JohnC

You and many others continue to make the argument that he was an attractive qb option for a number of qb starved teams. The reality is that when he had the opportunity to pursue other options no team was interested in him at his former salary or even at a lower salary rate. The point is frequently made that he couldn't check out the market because he was contractually obligated to the Bills. That is a naive response because there was always a behind the curtain way through his agent to determine what other teams were interested in him and at what price range. No team showed an interest in him as a starter. The stark reality is he took a salary cut with a shorter term because he had no other offers. If you believe that there is still potential for him, even with his glaring limitations, then so be it. What I am saying in a declarative manner is that when he had an opportunity to avail himself to the market there were no takers. What does that tell you? The issue for me isn't whether TT can be a starter for the Bills because he is currently the designated starter. The issue for me is whether as a starter he is good enough. I am comfortable in saying no.

You can "what if" yourself until you are exhausted. Last year's erratic defense had little bearing on how he played. He is not a franchise qb and will never be. He could have put himself on the market this offseason. He didn't. Instead he took a pay cut and restructured his contract because no other team was interested in him as a starter.

You can reasonably have problems with VC's view of the qbs and how they will respond to their respective situations. However, the simple reduction/conclusion is that Tyrod is not a franchise qb. The "why" and "how" isn't as important as the "is". That is the core point. Very often a poor articulation of a point doesn't necessarily mean that the essence of what the person is saying is incorrect. Whether the Bills got worse or not at the qb position means little if the Bills remained inadequately staffed at that position. That's the basic point. There are others who have a more optimistic view on TT believing that issues relating to coaching and systems will uplift the qb to another level. I'm not one of those believers. This is a barren time a year where poorly grounded conjecture is par for the course. You are reading too much into things. When the players start practicing and playing your concerns will have more legitimacy. Now is the time to throw out flimsy thoughts without being intensely scrutinized.

The Guhle situation has me conflicted. Would it better for his development if he got an abundance of ice team for the first half of the season in the AHL? Probably so. But odds are that in training camp he will demonstrate that he is one of our top 4 to 6 defensemen. Then what? Although the prudent approach is to start him off in Rochester I wouldn't be surprised if he made the big club and got plenty of time of ice time as a third pairing player.

The best we can hope for is to get some useful play out of him as a probable third pairing player. He doesn't have the instincts to read the play (as you noted) that good defensemen have. Another player that lacked the ability to read plays is Kulikov who won't be with the team. He was notorious for making the wrong read and creating a wide gap in his zone for the opposition. It's unreasonable to think that the Sabres are going to have a sterling blue line unit, even if Kane is traded for a defenseman. The best we can hope for is that with the incoming additions this unit can become competent to the point that it isn't a major liability as it was last year. The unit merely being average is a major step forward for this team. Many people disagreed with me but I still believe that the Kulikov for Pysk trade was very damaging. I don't want to overstate how good Pysyk was because he certainly wasn't an upper-echelon player. But he was a smart and efficient player who moved the puck out of his zone. He would be a good player to have added to the mix.

Their specialty is a psychotropic drug chased by a local brew. It's called the mellow stew.

It's not an issue of getting better as it is more of an issue of modifying his game so that he can stay on the ice and emphasize his skills more. He is a good skater and has a hard shot, not necessarily accurate. Although he is built like a guerrilla he needs to tone down the muscle game and be more of a finesse player and puck mover. His desire to make crunching hits more often than not leaves him battered and bruised rather than being useful. He needs to tame his physical game down for his own sake and for his own utility as a player. Without question he is not worth his contract and because of that he can't be moved. That doesn't mean that he can't be a good third pairing defenseman and serve a useful role on a unit that needs players.

Do you know what the one legged scuba diver said while the surgeon was sawing off his mangled leg? I thought the area was supposed to be sectioned off!

If Schwartz would have been named the HC this franchise would now be more stable and not be going through another excruciating rebuilding process. Progress was made under Marrone and that steady progress under Schwartz would have continued.

While I agree with what you are saying I have a slightly different perspective. You are right that Tyrod was not our biggest problem. But that is not to say because he wasn't the biggest problem that he was a satisfactory solution that would get this team anywhere consequential. I strongly believe that if Marrone would have stayed or if Schwartz would have been the HC the Bills would have probably been a wild-card team. Would they have been able to win a playoff game? I doubt it. I hate going over the same sordid Rex history. I feel I need to take a bath after discussing his sloppy tenure. What I don't understand is that Rex had a work record. He left the Jets in shambles. How the Pegulas allowed themselves to be conned is a mystery to me.?

Sharks are lurking. Don't do it!

On this topic you and I will never come to an accord. People have a right to make decisions for themselves. Whether you or I agree with the decision is irrelevant. Whether Marrone's decision was wrong for him is for him to decide. In the long run it worked out for him. Your constant characterization of him being arrogant and unpleasant is undoubtedly true. But who cares? He is in a profession where many HCs are arrogant and not pleasant to deal with. You point out that he was behind the scenes maneuvering for the Jet job. That wasn't a state secret. It was well known that overtures were made between the Marrone camp and the Jet organization. Because of the rumors the Jets quickly backed off out of fear of being accused of tampering. It was also reported that Marrone was under consideration for the University of Michigan job. What does that tell you? He wanted out. Basically what you are criticizing him for is not being satisfied with his current employment situation and acting on it when he is fully within his rights to do so. While you criticize him I take the opposite view. If you want out then get out! And that is what he did. There is nothing wrong for a HC to want more authority. And there is nothing wrong for the owner to say no. This happens all the time. Buffalo under the wrestling coach being a good example of it. Kevin Durrant wanted to leave OKC in the NBA. Contractually he had the authority to make a move. And he did. You may have problems with his exiting the Oklahoma scene but I don't. LeBron left Cleveland for Miami. Then he left Miami for Cleveland. That's his right. You act as if loyalty by owners, players, coaches and staff is a noble concept in a pristine business. Your sanctimonious attitude in a cut throat and treacherous business is very much misplaced. While you stew in the juices of resentment toward a former indistinguishable HC I don't harbor any ill-will toward him. Or another way of saying it is that I simply don't care much about him now. What I do care more about is our current new HC doing well. And that is not to say that the wrestling coach doesn't also have some unappealing traits that are tiresome. Marrone without question was/is arrogant and controlling. You don't think that McDermott isn't also a tad bit arrogant and controlling? If Marrone would have stayed with Buffalo I'm sure that he still would have inevitably departed the scene a little later. He's a prickly personality who is difficult to take on a long term basis. As everyone knows the damaging mistake was not that he left but it was the hire who replaced him. It's time to move on and not linger on something that is not worth lingering on. Let it go.

The intriguing issue that is worth discussing is what would have been the prospects for this team if he would have stayed on board? I honestly believe that if he would have stayed this team would be so much more advanced and be on the cusp of being a relevant team. Does that mean it would have made the playoffs? Not necessarily. Although the roster would have been much more developed the issue still comes down to having a legitimate franchise qb. What I believe is that if he would have stayed he would have forced the vacillating GM to address the qb issue sooner rather than later. The Bills franchise wasted the two years that the corpulent HC coached here and it requires another two years to cleanse out the stench that he left here. That is four years wasted that could have been used to steadily get better. Make no mistake that when Marrone took over this team was basically a rebuilding team that he got to play hard and smartly. His offense was a Jauron styled offense but that was due to its lack of talent. The page has been turned with the hiring of McDermott. To a lesser extent than when Marrone was first hired he is also in a rebuild that is going to take at least a few years to rework the roster and get himself a franchise qb. There is a similarity between Marrone and McDermott that the Marrone critics don't acknowledge: Both coaches in short order recognized that Whaley's high draft picks in Manuel and Kujo were not good enough to keep.

Ultimately the decision he made to accept the buyout worked out for him. Is he in a better situation? That's for him to decide. He made a decision based on what he wanted to do, not what others think he should have done. You constantly portray his decision to accept the buyout as an act of betrayal. That characterization doesn't resonate with me. As with anyone else he made an employment decision based on what was best for him and his family. You act as if he didn't fail to live up to his contract. That's not an accurate depiction of the situation. He simply acted within the terms of his contract. What's your problem with that? Doug Marrone isn't the only coach to ask out. Mike Mularkey also accepted a buyout to get away from the pervasive dysfunction of the organization. He is now a HC. Ask him if he is glad to have left the chaotic scene in western NY? In the long run Marrone made a decision that benefited him. But his departure might also have benefited the Bills if this current HC works out as well as I think he will. I don't understand your long standing campaign against the dour former coach. I have no ill-will toward him and basically could care less how he does in his current situation.

Is that called Silence of the Lamb?

I have no disdain for Marrone. Overall, he did a good job with a lackluster roster. The players consistently played hard for him, and as you stated they were accountable for their play. He didn't quit on the team. He had the contractual ability to take a buy out, and he exercised it. That is no different from what players and front office staff do when they have that option. Marrone is a meat and potatoe type coach. Nothing special and nothing cringe worthy. He wasn't a very likable person. There was an unearned arrogance about him that was tough to take. He was a jerk in a profession that has a lot of jerks. So What! What no one can take away from him is that he was dedicated to his job and he cared. Compare that to the lazy and buffoonish coach who followed him? The one action that I have the utmost respect for Marrone was that he was not going to quietly tolerate the qb situation that Whaley presented him with. Marrone was not wrong in forcefully confronting the GM and making it clear that he wasn't going to accept the situation that he was placed in. Good for him! I'm not bothered by Marrone's decision to leave. That was his prerogative. He made a decision that he felt was right for him and his family. It became a tremendous loss not because he left and was such a valued employee but because our clueless new owner made a stupendous mistake in hiring his replacement.

With respect to the highlighted segment the three qbs you referenced might have higher grades than this year's draft class but that doesn't mean that the Bills will be in a position to select one of them. KC and Houston traded up to get their qb this year while the Bills dealt themselves out of a position to select one of the two remaining qbs (Watson and Mahommes) with first round grades on them. Even the the dithering Whaley was willing to take the plunge. He lacked the authority to act. Only time will tell whether the Bills were right in their strategy to wait another year to scan the hopefully more appealing market. What we do know for sure is that good qb prospects are prized, and becoming more valued as time passes. What the Bills' History should illustrate is that waiting for a better opportunity when a good opportunity is available is like chasing a ghost. When you have a pattern of failure and you decide to continue to do what you have always do then the result is predictable.

The issue isn't who is better but who is good enough. Peterman probably will be better than Manuel and still not not good enough to be a starter. That doesn't mean that he wasn't a reasonable pick in the fifth round because if he turns out to be a backup qb then the pick has value. But in the long run his addition doesn't do much to adequately address the starting position.

The attached link is from WGR with Hockey News's Matt Larkin talking about the expansion draft and some of the players who could be exposed and also traded. It is a twenty minute segment. http://www.wgr550.com/media/audio-channel/6-14-hockey-news-matt-larkin-talks-expansion-schopp-and-bulldogmp3

Congratulations! For those outstanding felony warrants with your name on them just say that you are being mistaken for Jeffismagic, who is now in the brig.

If it is an immediate reimbursement then this company's approach is not unreasonable. Canadian Bill can put the expenses on a credit card and then quickly pay the bill. I'm sure this company can work out a satisfactory arrangement with him, assuming he gets the job. If the company doesn't hire him they will be losing out on a good employee.

The problem I have with the approach you describe is: who is making the logistical arrangements? If the company is not making the hotel and flight arrangements then there can be a significant price differential between the prices for lodging and transportation that the employee is making vs if the company makes the arrangement. If the company is going to reimburse then instead of paying after the employee is billed why not put the billing on their own account and then pay it? Companies have different policies. It just seems that it is simpler for them to handle the arrangements and then pay for it. As a cautionary tale my nephew went to work for a food distributing company where traveling to food conventions was part of the job. He was told to put his travel and hotel expenses on his credit card and that he would be reimbursed. I told him soon after he started the job that the arrangement didn't sound right. As it turned out it was a tug of war to get paid. He quickly quit the hustle.

Good luck!

What does they don't have a corporate account mean? If they are a good sized company training new staff and in-house programs are part of running a business. Companies handle their business in different ways. It seems to me that reimbursing after the fact instead of paying for costs puts an undue burden on the new employee who may not be in the best position to pay out of pocket. In a job setting circumstances are not always optimal. You just have to do what you have to do to get by this hurdle.

The arrangement of reimbursement instead of paying for the cost of training and travel is troubling. It is a second-rate way of doing business. Is this an established company or a small niche outfit that mostly contracts out its services?