to a 2nd year rookie?

Can't agree more. Despite excellent education - both HS and college - why is it that nearly every new business people start seems to be a restuarant rather than one that sells outside the region? Why arn't the computer science graduates living cheaply in Buffalo while starting up their internet companies? Why is isn't there a biomed silicon valley in Rocherster and Buffalo?

I agree that it is generally a losing strategy in the short term, but disagree as to whether it is neccessarily bad to reallocate in anticipation of long-term changes. Your saying that it is not advised sounds more like personal advice than insight - would you say the same thing to a fund manager? It really boils down to whether one is correct in analyzing trends. While most people fail (indeed, most managers too), I'm not sure the best approach to economics is to throw your hands up in the air and not take responsibility for making educated decisions and changes when called for. Consider futures. Yes, prices go up, prices go down, and nobody honest knows what will happen tomorrow. It is a market in longer-term expectations, and it is bizarre to think that one would engage in futures trading without betting on their analysis of the trends.

Correct - I was sloppy. I meant reallocate.

Wow - 30 posts before a response with content. You're breaking the theme of the thread.

No, I am undecided about whether or not this is the beginning of a Bear market or a simple correction - that's the point of the thread. And the issue is, if you believe in a prolonged slowdown, whether to rebalance the weight of your investments away from stocks and into alternatives, from bonds to real estate, pick your poison.

It frequently seems as if you don't. You apparently do not subscribe to considering technical indicators or in rebalancing your portfolio in anticipation of market trends. No great sin that, but your take-no-prisoners condescension towards looking at the market analytically doesn't speak well for you knowing anything about the subject. Yes, the market recovered after 10 years of doing nothing. That just means it eventually took off. It doesn't change the fact that you had an abysmal annualized return over the period, and would have been better off investing elsewhere.

Are you auditioning for Bernanke's job?