JohnC

A while back Howard Simon was talking about a game in which he watched in one of the boxes. He said that from a higher vantage point where you can get a good overview it was abundantly clear that he was not seeing the open receivers down the field. As others have said the missed plays are not reflected by the stats but they are glaringly noticed when watching from above. The criticism that he doesn't have good vision and is not able to go through progressions has merit. What is most disturbing is that he didn't show much improvement in his second year from his first year.

No one had an interest in Orton other than us. He wasn't even working out in the offseason, an essential task for being prepared for the upcoming season. When the Cowboys released him it wasn't a loss that they were worried about. He was a pedestrian backup at best. Marrone saw and so did every one else, except for maybe Whaley, that EJ was not a credible qb. Why do you think that Marrone was so furious with Whaley? Who else was on the qb depth chart before the physically unprepared Orton was finally brought in. Time was running short before an outside qb could be integrated into the offense. Marrone was a tough person to deal with. He was insufferably arrogant and was an inauthentic tough guy. His tough veneer was an act because he was very insecure and couldn't handle criticism very well. A bad fault for a person in his profession. However, as distasteful as he was as a person he was right in not taking kindly to the qb situation placed before him. That was the GM's job. And he faltered on that issue. Let's face it even bringing in an out of shape pedestrian backup qb whose primary motivation was to secure his last big payday was not the best situation for any coach to be in, especially for a first time head coach who was already working with a limited roster. The bottom line is any way you look at the qb situation that Whaley put Marrone in was a bad situation.

He was basically retired. But the money offered was too enticing to decline, especially if it was going to be his last big check from the game. When he was acquired he was out of shape because he didn't work out during the offseason because he thought his career was over. He worked his way into shape as the season moved on. Shortly after the season he retired.

Thanks for the detailed response. I think that the new HC is going to create an environment of discipline and accountability. The system should be simpler with less thought and more reaction. In my mind Dareus has the talent to be an anchor lineman. I'm confident that the new coach will bring out the best in him. If he responds to this environment it will cascade through the rest of the line and defense. The bottom line is coaching matters!

I agree. My recommendation is to keep him and draft a qb this year with a high pick. The tanking option is an absurd position to take. As it stands you can turn over a third of your roster with the normal player movement from one season to the next. Cleaning house to start over makes little sense because if you do that it would set you back even further.

Although there are opposite views on TT on whether to keep him or not there is a major consensus that he is not the long term answer at qb.

Bill, My eyes are on Mahomes. A trade down and his selection would make me happy.

The most nonsensical argument I have heard in keeping a person out of the HOF when the first vote comes up is that he doesn't deserve it on the first vote but deserves it on the second or later vote. That makes no sense to me. It demonstrates how irrational and personal the voting has come to be. Although there is plenty of hostility directed toward him what even his harshest critics have to admit is that no one prepared and worked harder during the season and offseason like he did. Sometimes his intensity and his emotions got out of control but no one can deny that the passion he had for the game. He cared to the point that it sometimes got the best of him. However, could you imagine if a Darius or Mario had the same attitude that he had?

The quarter back situation was bad. No one is disputing that. Marrone made a stink about it, and rightly so. So the GM got a qb, Orton, from the garbage heap. Was EJ a bad pick and miscalculation? Absolutely! And I have said that many times over in my tiresome posts on that topic. When Rex came in TT was brought in probably on the recommendation of Rex. I would say that although he isn't the long term answer at least the new qb stabilized the position. Who on this board has been as critical of DW for not adequately addressing the qb position than I have been? It is without a doubt a failure on his part. But the story is not finished on that issue. Let's see what happens this offseason and in this draft? This is unfinished business that the GM has a personal stake in. Because if he doesn't adequately address the position his job will be in serious jeopardy. Where you and I part company is that if someone hasn't done a good job in one area that doesn't mean that every thing he does should be tainted. You and some others make it out as if he is a miserable failure. I don't see it that way. The owner brought in a fool coach who through his undisciplined and lackadaisical manner of coaching undermined a lot of the good things that Whaley had done. I have never claimed that DW is an elite GM. Because he simply is not. But I consider him a competent GM who is capable of turning the franchise in a more positive direction. Let's put things in perspective. When he first took over with Marrone as a HC this team was basically an expansion caliber team. In the second year there was progress. Then Marrone walked and with the installation of the loud HC the situation deteriorated. With the new, more mature, more vigorous, more disciplined and smarter HC taking over I feel a little more confident.

I don't know where the rumor started that he ordered Cardale to be a starter. Obviously it is not true because he didn't play in those last four games with the exception of the last game. If he discussed such an issue with Rex that isn't a big deal. There is nothing unusual about a GM and a HC discussing the status of players. With respect to the highlighted area what is inappropriate about a GM bringing in players and having a role in mind for the player he brought in? If he brought in a player/s without having a role in mind for the particular players he would be a fool. It's part of the normal communication and interaction that happens between the front office and coaching staff for all teams. Rex was a clown who never should have been hired. He being fired is is a demonstration that a grotesque mistake made by the owner was quickly and rightly so rectified. Marrone didn't want to be here. So he left. His talents as a HC were not at a level that losing him was an unbearable loss. The devastation came when his successor was hired. That mistake was quickly rectified.

I watched both games. Lehner's comment were stinging but they were true. Jack played horribly. And Kane's play was way outside of the team concept. What Lehner was apparently referring to was that there was too much free lancing and wheeling around outside of the structured system. Big Robin was most irritated at the fact that the staff went over the game plan and the adjustments required in detail, and still players such as Jack and Evander went outside the bounds and did their own thing, There were two two many men on the ice penalties in this game and one in the Toronto game. That is a demonstration of self-centered play and an undisciplined mental engagement (or lack of engagement) with the team concept. What really upset Lehner more than anything else is that the coaches discussed some issues regarding the importance of staying within the system and shortly thereafter some players went on doing their own thing. That's what irritated him more than anything. The dismissive attitude of some players for what the coaches instructed.

The one attribute that Whaley has as a GM is that he is collaborative. Maybe to a fault as exhibited in working with Rex in order to satisfy his outdated needs. He's the direct opposite of Tom Donahue who had an old school authoritarian approach to managing. He would have been well suited as an old guard coal baron. I don't see the new HC in conflict with Whaley at all. If anyone can't establish a good working with such a receptive and open minded person as DW then the problem is most likely with the other person.

What's the role for Shaq Lawson? Does he lack the explosiveness and quickness to play DE or OLB? Will he be moved inside on third down passing downs? Is he mostly going to be a rotational lineman? You brought up the point that Hughes should thrive in McDemott's system. Do you see any other players on defense being rejuvenated because of a more suitable defense?

I not disagreeing with anything you said. I'm just pointing out to others who are pontificating about TO's conduct as a teammate that Bruce Smith was a me first type of player and person. He deserved to be in the HOF.

I wrote a response in a prior post so excuse me for the duplication. There were certainly antics and disruptive behavior associated with TO. But the picture portrayed in the link wasn't necessraily an accurate portrayl. It was a stereotypical view of TO when the actual picture of him drawn from his teammates and associates was much more complicated and nuanced. I'm not a fan of TO. Never have been and never will be. But it is unfair and it is an injustice to allow a personal attitude toward him to cloud one's objectivity when evaluation him. The TO story elicits a lot of potent reactionary responses when it is being examined. The criticism I have for Vic is that even in considering the side-issues relating to TO he didn't examine the story adequately enough to get a fuller and truer picture of him. I believe that judging someone to be considered a HOF member is a serious endeavor. Vic did a lazy and incomplete job in examining TO's consideration into that august body. His vote was more of a statement about his prejudices as it was about TO. That is wrong. (Again, I am not a TO devotee.)

I think you are politicizing the Carucci vote when there is a simpler and less sinister explanation. After reading the link that was provided it became apparent that he used the side issues relating to conduct and internal team relations to overshadow most of what he did on the field. What makes his position even more untenable is that his personal views weren't not necessarily accurate. The response VC got from many people who played with him and were involved with painted a different picture or at least a more nuanced picture of who TO was as a player and teammate. My point being while VC over-weighed the subjective aspect of his vote his subjective view wasn't necessarily accurate. My criticism of Vic Carucci is that in a task that he should have given serious thought and put effort into reviewing he gave a lazy and sloppy effort. His vote was predicated on his own prejudices toward the man without putting in the effort to get a fuller picture. If people want to categorize TO as a rogue then so be it. But even rogues deserve fairness and due process. TO was blatantly cheated out of an outer that he easily deserved. That is wrong. With respect to the serious California dam situation the story is simple. If you don't invest in infrastructure and keep up with the upkeep the deterioration will happen and eventually a maintenance issue becomes a catrosphic issue. If you don't want to pay for upkeep you will end up paying more when the structure predictably collapses due to neglect. That's the real story.

I read your link. Carucci should be embarrassed for his illogical and shodding thinking on this issue. There is a stereotypical portrayal of Owens because of his antics not associated with his performance. There were teammates who strongly endorsed TO and there may have been others who had a divergent opinion. Regardless what their personal opinions were about him no once can dispute his on field record. A HOF voter should take his role more seriously and not be so casually dismissive of any candidate that he is evaluating, especially for non-performance reasons. Vic was involved in determining a person's legacy. It definitely seemed to me that the voter lacked the knowledge and perspective on the player he is considering for entrance into such a lofty membership. I'm not a fan of TO and never have been. But he should have been inducted into the HOF with a near unanimous vote. This was unfair. Vic Carucci certainly didn't distinguish himself in this process. He should be ashamed of himself.

I am el stupido. You know very well that I meant Pysyk for Kulikov. You are punctilious! You and GG have a right to mock me.

I very much agree with you. He is a good pass catching receiver who is capable of going down field. That was why he was signed at a rich price. His talents have been squandered through no fault of his own. Although Watkins has been hurt I will say the same thing about him. Underutilized talent through no fault of his own.

Don't let Plez disturb you. At times he can be a provocateur. Other than that he is a swell fellow. I don't always agree with him but without much doubt he knows his hockey----much better than I do. Murray is a dealer. Any aggressive GM is not going to have all his deals work out. When assessing a high volume actor like he is you have to look at the totality of his work. In general, he has done a good job. The Bills are stuck in the mud. On the other hand the Sabres are on an upward trajectory. Although not completely satisfied I am in general satisfied. Trust the process.

All GMs make mistakes. It's the nature of the job. In general I consider him doing a decent job. My central criticism of him has to do with the way the roster was put together and his cap management. Did the hiring of Rex and his attempt to buttress him hurt on how he put the roster together? Absolutely. No one can argue otherwise. But designing a roster to suit a fool HC still falls back on the person responsible to constructing the roster, the GM. As I told Gotham Bill my biggest criticism of Whaley has to do with his inability to address the qb issue. For me there is a lack of urgency to get that position adequately addressed. I also recognize that Nix made the EJ selection but Whaley was responsible for putting that qb list together. A third to fourth round talent was selected in the first round. That is such a large misfire that factors into my downgrading of his performance. Again, I consider him doing a decent job. A C plus grade would be my grade.

The Sabres were a fringe playoff team entering the season. The expectation was that they would be competing for a wildcard spot. That is exactly where they are at. If you expected the team to be beyond that range this year then it is you who are expecting too much. No one is disputing that this is not a complete roster. Murray knows that. The problem I have with your jaundiced viewpoint is that it lacks perspective. Go back two years and compare it to where the team is now. Maybe not for you but this is not just incremental progress, it is a major leap forward with still more to do. It is a tired cliche to say "trust the process". My recommendation to you is to be a tad more patient and "trust the process".

Bill, Maybe my view on Whaley was inflated because in comparison to the other clueless GMs this staggering organization has had he at least had the appearance of being normal. Levy/Brandon/Country Buddy to Buddy Nix. Is this not more of a Hee Haw outfit? My main criticism of Whaley is that he is more of a tactical thinker instead of a strategic thinker. He has more of a patchwork approach to roster building instead of a conceptual and strategic approach to constructing a roster. As a GM he acts as if his role is that of a scout instead of the more encompassing role of a GM. I have come to the conclusion a long time ago that unless a GM is able to address the qb issue at a respectable level over a reasonable period of time then that GM is a failure regardless of whatever else he has done. I have not disqualified Whaley yet but I am starting to move in that negative direction. The harsh reality is that this franchise has not had a legitimate franchise qb in 20 years. Yet this organization still dawdles! Their response to the void at qb is to focus more on the DB crop in the draft. Bill, comparing this befuddled franchise to the Pats in any category is outlandish. The Bills are kindergartners competing with a student body composed of Noble Laureates, The disparity is embarrassing. I said it before and I will say it again: Any organization that hires Rex Ryan to be their HC forfeits its right to be taken seriously. It's sad, so sad.

A sure fire top 4 D is not going to be a cheap player. If a team has that caliber of player under contract for four years why would they pick up a high scoring talent who is under contract for only another year? Then the team will have to deal with a player who is going to be a high cost player for them or have to dispatch him because of the expected cost. My position is you already have a player who is one to the top five on five goal scorers in the league. Even if we get a top four defenseman that is not going to come close to replacing a commodity that is considered more precious, an accomplished goal scorer. There are goal scorers who are basically just snipers. Vanek comes to mind who fits that description. Kane is a well rounded player who does everything. He scores goals, he plays on the power play, he kills penalties, he checks, he is a gritty player. He is a multi-faceted player whose value goes beyond his stats. This offseason the team will be shedding some contracts and be in a favorable position to add another one or two solid to good defensemen to the roster. Guhle will also be added to the unit. My position is our defense situation is not as dire as many are making it out to be. The Pyatt for Kulikov trade was a bad deal. An efficient and dependable player was traded for a more physical but erratic player who has a tendency to neatly put the puck on the opponent's stick in their end. I'm not sure if Kulikov is going to be back next season or if I even want him.

Let's work together to kidnap Plenzmd1, the leading voice of the chorus to trade him. I'll make the arrangements to dispose of the body. I have relatives who are in the garbage disposal business. I'm confident you know what I mean! One of the key and irreplaceable players on this team is Risto. Paul Hamilton said after the game that the Leafs made a concerted effort to get him off the ice by instigating behavior to get him to respond and take him off the ice. It was very evident in this game that he was being targeted. Actually good strategy. Wouldn't it be great if and when both teams get real good that a true bitter rivalry materialized?