tonyd19 Posted September 3, 2011 Posted September 3, 2011 Just got news hangman was cut.....I guess its because that makes the team better.
Nevergiveup Posted September 3, 2011 Posted September 3, 2011 Can I ask a related question: Does Ralph Wilson provide financial incentives to his executive staff for winning, or only for improved profitability? I understand why this information might be closely held between RW and the specific executives. However, if (for example) Littman receives a larger bonus for every $1M of profit, but any football-related bonuses are inconsequential, it is logical for him to be 100% focuses on the bottom line. Similarly for any other person in the organization. Sentimental desires to win are nice but in the end this is a business. Ralph Wilson's net worth increases whenever the value of the Bills as a team increases. JW has stated many times that he does not believe Ralph is "only" interested in money, and I believe that. However if he provides financial incentives that drive financial-oriented behavior, then his leadership style is to blame whether intentional or not. Similarly, if he has placed in a decision-making role someone who is primarily incentivized by financial results then that is what he is likely to get. Any light that can be shed on this question? I am not sure how to answer that one. It is not that clear cut on the financial incentives. As you all know, you are dealing with an owner that should not be making any decisions relative to an NFL team. It really is as simple as that.
Mr. WEO Posted September 3, 2011 Posted September 3, 2011 My uninformed speculation is that JW feels it is not appropriate to "report further" on a published article via an Internet forum. If I was the AP, I would not encourage reporters to post stories officially, then add more to the story via unofficial channels. I do not pretend to understand the distinction but there must be some line between his usual participation and this question, which he is unwilling to cross. I think we (as a board) should leave it alone even though we are curious. I think this is total BS. If it is a fact that someone other than the Bills GM conceived of and executed the trade then jw is free to report it, as it is obviously newsworthy. If it was true, there would be nothing preventing him from reporting it other than perhaps his concern for his precious locker room access. Schefter would have reported it.
Nevergiveup Posted September 3, 2011 Posted September 3, 2011 Did the Bills actually think that marv would have been a good GM? He was cheap and a name people liked. Only one person thought he would be a good GM. The only one that mattered.
HalftimeAdjustment Posted September 3, 2011 Posted September 3, 2011 I am not sure how to answer that one. It is not that clear cut on the financial incentives. As you all know, you are dealing with an owner that should not be making any decisions relative to an NFL team. It really is as simple as that. Thanks, that is a better answer than none at all.
Nevergiveup Posted September 3, 2011 Posted September 3, 2011 I think this is total BS. If it is a fact that someone other than the Bills GM conceived of and executed the trade then jw is free to report it, as it is obviously newsworthy. If it was true, there would be nothing preventing him from reporting it other than perhaps his concern for his precious locker room access. Schefter would have reported it. If that were true, it should have been a bigger story. Indeed, and it is a shame, since his implication has allowed people from Jerry Sullivan to KTFABD to build entire thought castles on it, even in the face of intriguing contradictory evidence. Well stated
the_franchise Posted September 3, 2011 Posted September 3, 2011 I think its great having NGU and JW posting on here. It'd be even better if TG was still posting here and there but you know how that goes. I think with a track record like NGU's, until he starts missing the target with his comments (about the team)you can't really dispute much. That being said you can't get your news from just one network. The internet doesn't care about your feelings. And most message board users are not typically politically correct. On a side note, What is the attitude in the locker room? It is closer to drafting Andrew Luck, do these guys respect Chan/Nix and co, or do some of these guys just collect a pay check?
Nevergiveup Posted September 3, 2011 Posted September 3, 2011 Actually, all I want to know is if you know for a fact how this particular trade went down and willing to put your reputation on it OR whether what you said is simply how this front office works. It is how it works and Overdorf was not "behind" this trade. Not sure why you keep asking. You seem compelled to beleive otherwise. It is so ridiculous it did not deserve this much conversation.
Sisyphean Bills Posted September 3, 2011 Posted September 3, 2011 Yes Kelly. I would say that. Overdorf has no inout into what the team can or cannot afford. He does what he is told. Now could Ralph or Littman been invloved. Absolutely. Something doesn't add up. The guy that handles the cap and player contracts has no input into the biggest liability of the business? So basically, you are saying he is nothing but a puppet. That would imply that he could not have handled a trade or really done much of anything without someone else pulling his strings and pointing him to the right boxes in the spreadsheet then? The next question would be why would someone want to set the record absolutely straight about a guy who's role is nothing more than a puppet? In fact, wouldn't this act take some ire off Overdorf and redirect it towards the puppet master?
Nevergiveup Posted September 3, 2011 Posted September 3, 2011 Something doesn't add up. The guy that handles the cap and player contracts has no input into the biggest liability of the business? So basically, you are saying he is nothing but a puppet. That would imply that he could not have handled a trade or really done much of anything without someone else pulling his strings and pointing him to the right boxes in the spreadsheet then? The next question would be why would someone want to set the record absolutely straight about a guy who's role is nothing more than a puppet? In fact, wouldn't this act take some ire off Overdorf and redirect it towards the puppet master? It would direct it else where, but that was not the intent. I simply made the mistake of logging on today and saw something I thought would be easy to clear up. Man did it spiral out of control.
d_wag Posted September 3, 2011 Posted September 3, 2011 Yes. They can be inept. But of course they tried to get the best they could for him. Probably could have timed it better. But he made Travis Henry look like Justin Bieber. appreciate your honestly and insight - good shout
Kelly the Dog Posted September 3, 2011 Posted September 3, 2011 (edited) It is how it works and Overdorf was not "behind" this trade. Not sure why you keep asking. You seem compelled to beleive otherwise. It is so ridiculous it did not deserve this much conversation. Laughs. I keep asking because you haven't answered. In three separate attempts, you have not really answered the simple question. It's A or B, or both. I will respect your opinion either way. Therefore, I assume you don't have specific knowledge of how this trade actually went down, despite saying Overdorf was not "behind" it, which is the point in question. Instead, I assume you have rather specific and very believable knowledge of how the front office commonly works. And I thank you for it. Edited September 3, 2011 by Kelly the Fair and Balanced Dog
Nevergiveup Posted September 3, 2011 Posted September 3, 2011 Laughs. I keep asking because you haven't answered. In three separate attempts, you have not really answered the simple question. It's A or B, one or the other. I will respect your opinion either way. Therefore, I assume you don't have specific knowledge of how this trade actually went down, despite saying Overdorf was not "behind" it, which is the point in question. Instead, I assume you have rather specific and very believable knowledge of how the front office commonly works. And I thank you for it. Kelly. You know I can only go so far. So if it makes you feel better to assume or you think it helps you make your point, I understand. Enjoy your evening.
RJ (not THAT RJ) Posted September 3, 2011 Posted September 3, 2011 Laughs. I keep asking because you haven't answered. In three separate attempts, you have not really answered the simple question. It's A or B, or both. I will respect your opinion either way. Therefore, I assume you don't have specific knowledge of how this trade actually went down, despite saying Overdorf was not "behind" it, which is the point in question. Instead, I assume you have rather specific and very believable knowledge of how the front office commonly works. And I thank you for it. Kelly, I am confused. He says Overdorf was not behind the trade. Is that really not an answer, or just not the answer you hoped for?
Sisyphean Bills Posted September 3, 2011 Posted September 3, 2011 It would direct it else where, but that was not the intent. I simply made the mistake of logging on today and saw something I thought would be easy to clear up. Man did it spiral out of control. Does Overdorf report to Nix directly?
Acantha Posted September 3, 2011 Posted September 3, 2011 Something doesn't add up. The guy that handles the cap and player contracts has no input into the biggest liability of the business? So basically, you are saying he is nothing but a puppet. That would imply that he could not have handled a trade or really done much of anything without someone else pulling his strings and pointing him to the right boxes in the spreadsheet then? The next question would be why would someone want to set the record absolutely straight about a guy who's role is nothing more than a puppet? In fact, wouldn't this act take some ire off Overdorf and redirect it towards the puppet master? You're making some pretty big jumps there. What's hard to understand about this: 1. Evans isn't making a big difference on this team right now. He's getting older, he's got a big contract, and his one major skill set doesn't really jive with the system. He doesn't NEED to go, but there's just no point in having him here for the money. 2. Ralph or Nix/Gailey make the decision that he should be traded. Get something for him now, let the young guys get more time, and let him use his experience and speed on a team that wants it. Everyone gets what they want. 3. Overdorf is put in charge of the trade details. That's what he does as the money man, negotiate trades and contracts. Am I the only one that not only figured this was how it would work but also thought this is exactly what the JW article meant? Maybe this isn't at all what happens, but it certainly fits into the JW article and what NGU says. Unless JW wants to clarify his article, why is this in argument?
Billsfan4ever14580 Posted September 3, 2011 Posted September 3, 2011 Thank you to everyone who has been participating in this thread, specifically to JW and NGO. As everyone can see I do not post much but I want to say this has been the most entertaing thread I've ever read on TBD. My $0.02....both JW & NEO post great information for all of us and it's sad they had an argument over semantics. Both of you are great and I hope each of you keep providing the information you do!
Nevergiveup Posted September 3, 2011 Posted September 3, 2011 Does Overdorf report to Nix directly? Yes. As much as anyone can when you have the owner that the Bills have.
DaveinElma Posted September 3, 2011 Posted September 3, 2011 The ownership/inner circle is obviously concerned more about profit than winning, and its been put out to the public now. We have an actual move that doesn't make football sense but definitely puts $7 mil more in ralphie's pocket. THAT is why people are pissed and demand answers. Why was Reggie Corner cut and not Terrence McGee then? Spencer Johnson didn't get cut, neither did Byron Scott. Those 3 guys will all be just role players this year. Davis and Morrison both make in the millions and only one of them will be able to start. If it was all about profit those guys would have been cut.
RJ (not THAT RJ) Posted September 3, 2011 Posted September 3, 2011 You're making some pretty big jumps there. What's hard to understand about this: 1. Evans isn't making a big difference on this team right now. He's getting older, he's got a big contract, and his one major skill set doesn't really jive with the system. He doesn't NEED to go, but there's just no point in having him here for the money. 2. Ralph or Nix/Gailey make the decision that he should be traded. Get something for him now, let the young guys get more time, and let him use his experience and speed on a team that wants it. Everyone gets what they want. 3. Overdorf is put in charge of the trade details. That's what he does as the money man, negotiate trades and contracts. Am I the only one that not only figured this was how it would work but also thought this is exactly what the JW article meant? Maybe this isn't at all what happens, but it certainly fits into the JW article and what NGU says. Unless JW wants to clarify his article, why is this in argument? I agree. It is an argument because Jerry Sullivan and several posters on this board have tried to spin this into a "bean counters run the Bills" argument, and the evidence is shaky at best.
Recommended Posts