DonInBuffalo Posted November 18, 2009 Posted November 18, 2009 I may be reading your post wrong, but are you saying that if/when Ralph passes away, a guy like Mike Shanahan would be in Jeopardy of losing his job??? I don't get it...To clarify, I was thinking more along the lines of the new coach/GM thinking "I have to get this turned around before Ralph dies, or there's a good chance the new owner will decide to 'start fresh' with his own approach/staff".
billsrcursed Posted November 18, 2009 Posted November 18, 2009 It's more about the risk of the unknown. Would Shanahan/whoever want to work for a new owner and where would the team even go? Would the new owner want his own people? Hate to rain on people's dreams of getting a big-name GM or Coach, but with all the unknowns, Buffalo is the worst job outside of Oakland that a GM or Coach could take. We'll just agree to disagree then. I can list at least 5-6 other Teams that would be less desirable than the Bills. You're looking at it from a fan's perspective, which is fine. But a man looking for a job in the NFL as a Head Coach (if given the opportunity to run the show) would jump at the opportunity to land in an organization with as much history and fan base as the Bills.
BuffOrange Posted November 18, 2009 Posted November 18, 2009 Why does everyone keep saying this? There are at least 10 major "name" coaches out there. There are only 32 head coaching jobs in the world. Only 8 or so open every year. Of those some will teams like Washington, St. Lous, Kansas City, etc. The Bills are close. With a good QB and some work on the Lines, this could be a competitive team in short order. Buffalo's a great football town with great fans. There are a lot worse places they could go. I'm predicting we get a major "names" coach. I don't know if I feel as optimistic about it as you, but ya know - I'm sort of in the same boat as far as growing tired of the inferiority complex that people have. Over the years I've been ripped a lot for being pessimistic about a game, or a season, or one of our QB's. "Go root for someone else", "fairweather fan", "don't let the door hit you", etc. All that crap. And when an opportunity actually presents itself - like after this season - to actually turn things around, it seems some of those same people have the defeatist attitude that it's a forgone conclusion that we'll hire another loser. Do these coaches like to party in big cities until 4am? Is the weather in other Northeast cities great? Is the economy in Cleveland booming? Are Pittsburgh and GB happening places to be? They have SB trophies and we don't. Great, that makes them more attractive cities to live in? Yes, Ralph is an issue. Obviously. But if you don't have a glimmer of hope that the old man will write a check and hand over personnel decisions (which he has done this this decade) after eating $7 mill (which nobody thought he would do) then I just don't know why you would bother putting your time and energy into rooting for this team.
billsrcursed Posted November 18, 2009 Posted November 18, 2009 To clarify, I was thinking more along the lines of the new coach/GM thinking "I have to get this turned around before Ralph dies, or there's a good chance the new owner will decide to 'start fresh' with his own approach/staff". Ah, got it. Unwanted added pressure. I would like to think one of 3 things would happen; 1. Ralph passes sooner than later (not hoping for this) and the new owner gives the coach reasonable time to turn things around. 2. Ralph passes later than sooner and the new coach already has things turned around, so he stays 3. Ralph passes later than sooner and the new coach hasn't done anything to improve our team, he gets the can Whichever one happens, seems business as usual to me, I wouldn't avoid a job opportunity because of any of these scenarios being a possibility.
aristocrat Posted November 18, 2009 Posted November 18, 2009 a losing franchise is worth less than a winning one. i expect some cash to be spent this off season. new head coach with a couple free agents means we can be a contender. always an optimist
cusebob Posted November 18, 2009 Posted November 18, 2009 a losing franchise is worth less than a winning one. i expect some cash to be spent this off season. new head coach with a couple free agents means we can be a contender. always an optimist Not necessarily so. Forbes list for 2009 showed that the franchise value went up, despite repeated 7-9 seasons. Toronto games have boosted the team's bottom line.
Sen. John Blutarsky Posted November 18, 2009 Posted November 18, 2009 The defense isn't fine on its own. It needs a lot of help at LB. and a good DT to add to the rotation would also help. Here's my solution. our guys are too small right? OK. 3-4 then. Spencer Johnson kicks out to DE along with Kelsay/Denney and a cheaper FA. Stroud is the immediate NT but we try to go get one to rotate with Williams. Maybin and Schobel go to OLB (and don't give me crap about Schobel, he's already in coverage in this BS defense as a DE) Poz and Mitchell go inside or we sign someone like Kirk Morrison from Oakland to come to ILB. DBs remain virtually the same. CB is fine, Byrd is fine. We fish or cut bait with Whitner and sign a guy like Ryan Clark while we groom a replacement from elsewhere. Obviously there are bigger FA names out there but we're not going to be able to go sign Peppers AND Wilfork AND DeMeco Ryans AND Karlos Dansby so I tried to make the best of what we've already got and sprinkled in some mid level FAs. The way isee it we need new players either way so it's just a matter of picking which style you want to run. I feel like Schobel and Maybin scream to be 3-4 OLBs and Poz is a clear cut 3-4 ILB while guys like Kelsay Denney and Johnson can be productive 3-4 ends. The big hole is NT..Can Stroud play it? Can we get a Wilfork type guy in here? God forbid we unearth one like we did with Ted Washington.
BuffaloRebound Posted November 18, 2009 Posted November 18, 2009 We'll just agree to disagree then. I can list at least 5-6 other Teams that would be less desirable than the Bills. You're looking at it from a fan's perspective, which is fine. But a man looking for a job in the NFL as a Head Coach (if given the opportunity to run the show) would jump at the opportunity to land in an organization with as much history and fan base as the Bills. No. I am looking at it from a Coach or GM making a decision to come here. I'll add Jacksonville to Oakland as the only less desirable places for a GM/Coach. Detroit might be debatable as well due to their epic ineptitude, but at least you don't have to deal with the very real threat of new ownership and re-location. Fan base and tradition mean nothing when home games are being sold to Toronto and the 90 year old owner has no succession plan.
billsrcursed Posted November 18, 2009 Posted November 18, 2009 No. I am looking at it from a Coach or GM making a decision to come here. I'll add Jacksonville to Oakland as the only less desirable places for a GM/Coach. Detroit might be debatable as well due to their epic ineptitude, but at least you don't have to deal with the very real threat of new ownership and re-location. Fan base and tradition mean nothing when home games are being sold to Toronto and the 90 year old owner has no succession plan. How does playing one game a year in Toronto have any factor in a man making a career choice to run an NFL organization?? Again, I just think you're looking at it as a fan. Even if we agreed (which we don't) that Buffalo was the last team on a coaches list of "desirable" places to be employed, how many vacancies do you foresee this off-season?? And of those vacancies, how many are willing to hand over total control?? I may be mistaken, but I would like to think that more tenured coaches we're speaking of would be thrilled at the opportunity to be able to run the show. We also have some great young talent to work with. And like I already posted, the succession plan is meaningless if a coache's intentention is to turn things around and succeed.
DonInBuffalo Posted November 18, 2009 Posted November 18, 2009 Ah, got it. Unwanted added pressure. I would like to think one of 3 things would happen; 1. Ralph passes sooner than later (not hoping for this) and the new owner gives the coach reasonable time to turn things around. 2. Ralph passes later than sooner and the new coach already has things turned around, so he stays 3. Ralph passes later than sooner and the new coach hasn't done anything to improve our team, he gets the can Whichever one happens, seems business as usual to me, I wouldn't avoid a job opportunity because of any of these scenarios being a possibility. No. I am looking at it from a Coach or GM making a decision to come here. I'll add Jacksonville to Oakland as the only less desirable places for a GM/Coach. Detroit might be debatable as well due to their epic ineptitude, but at least you don't have to deal with the very real threat of new ownership and re-location. Fan base and tradition mean nothing when home games are being sold to Toronto and the 90 year old owner has no succession plan.I'm also looking at this from the perspective of someone who has worked for several companies that had a change of ownership. In all cases, the new owners made at least some significant changes almost immediately, and generally speaking all bets were off as far as being guaranteed to keep the same job you had under the previous ownership.
Omar Little Posted November 18, 2009 Posted November 18, 2009 Saw him on NFL network...he stated:-Trent is not a good QB for Buffalo, to be able to play in the "elements", arm's not strong enough (would be better off playing in dome) -Jauron's idea of defense personnel, quick and fast and smallish, didn't fit in the Buffalo elements, plus the smallish players are always getting hurt (that's dead on!) -Bills need a new QB and at least 1 other WR, not T.O. -Defense should be able to "take care of themselves" under the right leadership -They need to get bigger, stronger, and nastier.. Didn't think any of the major "names" would be interested in the Buffalo job. He recommended the Bills get an aspriring asst. coach from the Parcells/Belichek mold. He referenced Leslie Frazier (Vikings) or the Defensive Coach from the Bengals. Everything the guy said made real sense. Ralph should hire Jason LaCanfora as GM :-) Mike Lombardi said all that. You're confusing him with La Canfora.
Chalkie Gerzowski Posted November 18, 2009 Posted November 18, 2009 I guess you'd have to set down your criteria, but just off the top of my head:Ron Jaworski Don Criqui Pam Oliver Ron Pitts Steve Tasker Any of the Papas Nick Bakay Daryl Johnston I was referring more to media market people in Buffalo... like imagining Mike Schlupp over at WGR as an NFL "insider". Pam Oliver? I'll have to google that.
Thurman#1 Posted November 18, 2009 Posted November 18, 2009 your out of your mind williams and stroud were having a great year until williams got hurt. if fact williams was playing ! a probowl level! couldnt disagree with you assessement of our D/tackles more! Both were playing really well. And yet people were running on us. Both guys run about 310. We need one big fella in there, a 340 or 350 pounder, a Pat Williams type.
Thurman#1 Posted November 18, 2009 Posted November 18, 2009 Jason LaCanfora, Sage Steele, Bram Weinstein... Comcast Mid-Atlantic keeps sending people to the national airwaves... outside of Carucci, anyone else from the Buffalo market make it into the national sports realm? sorry to sidetrack your thread. Gregg Easterbrook.
Thurman#1 Posted November 18, 2009 Posted November 18, 2009 I don't see it. The Bills have 1 less home game than everyone else in the NFL and a 90 year-old owner who has not ensured at least publicly the franchise stays in Buffalo. Don't see anyone with other options coming here unless they have a connection/soft spot for Buffalo or Ralph privately assures him that the Bills are staying in Buffalo. If the Bills left Buffalo, it would be a disaster for the city, but a windfall for the team. Any coach / GM who got moved would probably be thrilled. And the reason the Toronto game hasn't been a home game atmosphere is simply that the Bills suck. Give them a good product and you'll have a home game feel up there.
DonInBuffalo Posted November 18, 2009 Posted November 18, 2009 I was referring more to media market people in Buffalo... like imagining Mike Schlupp over at WGR as an NFL "insider". Pam Oliver? I'll have to google that. There were some news/weather people that used local Buffalo news as a stepping stone to national level, CNN in particular. I can't think of anybody who worked on local network broadcasts that did anything national. The only people that come to mind are Ray Bentley and Steve Tasker, who did preseason games for the Bills before becoming network broadcasters. Tasker might even still have a weekly show on Channel 7 during the season.
Thurman#1 Posted November 18, 2009 Posted November 18, 2009 Here's my solution. our guys are too small right? OK. 3-4 then. Spencer Johnson kicks out to DE along with Kelsay/Denney and a cheaper FA. Stroud is the immediate NT but we try to go get one to rotate with Williams. Maybin and Schobel go to OLB (and don't give me crap about Schobel, he's already in coverage in this BS defense as a DE) Poz and Mitchell go inside or we sign someone like Kirk Morrison from Oakland to come to ILB. DBs remain virtually the same. CB is fine, Byrd is fine. We fish or cut bait with Whitner and sign a guy like Ryan Clark while we groom a replacement from elsewhere. Obviously there are bigger FA names out there but we're not going to be able to go sign Peppers AND Wilfork AND DeMeco Ryans AND Karlos Dansby so I tried to make the best of what we've already got and sprinkled in some mid level FAs. The way isee it we need new players either way so it's just a matter of picking which style you want to run. I feel like Schobel and Maybin scream to be 3-4 OLBs and Poz is a clear cut 3-4 ILB while guys like Kelsay Denney and Johnson can be productive 3-4 ends. The big hole is NT..Can Stroud play it? Can we get a Wilfork type guy in here? God forbid we unearth one like we did with Ted Washington. People have suggested these moves over and over, but they still don't make sense. There are two key guys on a 3 - 4 team, the nose tackle, who has to be huge and physically dominant. We don't have anyone like that. And the rush LB who has to be the most athletic guy on the field, fast enough to run around guys and tough enough to run through them even though he's smaller. We don't have anyone like that. 1) Stroud is way too small for a 3-4 NT. 2) Neither Maybin (too small, doesn't show much lateral movement), nor Schobel (big enough, but has never taken even one snap at LB, has never stood up and is a very fine athlete but not a great one) is the answer. And they are the only two who are even slightly close. The facts are that when teams switch from 4 - 3 to 3 - 4, they turn over 90% of their defensive roster within about two years. It's just what happens. There are two key holes in a 3 - 4, two key positions where you need a special player and we can't fill either one. If we do this, expect us to get decent late in the second year and good (if it every happens) early in the third, and that would also require us to draft a lot on defense, when you may have noticed we have a few problems on offense.
drg2021 Posted November 18, 2009 Posted November 18, 2009 So what's Trent's excuse for being terrible this year when he hasn't played in a game under 50 degrees.....it was 70 in Nashville, 80 in Miami, 80+ in the preseason in Buffalo, etc........how many excuses are there? How about he is a career back-up! I thought last year he was the future but over the past 20 games anyone can see he just doesn't get it, but he will be a decent 2nd string for some team and hopefully for him since he is a good guy makes a nice career out of it. The Turk was spot on when he got fired.This IS a POP-WARNER offense
Dante Posted November 18, 2009 Posted November 18, 2009 The point of our D (and the Colts, and Tampa's before this year) is to be filled with small, quick, finesse guys who can all fly to the ball and gang-tackle. It's a great philosophy for a dome team, because having a bunch of track stars on D can help combat high-powered offenses that are filled with their own track stars. But when the weather (and footing!) gets rough, our little guys just get shoved around. ah I don't know. We seem to look bad no matter what the weather is.
mrags Posted November 18, 2009 Posted November 18, 2009 your out of your mind williams and stroud were having a great year until williams got hurt. if fact williams was playing ! a probowl level! couldnt disagree with you assessement of our D/tackles more! They have been giving up 200 yard rushing games almost all year. As I agree that Williams and Stroud are not that bad, I dont think they are anywhere near the pro-bowl level you speak of.
Recommended Posts