Malazan

Sports writing suffers from a lack of attribution. A 'league' source could be virtually anybody. It could be sue down in accounting. It could be another reporter. It could be someone that they have a friendly relationship with and the question was phrased, "how do you feel about Reid to Arizona?" Source attribution should be as specific as possible. If your source doesn't want to be named, then you ask, "Can I call you someone from the front office involved in the coaching search for Cardinals has said.." and you go down the line. The further down the line you get, the more you should look for an additional source(s). We're also part of the problem with the way we hang on every ridiculous rumor and go rushing to whatever site has the newest, zaniest information.

Hey, these ideas are much more specials than all the other thoughts on Lovie in the existing threads

That was my exact point. Are they big names because they have superior skills as a reporter or because they have a podium? Sullivan gets hammered because he's a poor writer and often writes entire articles that have no more depth than "BILLS SUCK!"

Are you saying the Bills defense would be as good as San Francisco, Seattle and Cincinnati if Fitzpatrick played better?

No. This idea is all wrong. Being a 'columnist' doesn't give you a free pass on the facts or doing actual reporting. Sports writing has always been like this...the internet has just opened up access and illuminated some weak writers who used having the podium to maintain positions.

So you can't answer what the option besides Russ or Ralph is and you have a problem with them interviewing all potential candidates? They should ignore potential candidates before even meeting them? The complaining isn't valid until you can answer who should be making the decisions.

I heard something amusing today, What is Spanish for Romo? ---- Sanchez

This assumes their relationship is incredibly simplistic. You're saying that Ralph and Russ were of one mind. You're ignoring the social norms of interaction with owner of the company. If the owner hates people from Chicago, you aren't going to investigate people from Chicago very deeply. You also tend to get a feel for what they are looking for and want. It is all speculation on Ralph and Russ's relationship. We don't know who made the ultimate decisions or what impact each one had on decisions. Again, if Ralph or Russ aren't going to make the decision, who will?

Who else beside Ralph or Russ would you suggest make the decision?

There has to be a point of logic inserted in here somewhere. Someone *HAS* to make a decision to hire someone.

So you want Ralph to call the shots? Maybe Littman? Who else is int he organization to call the shots? This is being thrown up all over this board. Someone has to make a decision. If you don't want Brandon then we're back to Ralph. We don't know the dynamic between Russ and Ralph, but most people don't go to their boss with things they know the boss won't like...such as maybe Ralph hates people from Chicago so Russ could not have considered Lovie Smith, but now he may be able to do so.

The problem is that people like to paint these decisions in black and white. It is much easier on a message board to say "get r done" then actually spending the amount of resources to do so. A generational talent is never a wrong pick. If you know your boss hates orange, are you going to go and suggest that you paint the walls orange?

How is this comment relevant? The point is that the HC job San Diego is more attractive than the HC job in Buffalo. It was not about HC job in Buffalo versus no HC job at all.

I'm curious where this information came from as everything I have read indicated that Ralph had final say and in the past all coaching candidates and major decisions had to be approved by Ralph.

I love Buffalo, but it's tough to argue the attractiveness of living in San Diego versus Buffalo.

I'm just surprised how many people know what the day to day of the Bills organization. The truth is..all we know is he has been with the organization for some time and done well. That he is respected as a businessman. He was GM for a brief period of time which did not go well. GMs don't hire GMs on any team. The 'Football' guys don't hire the guy who runs the 'Football' side on any team unless you consider Jerry Jones a 'Football' guy. On a side note, when did businessman become accountant btw? I am reasonably confident he he does not handle the accounting. I'm not aware that he has ever held the position of accountant.

This is one of the best posts I've seen on this forum. Ever.

We should also strongly consider Bill Belichick! Get it done!

That 58.8% career completion percentage lower than fitzpatricks) really makes me want him. He's also thrown for less TDs and yards. He has thrown less interceptions and has less fumbles which would be nice. He also has a good arm which could work well with our running game. He's an upgrade, but I'd rather the resources spent acquiring him went elsewhere. It would be like taking a 7 to the prom and ditching her to chase after a 7.1

Defense was fantastic. I saw them stop a running play once.

I'm curious about why his teams seem to have such up and downs. I haven't followed him with the Bears close enough to know if their were mitigating factors. It does seem like there were issues with the former GM as well. He does have one thing I'd like in a coach, he has the ability to attract coordinators.

Reid knew Kolb couldn't hack it and has wanted to get out to the west coast. This was his diabolical plan all along. Poor Ken just got played.

You should be fired from your law office.

I also think the Bills have a plan to fix world hunger they will be revealing soon based on Brandon's comments.

This post is failed with as much fail as Gailey's coaching tenure