JohnC

Hire Rex. He's a talker. At the podium he excels. Maybe you can get some use out of him for the money he is receiving from the idiotic contract you gave him when you hired him.

Scotty Bowman was on the Instigator show yesterday and commented on Risto. He felt that he was one of the best young defensemen in the game and believed that he was going to get better. When you have a player like Risto on a team like Buffalo it is not unusual that the player tries to force plays when he should just let the game come to him. Sometimes trying to do too much influences the stat numbers and the interpretation of the stats. Regardless what the stats may indicate the best way to evaluate him is to trust your eyes. The challenge is to find the right player to pair with him. I like McCabe a lot. I consider him to be more of a second pairing type of defenseman where without question Risto is a first pairing player.

Even in jest I do not allow Kane trade talk. Stop it! If Bylsm had a mule on his farm you can be sure that it would be broken and beaten down by the time the plowing season was over with. I watched the game. Even without Risto the defense played a basic game that overall was solid. Nothing special but nothing damaging. Kulikov and Bogo played well. If this team would have had this type of blue line play all season our late season games would have a lot more meaning.

Kulikov is playing significantly better than he was previously playing. Getting healthy probably is the reason for this positive transformation. I thought Bogo also played soundly. Our defense is far from being a very good unit but it is now playing competently. If this level of play happened during the season this team would be vying for the playoffs. Kane has finally adjusted his game to conform to the unit. It's taken a while but it seems to me his new more team oriented style of play is now his standard style of play. The Lehner deal is becoming a better deal as the season advances. His stop on the penalty shot got me fired up. The tribute to Gionta was terrific. I'm glad he wasn't traded.

Your response falls in the category of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. A HOF caliber of qb falls in the impossible to find category. But that is not what I'm talking about here. The Bills have had plenty of opportunities to select a legitimate franchise qb and the organization decided to pass. Instead of giving up valuable picks to move up there were more than a few opportunities to trade down, acquire more picks, and still come away with a credible qb prospect. Gunner has listed a few of them so there is no need for me to catalogue them. The bottom line is that the Bills have not had a credible franchise qb since the retirement of Jim Kelly over two decades ago. That is a disgrace and an embarrassment.

When a person such as Rex Ryan becomes the most influential person in assembling a roster the results are predictable. He left the Jets in shambles and he set our franchise back. With each failure in different cities he left pointing his porky finger at others for his glaring mistakes. Following his advice is like following the advice of Trump in how to behave diplomatically. The outcome is preordained before a word is spoken. The main problem I have with your take (respectfully so) along with many others is that you are examining our roster and draft strategy with a patchwork approach to roster building. The Bills have done that for a long time and it has not worked, and will never work. The major determination for success in this league is having a franchise qb. When a franchise has not had a legitimate starting qb for more than two decades and you don't make it a priority to secure that position then that is a formula for failure. Our historical record is a testament to that point. Ragland was a good prospect. No one is arguing otherwise. But he wasn't good enough and he didn't play a position that merited gratuitously giving up picks that in this case could have finally solved our qb problem. Even if Whaley didn't move up to draft him who is to say that the player he would have selected at his drafting position could have been as good if not a better player. You are mistaken if you are interpreting my position as simply being a hindsight judgment. It is not. The failure of this organization is its lack of resolve and attempts in its pursuit of a franchise qb. The opportunities have existed over the past number of years to select a good qb prospect, However, inexplicably to the point of irrationality the willingness to act has not happened. No one is arguing that Ragland can't be a good player. What I'm arguing is that he wasn't good enough to forgo an opportunity to select a good prospect if the GM didn't gratuitously give up those picks. This is not a "what if" hindsight point of view. This is a real time point of view that this bedraggled franchise has not been successful and much of it is due to not having a credible qb. And still there exits this less than energetic response by this sluggish organization to do what has to be done to make this failed business become a successful business! What are the odds that this dullard organization is going to use its first round pick on a player who in the long run will not do anything to change the dynamic of altering our floundering situation?

Are you from Canada? Is rancour the Canadian spelling for rancor? I thought having a large number of Canadians in the building made it electric. Also, isn't it a good thing for outsiders to spend money locally?

With respect to the highlighted segment whether you are in real time or not real time when you preside over an organization that hasn't had a franchise qb for more than 20 years then that pursuit for a qb should be a priority. This was not the only case where acting hesitantly instead of with purpose has resulted in this franchise to lose an opportunity that was available for us to secure the most important position on the field. Derek Carr, Bridgewater, Russell Wilson, Cousins were all available, some with trade downs, and could have been selected at reasonable locations. This organization passed. The Bills have not made the playoffs for 18 consecutive years. The primary factor is not having an adequate franchise qb. Common sense dictates that a team that hasn't had a franchise qb for more than a generation should be a little more aggressive in pursuing a good qb when drafting. Dithering is not a positive trait to have when attempting to secure the most important position that determines success. You can make all the excuses you want and creatively rationalize why this organization doesn't have a legitimate franchise qb. It doesn't change the reality. My tolerance for excuses and rationalizations have run out a long time ago.

A while back in a camp setting Howard Simon and Paul Hamilton from WGR both commented how stunned they were at EJ's inaccuracy in a practice setting. Sometimes you don't know how good a player is going to be until you see the player perform in real games. And sometimes you can come to a conclusive evaluation on a player from what you see in practice.

I'm not so much terrified as I am uncomfortable with how this situation played out. It's not so much that I have a problem with the hire as I do with the process. The owners didn't seem to learn from their first hiring experience. That phrase might mean it is a kiss of death?

What does trusted implicitly mean? Wouldn't it mean more to trust someone explicitly by giving him more authority to make the coaching hire? Most often for this organization narratives don't reflect realities.

The collaborative approach is not a bad approach to take in this evaluative and judgmental type of business. The caveat is that everyone needs to be imbued with the same or similar line of reasoning. As long as there is a coherency within different segments of the organization then the collaborative approach is a good business model and environment to work within. As you well know the problem is when there is a conflict between the factions (front office and coaching staff). That was clearly evident between the Ryan and Whaley factions. A franchise being tugged in different directions is a recipe for failure. I get the sense that Pegula was instrumental in the hiring of McDermott as it was with the Rex hire. As an owner that is his right. But that doesn't mean that from an organizational standpoint it was the right approach to take. After the Ryan fiasco Pegula should have learned that the GM has to be enthusiastically on board with the coaching hire. If that isn't the case here then what does it tell you? It tells me that the owner doesn't think too highly what the GM really thinks. If that is the reality then it is an ominous sign for the GM's job status.

In the playoffs, especially as the rounds move on, the play tightens up. A hot goal tender can be the difference against a more talented team. In the playoffs with a stifling brand of defensive play a good goal scorer who is a loose defensive player can be a liability in low scoring games with fewer scoring chances. On the one hand playoff hockey is brutally intense; on the other hand it is not a free flowing and offensive brand of hockey. From an aesthetic standpoint it isn't very pleasing for the casual fan. On the other hand for the more ingrained hockey fan it is a brutal heavy weight battle that is much appreciated. The reality is that playoff hockey is qualitatively much different than regular season hockey. A team built to earn a 100 points in the regular season can just as easily be knocked out of the first round of the playoffs by the lowest seeded team. Playoff hockey is a different brand of hockey compared to the regular season.

The Leafs are a good and talented young team. I'm acknowledging the obvious. But they are not a demonstrably better team. As everyone is well aware our defensive unit is lacking and is a major liability. If the the GM can get that reasonably resolved this offseason then the teams will be more closely matched. I'm not making my judgment on this one game. With a better defense this year they should have been in the same point range as the Leafs. But "what if" judgments are meaningless. It's my unschooled judgment that with an upgraded defense the Leafs and Sabress are comparable or near comparable teams.

Well thought out response. I agree with your assessment on Ragland. But where I disagree with your position is that by giving up the pick to move up to get Ragland (who might have been available without the maneuver) he lost the opportunity to select his higher rated qb. If the choice comes down to selecting Ragland and losing Prescott that is a losing proposition for a franchise that doesn't have a franchise qb on its roster. Even if Ragland was gone when our turn came up if Whaley stayed at his draft position he still should have come away with a good player. My consistent criticism of Whaley is his passivity in addressing the qb position. This is a good example of it. He could have stayed in his draft position and selected his higher rated qb in the third round who turned out to be a very good qb. That lost opportunity was costly for the franchise. Make no mistake Prescott would not have played as well with the Bills as he did with Dallas. They had the better team and especially because of their stellar OL he was placed in an excellent situation. The result of his gratuitous trading away of a draft pick for a LB is that he lost the opportunity to select a franchise qb for a team that hasn't had a legitimate franchise qb for over twenty years. This is a case where the GM not only outsmarted himself he also hurt the prospects for this meandering franchise.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't he give up a pick to move up to draft Ragland that could have been used for Prescott who he favored over Cardale? I'm not anti-Ragland because I believe that he can be a good player for us. However, it seems to me that giving up a pick to move up for a player that might have been there without trading up at the expense of finally getting a good qb prospect on board was a costly deal for us. As you noted hindsight is wonderful in making easy after the fact judgments. But the real challenge is playing things smartly in real time and not losing opportunities that exist in real time. The Bills have not had a legitimate franchise qb for over 20 years. The trade up deal was a lost opportunity to acquire a good qb prospect for this franchise and also for Whaley who is in a precarious position. Sometimes when you try to outsmart others the person you outsmart is yourself.

Kulikov played well in the Maple Leaf game and showed what was expected of him when he was traded for. The organization recently signed a Russian defenseman from the KHL and Guhle will probably be with the Sabres next season. That would be a good start to rebuilding the defensive corps. However, recently on WGR Paul Hamilton stated that he didn't believe that Kulikov, a free agent, wanted to remain in Buffalo. Maybe some of his negativity was due to him be hurt for most of the season and not connecting with his new teammates because he was not playing? When watching the Leaf game it is evident that there is little difference between a lower playoff qualifying team like them and the Sabres. Getting the blue line addressed this offseason should put this team in a much better situation.

Marrone was criticized by many for making a quick judgment on EJ. He was absolutely right. Some personnel decisions are tough to make but this wasn't one of them. EJ was not only ineffectual in the games but he was also in practice. What's the point of continuing on with a qb that it is apparent right from the start that he simply didn't have it. You are trying to portray it as if he wasn't given a fair shot. That is a crazy notion! The team and organization were desperate to come up with an adequate qb, and he didn't even meet that standard. EJ is a terrific person and a hard working person. He failed but it certainly wasn't due to a lack of effort. He just didn't have it----and it was obvious to everyone. The shame of the EJ fiasco is that instead of continuing on with the pursuit of a franchise qb (that we still don't have) time was wasted on a qb that it was apparent to most that he simply didn't have it. I'm not an emotional fan as you try to portray me. What I recognize and you don't is that the Bills have not made the playoffs for 18 consecutive years and there is an abundance of reasons for it. One of the primary reasons for this ignominious distinction is that this backwater organization has not had a legitimate franchise qb for over 20 years since the departure of Kelly. And what you fail to acknowledge no matter how EJ was handled he was never going to be a solution because he simply wasn't good enough, and never will be for any other team.

What's clear is that Wilson's hiring of Levy and following it up with Nix set this franchise back by years. I had high hopes for Whaley to bring this backwater franchise into the modern era. In that respect I think he did modernize the scouting department and organizational structure. My criticism is over his performance. His drafting has been average at best and his cap management has been poor. There seems to be a lack of coherency and philosophy to his roster building. Whaley's biggest failure is not only his inability to secure the qb position but his seemingly passivity to address it . As a GM the roster you put together can have a number of flaws but by having a good qb those flaws can be overridden. When you don't have a credible qb taking the snaps your weaknesses get magnified. That's the issue that is going to sabotage everything he wants to accomplish. Dithering is not a solution. And that is his fault.

If Whaley would have had his way he would have simply gotten rid of Taylor. He wanted nothing to do with him any longer. It was the HC and not the GM who had the final say on Taylor. Both the GM and the HC agreed that TT was not worth the contract he was playing under. You can make all the excuses you want regarding how this team has performed. There is little doubt that Rex had a damaging effect on this team. But from a GM standpoint no one can fairly say that Whaley has done a good job of drafting or cap management during his tenure. No one can reasonably say that Whaley has adequately secured the qb position. If you want to manufacture excuses, go ahead. That's easy to do. I'll judge a person by their performance on the job. Maybe not for you but for me it is inadequate.

Well thought out and expressed views. Where I disagree with you is that it is not the history of failure that is weighing down Whaley, It is how he has performed during his tenure. That's the issue. His drafts have not been very impressive. His cap management has been poor. You and others are shortchanging yourselves when you are establishing the past dismal standard and comparing it to what Whaley has done. Of course he shines when you compare it to stupendous ineptitude of the past. That's not the standard I'm going by. He should be judged based on how he has performed and not against the fools of the past. His record is his record. It is not impressive. By any standard it is mediocre. It's not good enough for me and I'm confident that it is not good enough for the owners. There is nothing wrong holding people up to a high standard. That is a welcome change to the past where getting by is good enough. I don't accept that demeaning standard.

I don't give much credibility to anything that LaConfora says. But you don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out that Whaley has lost some authority in his job. The GM didn't have the final say on TT, the HC did. The team under Whaley has been stuck in the mediocre range during his tenure with little expectation that that status will change in the near future. That is not a good situation for any GM to be. I don't need an historically inaccurate reporter or a historically accurate reporter, for that matter, to tell me that Whaley's job status is weakened and his tenure is in question because it is obviously so. Any GM whose job performance is similar to his usually has his job status in jeopardy. It's not about the reporting---it's about the record.

We agree that Whaley stuck with EJ too long. But there was a reason for it. He over-rated the player he scouted. He over-rated him as a prospect and as a pro. It was a damaging decision because the organization was so invested in EJ it passed on better prospects later on.

You are right that Nix was the GM when EJ was selected. But it was Whaley who evaluated and ranked the qb prospects in that draft. EJ should have had a third or fourth round grade on him. Whaley stuck with EJ longer than he should because he over-rated him. That's his fault.

What isn't fake news is their record. What isn't fake news is that the Bills have not had a legitimate franchise qb for over twenty years. What isn't fake news is that the Bills have not made the playoffs in 18 consecutive years in a system designed for parity. Don't be distracted from the reality of the situation. It's the product on the field and the dismal record.