Over 29 years of fanhood Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 Without a plan in place going forward this was an absolutely pointless move at this time. The Bills should have already had multiple interviews scheduled for their permanent coach when they pulled the plug. Maybe they do, I don't know. But if not this move is just stupid and pointless.If they want to do anything positive in the near future they should have a coach in place by Thanksgiving (and I don't mean Fewell or April or anybody else on staff) and a new GM and a reorganized front office completed before Christmas. If they can't manage that, then this move was nothing but more of Ralph Wilson's mindless bullshlt. Ralph has been a respected businessman his whole life. We are talking about a sought after, highly compensated position, not the truck unlaoder at Walmart(not that there is anything wrong with that if thats how you choose to make a living). No way Ralph would act that unprofessionally, unethically and classless. Not even Al Davis is that slimy.
Beerball Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 I know something more stupid than firing Jauron. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hiring Jauron.
benderbender Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 I agree. I wont put it past the cryptkeeper to pull a stunt to fill seats. Was listening to the Redskin talking heads down here complaining about Daniel Snyder being a bad owner. When news of Jauron's firing broke they discussed Ralph Wilson being an "old school" bad owner.
Orton's Arm Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 Except for the perenially stupid "Rooting for high draft picks" bull ****. Back in 2001, the Bills played the Carolina Panthers. I really, really, really wanted the Bills to lose that game, to help their position in the draft. Instead they won! In the subsequent draft, the Carolina Panthers used the second overall pick to take Julius Peppers. Picking fourth overall, the Bills chose Mike Williams. More generally, higher draft picks are associated not just with better football players but with safer players. Meaning, that the first overall pick is more likely to be a non-bust than the tenth or twentieth overall pick. An early pick is also often associated with the opportunity to trade down. The trade-down opportunity gives you a first round pick similar to the one you would have had with a few extra meaningless wins, plus it gives you bonus picks or players for your trouble. A bonus you wouldn't have had had you gone the "meaningless wins" route. These are the clear benefits of eschewing meaningless wins. The main benefit to getting those meaningless wins is that they might help morale among your current players. Current players who, in many cases, need to be replaced anyway.
DC Tom Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 Back in 2001, the Bills played the Carolina Panthers. I really, really, really wanted the Bills to lose that game, to help their position in the draft. Instead they won! In the subsequent draft, the Carolina Panthers used the second overall pick to take Julius Peppers. Picking fourth overall, the Bills chose Mike Williams. More generally, higher draft picks are associated not just with better football players but with safer players. Meaning, that the first overall pick is more likely to be a non-bust than the tenth or twentieth overall pick. An early pick is also often associated with the opportunity to trade down. The trade-down opportunity gives you a first round pick similar to the one you would have had with a few extra meaningless wins, plus it gives you bonus picks or players for your trouble. A bonus you wouldn't have had had you gone the "meaningless wins" route. These are the clear benefits of eschewing meaningless wins. The main benefit to getting those meaningless wins is that they might help morale among your current players. Current players who, in many cases, need to be replaced anyway. Yes, but not losing football games is often associated with WINNING. Again, ask the Lions how well that whole "lose games and get high draft picks" plan has worked. Conversely, ask the Pats how poorly that whole "win lots of games and draft late" thing is going for them. Winning begets winning. Losing does NOT beget winning. How utterly predictable is it that you're even too retarded to understand the correlation between "winning" and "not losing".
I Billieve Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 It's against league policy for teams to talk to potential coaches when they still have a coach in place. This was the best way for Ralph to handle the situation. Fewell seems to be handling the transition with ease and will probably do better the Jauron. Now that we don't have a head coach we can talk to whoever we want about being our coach. Interim head coach is the exception to the policy. Also we are the only team right now that is able to talk to potential coaches. By waiting till the end of the year we would have been competing with at least 6 other teams for available coaches. Food for thought
Tunis69 Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 Without a plan in place going forward this was an absolutely pointless move at this time. The Bills should have already had multiple interviews scheduled for their permanent coach when they pulled the plug. Maybe they do, I don't know. But if not this move is just stupid and pointless.If they want to do anything positive in the near future they should have a coach in place by Thanksgiving (and I don't mean Fewell or April or anybody else on staff) and a new GM and a reorganized front office completed before Christmas. If they can't manage that, then this move was nothing but more of Ralph Wilson's mindless bullshlt. It's funny, RW just can't win on this board can he...? He's stupid for keeping him, he's stupid for firing him... Personally, I think RW was right for firing him when he did. There is no sense in keeping Jauron around if each week the Bills have been looking worse and worse. Maybe if he fires him, he can see if Fewell can cut it as a headcoach. And, it'll probably send a message to everyone on the roster that they better start playing their a$$ off or they may be next. And yes, it probably was a message to the fans too. He wants the fans to know that he is serious about winning. And besides, as some posted earlier, it would be classless for RW to already start interviewing someone before they fired Jauron.
GG Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 How utterly predictable is it that you're even too retarded to understand the correlation between "winning" and "not losing". I'm guessing the odds are one half of Jauron's wins in a full season in Buffalo.
fast*eddie Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 Without reading 5 pages of posts , Ralph did the right thing but should have done it sooner . I believe he was reacting to the out-cry of the fans for wanting something better ..........
Orton's Arm Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 Yes, but not losing football games is often associated with WINNING. Again, ask the Lions how well that whole "lose games and get high draft picks" plan has worked. Conversely, ask the Pats how poorly that whole "win lots of games and draft late" thing is going for them. Winning begets winning. Losing does NOT beget winning. How utterly predictable is it that you're even too retarded to understand the correlation between "winning" and "not losing". Do you know what was really utterly predictable about this discussion? No? Well, I'll tell you in a bit. But first I'll address the points you've made. The problem the Lions had wasn't where they were picking in the draft. It was that they had Matt Millen doing the picking. Do you want to see good draft picks? Take a good GM, and give him picks very early in the draft. That doesn't happen very often, because good GMs' teams tend to win more often than they lose. But when it does, watch out! Bill Polian certainly qualifies as a good GM; and he's used the first overall pick to take Peyton Manning. That's a clear case where losing games over the short-term has turned into more wins over the long run. Or perhaps you'd argue that the Colts would have had had just as many wins with some other QB picked 20th or 30th overall at the helm? As for the Patriots: they often have a tendency to trade away current draft picks or players for future draft picks. The Bills witnessed this when we traded away our first round pick for Drew Bledsoe. They also traded away a WR, I think to Seattle, in exchange for a first round pick. Then there was the time they managed to get San Francisco's first round pick, which was early in the draft, I think by having traded away their own first round pick the previous year. They recently traded away a defensive lineman for someone's first round pick. There are probably one or two other trades like that which I'm forgetting. As a result of these kinds of trades, the Patriots have ended up with earlier draft picks than you'd expect based on their record. Below is a list of the players the Patriots have drafted in the top 15, starting with the year 2001: 2001: 6th overall: Richard Seymour, DT 2003: 13th overall: Ty Warren, DE 2008: 10th overall: Jerod Mayo, ILB That's three very good football players! Now look at the first round picks the Patriots have had during that span with non-top 15 picks. 2002: 21st overall: Daniel Graham, TE 2004: 21st overall: Vince Wilfork, NT 2004: 32nd overall: Ben Watson, TE 2005: 32nd overall: Logan Mankins, G 2006: 21st overall: Laurence Maroney, RB 2007: 24th overall: Brandon Meriweather, DB There are some good football players in that group, but there are also some lesser players who bring down its overall average. At least over the past decade, the Patriots have done better with picks in the top 15 than with picks in the second half of the first round. You seem to think that "winning begets winning." I'd argue that good football players and a good coaching staff beget winning. If you want good football players, you're most likely to find them in the top half of the draft. Which is why the last thing this team needs is a few meaningless wins to close out the year.
12Kachy Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 This post is like a XXX pop up. You know it's stupid but you have to click it. What hell is wrong with you? If you go out and interview head coaches before you fire the current head coach, thats unprofessional and just sends a wrong signal to the whole team.
dave mcbride Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 Do you know what was really utterly predictable about this discussion? No? Well, I'll tell you in a bit. But first I'll address the points you've made. The problem the Lions had wasn't where they were picking in the draft. It was that they had Matt Millen doing the picking. Do you want to see good draft picks? Take a good GM, and give him picks very early in the draft. That doesn't happen very often, because good GMs' teams tend to win more often than they lose. But when it does, watch out! Bill Polian certainly qualifies as a good GM; and he's used the first overall pick to take Peyton Manning. That's a clear case where losing games over the short-term has turned into more wins over the long run. Or perhaps you'd argue that the Colts would have had had just as many wins with some other QB picked 20th or 30th overall at the helm? As for the Patriots: they often have a tendency to trade away current draft picks or players for future draft picks. The Bills witnessed this when we traded away our first round pick for Drew Bledsoe. They also traded away a WR, I think to Seattle, in exchange for a first round pick. Then there was the time they managed to get San Francisco's first round pick, which was early in the draft, I think by having traded away their own first round pick the previous year. They recently traded away a defensive lineman for someone's first round pick. There are probably one or two other trades like that which I'm forgetting. As a result of these kinds of trades, the Patriots have ended up with earlier draft picks than you'd expect based on their record. Below is a list of the players the Patriots have drafted in the top 15, starting with the year 2001: 2001: 6th overall: Richard Seymour, DT 2003: 13th overall: Ty Warren, DE 2008: 10th overall: Jerod Mayo, ILB That's three very good football players! Now look at the first round picks the Patriots have had during that span with non-top 15 picks. 2002: 21st overall: Daniel Graham, TE 2004: 21st overall: Vince Wilfork, NT 2004: 32nd overall: Ben Watson, TE 2005: 32nd overall: Logan Mankins, G 2006: 21st overall: Laurence Maroney, RB 2007: 24th overall: Brandon Meriweather, DB There are some good football players in that group, but there are also some lesser players who bring down its overall average. At least over the past decade, the Patriots have done better with picks in the top 15 than with picks in the second half of the first round. You seem to think that "winning begets winning." I'd argue that good football players and a good coaching staff beget winning. If you want good football players, you're most likely to find them in the top half of the draft. Which is why the last thing this team needs is a few meaningless wins to close out the year. I'll add: Look at the Ravens' drafting between 1996-2000. All top ten picks: http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/fulldraft...5&type=team
timba Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 Having Jauron did nothing to help the team, so there won't be anything lost with him gone. It also lets them go and start interviewing people. Get a good grasp of the people they're interested and hopefully get one that will truly fit. It is also a means to appease the extremely PO'd fans who have been calling for Jaurons head since the end of last year.
Orton's Arm Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 I'll add: Look at the Ravens' drafting between 1996-2000. All top ten picks: http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/fulldraft...5&type=team That's an excellent point. All those top 10 picks to which you referred were pivotal components in the Ravens' Super Bowl winning team of 2000. 1996: 4th overall: Jon Ogden, LT 1997: 4th overall: Peter Boulware, OLB 1998: 10th overall: Duane Starks, CB 1999: 10th overall: Chris McAllister, CB 2000: 5th overall: Jamal Lewis, RB
KOKBILLS Posted November 20, 2009 Posted November 20, 2009 Without a plan in place going forward this was an absolutely pointless move at this time. The Bills should have already had multiple interviews scheduled for their permanent coach when they pulled the plug. Maybe they do, I don't know. But if not this move is just stupid and pointless.If they want to do anything positive in the near future they should have a coach in place by Thanksgiving (and I don't mean Fewell or April or anybody else on staff) and a new GM and a reorganized front office completed before Christmas. If they can't manage that, then this move was nothing but more of Ralph Wilson's mindless bullshlt. I hear what you're saying...But getting rid of Jauron at any time, for any reason, under any circumstance was OK in my book... I just wanted him gone under whatever scenerio it took...I can't see how Jauron being gone could be a bad thing...ever...
Rico Posted November 20, 2009 Posted November 20, 2009 I hear what you're saying...But getting rid of Jauron at any time, for any reason, under any circumstance was OK in my book... I just wanted him gone under whatever scenerio it took...I can't see how Jauron being gone could be a bad thing...ever... Say Fewell wins at least 4 out of the next 7 games. And the inner circle of stooges convince Ralph that it was DJ's fault all along. Next year, the inner circle of stooges, Fewell, and the loser Tampa 2 D-scheme all return. In this case, it would be better to let DJ crash and burn till the end of the year.
dave mcbride Posted November 20, 2009 Posted November 20, 2009 Say Fewell wins at least 4 out of the next 7 games. And the inner circle of stooges convince Ralph that it was DJ's fault all along. Next year, the inner circle of stooges, Fewell, and the loser Tampa 2 D-scheme all return. In this case, it would be better to let DJ crash and burn till the end of the year. If that happens, what do you think Perry will demand? $600k?
b stein 22 Posted November 20, 2009 Posted November 20, 2009 Firing Dj was stupid. Now the players have to produce or they will get cut. Not like Dj were he thought that veterans were better just because they are veterans. Now I get to see younger players like steve johnson finally get some playing time
Rico Posted November 20, 2009 Posted November 20, 2009 If that happens, what do you think Perry will demand? $600k? With all the $ Ralph would save, he might throw him a couple million, 1 year only... and of course, Fewell would take it in a second.
grelit Posted November 20, 2009 Posted November 20, 2009 Without a plan in place going forward this was an absolutely pointless move at this time. The Bills should have already had multiple interviews scheduled for their permanent coach when they pulled the plug. Maybe they do, I don't know. But if not this move is just stupid and pointless.If they want to do anything positive in the near future they should have a coach in place by Thanksgiving (and I don't mean Fewell or April or anybody else on staff) and a new GM and a reorganized front office completed before Christmas. If they can't manage that, then this move was nothing but more of Ralph Wilson's mindless bullshlt. I think its an addition by subtraction move....that simple.
Recommended Posts