The Big Cat
-
Posts
17,855 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by The Big Cat
-
-
Truncated for accuracy. Eyeballs and clicks are what drives all media, all the time.
No doubt. But it's impossible to say negative drives MORE for them since we have no positive control.
-
For the last two decades, the Bills have given local writers nothing but mediocre, uninspiring football to write about and analyze. All around the league, teams go from zero to hero and make runs from championships, while we consistently hover around 7 wins and twice a year get a front row seat to the chasm separating our squad from arguably the most dominant sports dynasty of all time.
If I were a writer covering this team, if the bulk of my career now spanned a record-long drought, I imagine I'd be burned out too.
But lately it's felt different. It seems that in the last couple years it's taken a turn. For the personal. We've gone beyond if it bleeds it reads. Now it feels like the motto is make it bleed.
I don't know how much good it will to rehash the last couple weeks of coverage/conduct, instead I'd like to offer an explanation for why there seems to be a growing sentiment among the fans that the likes of Graham, Carucci, Sully, Skurski and Gleason have really taken to honing in on the negative side/spin/angle of every Bills story.
They're fighting for survival. The Bills are no longer a football team. They're a media company. They writers that cover them compete with the team for:
- Access--WGR, the "official home of the Buffalo Bills" gets weekly exclusives with marquee members of the organization, ditto the Bills web properties, the MSG network, et al.
- Eyeballs--The Bills web properties, the MSG network, WGR, PSE, these all tie back to the Pegulas. They (and the team by proxy) have final authorship on content that TBN now has to compete with.
- Relevance--Not only can the team's channels outdo them from a content standpoint, so can the national guys. It's not just ESPN and SI that have their angles on the Bills anymore, now the league has its own 24/7 network to further marginalize the need for the local guys to cover.
What exactly do the Bills need TBN for?
Nothing, it turns out.
In fact, TBN is a liability for them, hence the move to tighten the reigns on what outside media can and can't cover.
More and more I see TBN guys tweeting about this Buffalo Guild mumbo jumbo. It's 2016. The local paper free fall began a decade ago. They're desperate.
So is it any surprise--when the chips are down, when the team you cover is doing all that it can to eradicate your purpose--that your response would be to smear them any way possible? Fortunately for them, the Bills don't make it very difficult.
All of this seemed to really take flight when the Pegulas took over. And given everything I'm mentioned above, is the conclusion here really that wild?
-
I don't know how true your claim is here. It may be the case that they don't scout underclassmen en masse as a practice but do scout truly elite guys who are obvious blue chip first rounders. Saying he scouted Sammy doesn't invalidate the claim, at least in my opinion. But more clarity would be helpful.
Doug Whaley shouldn't have to clarify something that was falsely reported on.
-
Right that the Bills have not used their draft assets in an intelligent, strategic, sustainable or responsible way. You disagree?
I don't think it's that simple, frankly. Tough to do all the things you mention above when you turnover the administration and strategy every 30 months. Also tough to evaluate that way relative to other teams, particularly those set at the most important position. The article only needed to be 20 words long:
You need a QB to win in the NFL. Doug Whaley has not done a good enough job getting one.
-
Fine, maybe so ...but he also happens to be right. I think that's Dave's point.
Right about what? That the Bills are mediocre. HOLY **** BALLS STOP THE PRESSES
Right about his team building theory? That's debatable. At best.
-
I don't know. Pretty clear to me that Graham's never had a nice thing to say about the Bills and that he's cherry picking some make believe metric to continue his streak. Call it a narrative, call it an agenda (I have a theory for a later date, but we'll get to that), but he's adamantly pursuing logic that's wildly flawed and contradictory and he's using it as a means to his same old same old ends. You can call that whatever you want. It's pretty clear to me what it is.
-
Yep, Bradford's 55 extra total yards and 6 fewer total TDs is the difference we're looking for.
The difference we're looking for is a QB who get the ball out on time and in a spot that lets his receivers make a play.
That's. It.
-
Shirley you can't be serious. The team could have A LOT more talent if they didn't have to draft all front 7 all the time. And then still let teams run for 200+. The dancing 4-3 DE from last year got pissed, got exiled and was replaced by a first rounder. Then we drafted a "throwback" LB that nobody else wanted and a DL whose coach snickered on national TV when he was picked. And the defense promptly went out and sucked to the point where Ryan Fitzpatrick almost made the Hall of Fame in one game. He has done a crappy job.
Remember though that much of the rest of the league is also crappy, we are still technically alive and redemption is possible.
So we'd be 1st in the league in points instead of 3rd?
yeah! exactly!!
and if we're lucky, may be we'll crack the top 29 in a passing category!!
-
It doesn't matter who the HC is unless they have a bonafied QB. That's my final answer. Just keep cycling through coaches, it's not the real barrier between 9-7 and 11-5.
So I don't care if they keep him or not. if there isn't an answer at the QB position they are just spinning their wheels and lighting money on fire.
Bradford would be a stud in this offense. Just saying.
-
Yeah, I member.
-
The standards were set when Rex was hired.
We have no QB but let's play very good defense while running the ball effectively and having our QB play turnover free on offense.
That's been the plan the past two years. The plans gone to **** because our defense has been for the most part,
a failure in large part due to Rex and his scheme.
If they decide to make due with Rex because two years is too early to fire a coach and his .500 or better record then so be it. I think it will only delay the inevitable the next year but that's just my opinion.
Right. You deemed an above average/good defense to be a failure. Well understood at this point. No need to keep belaboring.
-
We are going to have to win games against teams above us in the standings" which Rex has failed to do.
And just so we're clear, when you have the 31/32 ranked passing attack, then here's how you should evaluate coaching when facing those teams:
Loss: Should be expected
Win: Coaching triumph
So if Rex is a failure because his D isn't dominant and he's not a spectacular coach, then so be it. At least we're all clear as to what the standards are.
-
Ignore the backup QB if you're hung up on it. How about I say one game against a Jets team that has already checked out on the season? The point is these two games are going to tell you nothing that hasn't been learned in the previous 30. We know Rex can beat backup QB's already.
Good, because if you want to make the playoffs, you gotta be better than the teams you're supposed to beat. And we are. Consistently.
Was that your point?
-
Is Gus Bradley some QB I've never heard of?
-
When people say he "ruined a great defense," do they understand that "great" defenses tend to last for more than one season? Did they forget that two short years prior to "greatness" we were among the worst--if not the worst--defenses in franchise history? And that the season immediately preceding "greatness" we were 28th in the league against the run?
The 2014 references and the pining for its "greatness" make it seem like it was emblematic of some kind of legacy. It wasn't. It was an immediate, sudden and very dramatic spike. We have regressed to "above average."
2010: horrible
2011: horrible
2012: horrible
2013: below average
2014: great
2015: average/above average
2016: above average
Can we please toss out the phrase "he ruined a great defense?"
-
The Bills are better than 8 win talent.
Correct. But they have a 3 win QB that averages them out.
-
Has nothing to do with disqualifying wins or losses. If you can't assess a coach after 30 games and are waiting on the results of two more games against two backup QB's, then you simply aren't capable of assessing a coach.
Then what the hell do the backup QB's in our last two games have to do with anything? Why keep making that qualifier if you're not "dis" qualifying anything?
-
I cant believe there is any way TT renegotiates..and i am with you and all the other posters who say the HC just has to report to the GM.
And I think Rex will stay will TT, and his run first philosophy...and the wheel goes round and round.
Who the fug knows....so sick of this year after year.....
I have zero issue with the run-first philosophy. But it doesn't work when you don't have a QB who can/will PASS to make defenses pay for not playing honest. It boggles the mind that we can rack up the kind of rushing stats we have absent that. Here are the four games when we couldn't run, let me know if you see a pattern here:
- BAL
- MIA
- PIT
- NYJ*
*Yes, the DB's got torched, but the McCoy had 59 yards on 15 carries and the offense couldn't sustain jack ****, just like the second half against Miami and the fourth quarter against OAK...
Run-first works when you run the ball and KEEP the ball.
Buffalo's inability to KEEP the ball has much to do with not having a balanced attack (read: the QB can't be relied on to make plays).
Well losing does make most act more aggressively. A win even if they wanted a loss for draft spot will always soften them.
Once you get to six wins, losing to sustain your draft position is pointless.
-
Cat..the Philosophy for me is more on the overall theme...run, play defence, don't turn the ball over. I know the Broncos did it last year, but D is just SOOO HARD to maintain. I believe our record against good teams is a direct result of that philosophy...good teams score, force you to pass...
As you mentioned, the run/pass ratio out of whack...but I think that is intentional. And like you said, we can chicken/egg it all day long...is it cause the QB stinks they run so much? Could be.
In terms of the QB...on that we can agree!
So next question..would you want Rex to stay if he insists on haveing TT back next year?
Only if it means having him on a five inch leash with a viable replacement, vet, rookie or otherwise waiting to step in when he shows his same bad habits.
That said, I'd only be in support of THAT if TT's contract is aggressively re-negotiated.
So, not exactly an overwhelming "yes."
I think a clear line needs to be drawn in the sand between the GM and HC. And if the GM is telling the HC it's time to address QB, the HC has to listen. The GM should be the HC's boss, IMO.
-
We've seen him coach 30 games. Two games against two backup QBs is the determining factor?
If you're going to disqualify wins (or potential ones), then I'm looking forward to your list of disqualified losses because of the personnel issues our team was going through.
-
Cat, think you are Rex supporter right? Let me lay out why i want him gone...you lay out why you want him retained?
1)Inherited a 8-7 team..#4 ranked D. Ranked 18th currently i believe 14th in points allowed, 16th in yards and I wouldn't be shocked to see both of these rankings rise after the final two games. His inability to sustain a dominant defense is frustrating, to be sure. But I've detailed countless times why a setback was inevitable. It's still very frustrating, of course, more on this later.
2)I believe he is 1-13 vs teams with a winning record with the Bills. Not saying that's exact, but going off my memory of last year opponents record. One could argue the only win was against a 3rd string QB that went on IR the next day..but i will give him the 1. Yep, we destroy the teams we're better than and we wilt against comparable opponents. But we've had the 31/32nd passing attack for two straight seasons. To an exceptionally measurable extent, an NFL HC is only as good as his QB. Our offensive balance is entirely out of whack. I don't believe the results fall directly at the feet of the HC when our QB has proven so incredibly limited.
3) Six years straight at .500 or below See above.
4) Adherence to a philosophy that i believe is outdated...Which philosophy is that? You might have schematic beef against the defense, but I don't believe his pathway to success is a deterrent. All we need is a top-18 QB. Been saying it since the 2015 offseason. It's not too much to ask for. Show me the teams that have had more success than he has without one.
4) Continued communication errors, reports of lack of detail(again, only reports), and the "do i want this guy as face of franchise" effect. Won't dispute this for a second. He seems to skimp on details, and that's been my beef with his hiring since day one.
5) I see very little evidence based on records from the last 25 years where sticking with a coach at or below 500 for "continuiy" sake ever results in the team have success down the road. Yes there is an example here and there..but they are the exception. Really? Jason Garret says hello. So do the 15-1 Ron Rivera-led Carolina Panthers of 2015.
Look for your argument why to keep him!
Just remember, my Rock edutaion always better than yur Bucknell education!
(rme) 
Argument to keep him: same as it's been since last year: why fire the coach when the quarterback is your impediment to success. We can chicken or egg this thing all you want, but I haven't changed my stance on this since 2006 when I first signed up for this board.
It's been a god damned carousel of HC's in Buffalo, we're 4-3, now we're 3-4, oop, back to 4-3 again, let's try 3-4 again...what's it gotten us?
The argument for continuity anymore is simply an argument against upheaval. The argument against upheaval: it's the only thing we actually have tried, and what the hell has it gotten us?
Meanwhile: we've had serious performance issues on the field at safety and QB this year. You might believe the HC should be blamed for this, I don't. Quarterbacks hide deficiencies all over the field, and the inverse is also true. The Pats* don't break stride if Dareus is suspended, the loss of Aaron Williams doesn't hurt as bad, they can manage with a scrap heap of WR's, why? GOAT QB. We don't have that luxury. We don't even have a QB who breaks the top 25 THIS year, let alone all time. So when other areas of the roster start going south, it's magnified for us. And I just don't put that on the coach.
I think we're close. I think we just need an efficient, reliable QB and we're right in the thick of it. Hell, we could be playing the first meaningful week 17 game in over a decade this year without one! Going through another HC upheaval doesn't seem appropriate at this time.
I voted to fire - because if I was in charge I would fire him and I would have fired him after year 1.
I do actually think he has done a better job this year and I wouldn't be as angry if he was retained as I was last year... so long as the organisational dysfunction was resovled by having him report directly to the General Manager. But I do think the end is nigh and he has nobody to blame but himself. Not Mario, not Jim Schwartz, not Greg Roman, not Tyrod Taylor, not Doug Whaley or Doug Marrone or Russ Brandon anyone else he has attempted to shift blame onto at any stage in the past 2 years.
YES! 1,000,000 times YES!
It's like watching the electoral vote count on Election Day with Trump & Clinton. The right person won there too LOL
That thread that described Bills as toxic could be right. We go through coaches every 2-3 years, average at best talent, no QB's, two coaches elect to leave. So dump Rex, next coach knows he gets two years and no QB. It's a losing position
I'll go a step further and blame the media for poisoning and sabotaging the Bills efforts. All day every day they rag on the team, and that "toxic" spills over into the fanbase
I've got a half-baked theory on the media that I'll share when all this noise quiets down and we can do a little hindsight autopsy.
-
True but not ahead of Shaq Lawson, who looks lost now that's actually made it on the field.
-
96 posters have cast votes now. More than half (52) say he should be retained.
I read somewhere last week that only two people here felt that way.
Huh.
-
Some guys are great coordinator's but louse HC's
Exactly.
The Buffalo News and their "agenda"
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Yeah, I reject using clickbait and negativity as the explanation. This feels far more insidious and calculated. And I think it does have much more to do with the symbiotic relationship between professional sports teams and local "journalism" coming apart at the seams. I think it's quite clear who needs who.