Dan

A new stadium is nothing more than dressing. What the Bills need is a winning team on the field. Put a consistent, winning team on the field; become a perennial playoff team and then you'll have all the fans and money you want. Building a new stadium doesn't make the team start winning. A real coaching staff might. The choice seems fairly easy to me.

Upon continued review, it has been determined that, yes... Hamdan Rocks! Unleash the Chroise on Sunday afternoon, win the Division title Sunday night. The Chroise can not be denied!

Interesting tidbit. The Cowboys, for all their supposed greatness, haven't won a playoff game since 1996 (their last Superbowl). Buffalo's last playoff win was after the 1995 season. Of course, the Cowboys have made the playoffs 5 times since then; while Buffalo has made it only twice. I just thought it interesting that there's an apparently huge difference in the image of both franchises, but in terms of playoff wins not nearly so much during this last decade. So, I ask: is it better making the playoffs and losing or is it better to just not make the playoffs?

Just curious.... did JP pick up your wife/GF in a bar? Did he turn you down? I mean what gives? Dude isn't playing good, but name one person on the team that is. Yet you continually degrade one Bills' player above all others. Shameful.

That's what I was thinkin! Brutal. We had the ball for something like 8 and half minutes the entire half!

How's that work????

ok. Dude changed thte channel! what now?

This is actually what concerns me most about the potentiality of Jauron being fired. Last thing I'd want to see is an another unproven, cheap guy with no HC experience get the job. Sure, it may work. But, more often than not, it seems like it doesn't - especially in Buffalo. I'd almost prefer to give Jauron another year to see if he could pull a change, ala Coughlin, before someone like April got the job. I like April, I do; but as a Special Teams Coach.

Again you're trying to confuse the situation. How am I so wrong? I stated, "that you think TD didn't do so bad". In response to your statements: "Maybe there is a sense out there that this team is not on the rise, that it is not better than it was under Tom Donahoe. Maybe there is a fear that Mularkey and Mort were spot on -- that the way the Bills front office was reorganized was a recipe for fuggeduptitude and undermined chances of success." "I do. Our fearless moderator, Simon was one who said Ralph was an idiot to get rid of Donahoe and that Donahoe was doing as good a job as he could under the circumstances." Granted, you're referencing Simon here, but it seems as though its an effort to support your belief as well - perhaps I'm wrong. So what am I missing? It seems fairly simple to me, you state maybe there's a sense that the team is not better than it was under TD; as a result, I conclude you don't think TD did such a bad job. Please, explain how I am just simply wrong. In the other thread, we had a discussion going about the general direction this team was going in. You and a few others have suggested that the FO is inept and the team is going nowhere fast. The conversation included much more than just the last few weeks of this season. I suggested the team overall was better off, others suggested it wasn't. Hence, I was curious.. was I actually in the minority opinion? So, I started this silly poll. I included TD in the question, because it was suggested that Marv and now Brandon are failing at running the team. So... do other people think that the Marv/Brandon FOs have turned the team around. I don't see why you're trying to make it more than that. Other than you realize that the majority of posters appear to think that overall the team isn't going into the crapper. Interesting that you accuse me of being simplistic, yet you simplify the progress of this team into a single measure.. their record. I never said the Bills were simply good or bad. I said they were better off than they were 3 years ago, despite the mediocrity of their win/loss record. So how is that simplistic? Would the Bills be a better team if they had a few kicks go their way and were 8-4 right now? Or would they be the same team with a few lucky breaks? Win/loss record, although the most important stat, is by no means the final measure of how good a team is. Hard to argue with that. But I do think we're in a better position with the players we currently have. However, they'll continue to be stuck until the coaches either get their heads out of their arses or they get replaced by someone competent.

It's hard to argue with that. However, I suspect about week 4 or 5, most people would have felt the coaching staff wasn't even that bad. It's truly amazing how fall the team has fallen since then. I, too, like the collection of players we have for the most part. I've been a little on the fence with Jauron. As this season continues, I am now frolicking in the grass on the Jauron sucks side. However, I'm staying close to the fence. If he can somehow pull his head out of his arse and get some inspired play out of this team over the next 4 weeks, I reserve the right to jump back on the fence. I'm not expecting him to, but I am hopeful.

Let's not attempt to confuse the issue. How are these 2 distinct issues? You stated that you think TD didn't do so bad and in fact "I dare say there is more than a few fans that aren't happy with the direction of this team." I tended to disagree. Hence I made a simple poll, and it would appear your opinion is in the minority. So what are you objecting to? Do you contend that despite being on the correct path with TD, we've still managed to be a better team after his departure?

Well, I'll certainly admit to wearing beer (or Bills) goggles. I can't help it. Regarding the salaries... name one player the FO didn't sign because of money restrictions (minus Nate, perhaps). Despite all the talk of cash 2 cap, they seem to get who they go after. Granted, we can argue about who they're going after, but lack of money doesn't appear to be a deal beaker in any of their discussions. Dockery, for all I remember, was one of the top 3 FA Guards that year. It was debatable what their order was (although few would argue he was the #1 FA). If the Bills hadn't' paid him top dollar, almost certainly someone else would have. I, agree, the Bills probably overpaid for him. But, not many players are coming to Buffalo at a discount. Like it or not, we're not the Pats*. They can name a price and often a lower price and players will go because they know they're playing for a Super Bowl contender. So the Bills almost certainly have to over pay a little. The problem I have with so many of the knocks on Kelsay is that he gets zero credit for the good plays he makes. Is he the best DE? Is he above average? No. But, is he solid? Yes. He makes just about as many good plays as bad, IMO. But, of course, this ship has sailed. Too many people have decided he sucks ass and will never acknowledge when he has a good play or game. I'll agree completely with the McCargo paragraph. I would have much rather had Mangold that year. But, like I said, the FO isn't perfect. Poz, I disagree with. He seems to be the player they wanted and needed. Why not get him? I just don't buy into all this draft talk of value and such. You do realize Poz has almost twice the number of tackles as Harris this year, right? What makes shim so much better? I, too, agree the team is better off now. Although, I'm not ready to sau its because of Trent. If anything, he's regressed and still has a lot to prove. I's say we're better off because we're full of young talent that's steadily improving at almost every critical position - QB, RB, LT, WR, LB, DB. Are there still problems? Yes. But, what gives me confidence is that each offseason the FO has addressed the team's needs. We needed Oline help - they signed FAs. We needed Dline help - the signed Stroud. We needed LB - they got Poz, now Mitchell. We needed a RB - Lynch. And so on. I rarely saw that with TD.

Due to the discussion in another thread, I'm curious what people think. Despite the 6-6 record this year, are the Bills, as a team, better off now than they were 3 years ago? In short, have they progressed.

My point, sorry if I didn't make it clear enough, was that most people wanted MM gone. Whether he quit or was fired is largely immaterial, in my mind. Perhaps for us fans it's seen as a sackless move. But, I'd wager that in the professional world it allowed him to save face leaving on his own terms. And how's that working so far? He's eventually made his way back to being a decent OC. I still contend that this is the minority opinion. For better or worse, I'm on this board daily (have been for years). Granted I think I've posted less in the last few weeks. I think a poll is in order. Sorry, but if this is what you read in my response; then we're just not communicating properly. That's about all I can say about that.

The problem with #1-4 is that none of those deals have prevented the team from signing other players. They may be bad moves in that the players themselves suck, but that should be separated from their salaries. Giving Price $2mill/yr is next to nothing and in no way hurt the team financially. Not to mention, he was critical to our offense at the time. Perhaps you wanted a different player, but that's a different arguement. The same can be said for Kelsay and Schobel. Both are good DEs. Are they worth their salaries? That's another question and largely irrelevant considering the Bills are no where near the cap limit. I've mentioned this in other posts, but if you dislike the players - fine. But, show some better players that the Bills could have brought in to replace them. Forget the salaries. Ralph has shown he's willing to play for players. Similarly for the offensive line. We all hear the tired line that the FO has neglected the Oline. That's complete fallacy and myth. They've spent incrdibly on the Oline over the last few years. Yes, you and others dislike their signings. But to simply suggest that Hutchinson would have been better, simply ignores the dynamics that are involved with FA acquisitions. Maybe they went after him, but he turned them down ala that TE from KC? Is it the FO's fault that Gonzalez wasn't signed this season? No. They offered exactly what his agent wanted. But, the player voided the deal. Can you be so certain that no other FAs have done the same thing? I can't. So were better guards than Dockery available? Perhaps. Did Marv et al. do what it takes to get one of the best into Buffalo? Yes. Same with Stroud this season. Funny how no one mentions that as a good move by the FO. Regarding Poz... are you calling him a bust after starting 15 games in his career? Lets be clear. The Bills needed a MLB, they got arguably the 2nd best one in the draft. They couldn't have drafted Willis if they wanted, he was gone. So to argue all the trade ups and downs and what not is a lessen in futility. No one knows if he would have been available had they waited. McCargo appears to be a bust. I agree. No one said the FO was perfect. Similarly the situation with Clements could have been handled differently. However, we don't know the details of all the discussions. So it's hard to understand the motives behind Marv's decision. But, ok lets go with it. That's 2 mistakes. Hardly enough to say the negatives are far out weighing the positives (Edwards, Lynch, Poz, Jackson, Stroud, Whitner, Williams, Mitchell to name a few). I'm not going to say the FO has done a perfect job. But, I will contend that the team is in much better shape than it was 3 years ago. Most people, such as yourself, use anything possible to point out the negative, but readily forget all the positive that's occurred - all the while ignoring pertinent facts to help sway your cause for dislike of the FO. Not everything they've done is great, but certainly it's not all nearly as bad as you suggest.

Some good points. But, the question is... why are we 6-6, this year? Are we really truly worse off or are we just struggling due to some young players and coaches. I think we can place the blame in many places this season. But, we can certainly attribute several losses to the poor play of our young QB, bad head coaching, poor play calling by a rookie OC, and defensive lapses. Does that make us a bad team, worse off than we were 5 years ago or are we a just young team struggling to find our identity? Perhaps interesting to see a new thread with that as an initial poll.

Agree? I think not. We all know full well the earth isn't due to explode for another 4 years and 2 weeks (give or take a few hours). Most were critical of MM quitting? That implies a majority. As I recall, the majority were upset he wasn't fired and breathed a huge sigh of relief when he quit. I think the team and fanbase had had enough of MM and the way he lost the team. Maybe I'm wrong in my recollection, but I need to see some sort of evidence that the majority of people wanted MM to stay on and continue coaching the Bills. Furthermore, there may be a sense by some that this team is not on the rise, but certainly not by all. TD had 5 years to do something. It was very apparent after 5 years that the team was not moving forward, but was in fact declining. I don't recall anyone, anyone, that wanted him around any longer. Nor do I know of anyone that thinks, 3 years later, that maybe we should have stayed with him. Please, point out those opinions. Jauron may not be the coach to get us to the playoffs and may very well be fired at the end of the year, but there's little doubt that the team needed a new direction 3 years ago. Perhaps you, and a few others, don't like the direction the team has taken. But, I'd contend that although not all decisions by the FO have been good, some certainly have. To imply that Marv set up a dysfunctional FO and undermined the team's chance for success is something we'll never agree on.

Glad you agree.

Exactly. So it's highly likely that Marv wanted to replace Mularkey, but Ralph wouldn't let him fire him. So, Marv decided upon plan B - put him in a situation that he knows Mularkey doesn't (or won't) like; therefore, he quits. Of course, Marv isn't going to talk bad about him publicly; he'd say nothing but good things because Marv's a class guy. I'm not saying this did happen. I'm just suggesting its a possibility.

I didn't mean to imply that he told Mularkey exactly how to do his job. However, it's entirely possible that he came in and said we're going to cut alot of these guys and draft young guys that have more upside; and we'd like to install a different defense. That's not an egomaniac, that's just coming in and changing things up. I also never called Levy a liar. I simply said he may have allowed Mularkey to save face. It's called tact. No need to call a guy out, blame the team's failure on him, then fire him.

See, there's the beauty of being a fan. We don't really know what happened nor what was discussed. Perhaps Marv talked Mularkey and said we'd like you to stay on while we blow up the whole team, draft new players and install new these schemes. To which, he said thanks, but no thanks. Of course, there's also the possibility that Marv, in an effort to allow Mularkey to save some face and said you can resign or be fired - your choice. Being the respectable guy Marv is, he talked very highly of Mularkey publicly - oh he's great, we want him to stay, yada yada - but in reality they were moving on behind the scenes.

No doubt. This is what.. his 5th or 6th "career" game?

Excellent!

Maybe that would make him a natural fit for Shotgun Turk's offense?

A few years ago, no bonuses was announced prior to the year end party. A good friend of mine was pissed and decided that year he was going to "drink his bonus". After several nice bottles of wine, a bottle of some really expensive scotch (bought specifically for the company president), and multiple shots of whatever he could get his hands on; we all agreed he had. Needless to say the next day we literally thought he was dead. It really wasn't a great idea, but man we got some great stories from that night. Amazingly, he didn't get fired.