Buddy on Shredd and Ragan a few minutes ago

[eball]

Because he was told bo Overdorf to choose a high-priced player to get rid of, and he chose Evans as the most expendable. And now he's giving multiple, transparent reasons "justifying" it. Kind-of like cutting Hangartner - a guard - because he "can't play guard".

 

Really...after eleven years of questionable personnel decisions...it's that hard to believe that the personnel people aren't making all the personnel decisions?

In order to buy into your theory we must believe Buddy Nix is a 100%, grade A certified, stone cold, two-faced liar. I'm not willing to take that step.

 

Just because YOU don't understand the rationale for cutting Hangartner -- another one-trick pony (center) who was downright horrid trying to play guard against 2nd and 3rd stringers -- doesn't mean it isn't a legitimate football decision. Buddy explained this perfectly, in case you missed it. They already have a backup C in Levitre, so keeping a guy who is "only" a backup C and can't play G doesn't make any sense. Sure, if your roster was 60 players you could keep Hangman as your backup C, but that's not the situation.

 

Edit: I realize Hangman backed up at G for Carolina in 2007 and 2008, but he was absolutely horrible for the Bills this preseason in that capacity.

 

It is quite maddening to hear all of you continue to heap the past 11 years of crap upon two gentlemen (Nix and Gailey) who have been around for only 20 months.

 

Do you really believe Nix, at this stage of his life and career, has any interest playing patsy to bean-counters rather than making the decisions he feels are in the best interests of the team? He doesn't need this GM job, or the headaches of trying to deal with an owner tying his hands. Whaley wouldn't want to be around to inherit the job if he knew this would be the case as well. Nobody seems to be able to answer those questions -- they just fall back on conspiracy theories about how Ralph is hoarding his millions and sends his cronies out to "tell the GM to cut an expensive player."

 

It's pretty ludicrous.

Edited September 7, 2011 by eball

[GG]

In order to buy into your theory we must believe Buddy Nix is a 100%, grade A certified, stone cold, two-faced liar. I'm not willing to take that step.

 

Then why has the story on trading Evans keep evolving? Why wasn't Evans traded last year if he's a detrimental one-trick pony?

 

Shall we revisit Bills' offensive output without Evans in the lineup last year?

 

Just because YOU don't understand the rationale for cutting Hangartner -- another one-trick pony (center) who was downright horrid trying to play guard against 2nd and 3rd stringers -- doesn't mean it isn't a legitimate football decision. Buddy explained this perfectly, in case you missed it. They already have a backup C in Levitre, so keeping a guy who is "only" a backup C and can't play G doesn't make any sense. Sure, if your roster was 60 players you could keep Hangman as your backup C, but that's not the situation.

 

It is quite maddening to hear all of you continue to heap the past 11 years of crap upon two gentlemen (Nix and Gailey) who have been around for only 20 months.

 

Do you really believe Nix, at this stage of his life and career, has any interest playing patsy to bean-counters rather than making the decisions he feels are in the best interests of the team? He doesn't need this GM job, or the headaches of trying to deal with an owner tying his hands. Whaley wouldn't want to be around to inherit the job if he knew this would be the case as well. Nobody seems to be able to answer those questions -- they just fall back on conspiracy theories about how Ralph is hoarding his millions and sends his cronies out to "tell the GM to cut an expensive player."

 

It's pretty ludicrous.

 

Yes, we're talking about guy in his 70s, who has never been a candidate for the GM job until he parachuted at OBD.

 

There is no need for a conspiracy theory to decipher the behind the scenes at OBD. It has been fairly constant for over 50 years. You may think that the football people run the team, but in the end, the business side runs the whole show. There's no reason to doubt that Nix & Gailey are trying to build a winner. But the financial constraint that they have - cash to cap, limited bids on high value free agents - severely limits their ability to build a winner. It basically forces them to hit home runs with every single draft pick or street FA pick up. So far, they've been hitting singles & doubles.

 

In the end, they will probably be a better team than last year. But they're still far away from being competitive and may never be competitive under the current mandate. If you can't see that trading Evans & cutting Hangartner was a pure salary dump, considering their replacements, then Ralph Wilson Enterprises thanks you for your support.

Edited September 7, 2011 by GG

[Kelly the Dog]

Do you really believe Nix, at this stage of his life and career, has any interest playing patsy to bean-counters rather than making the decisions he feels are in the best interests of the team? He doesn't need this GM job, or the headaches of trying to deal with an owner tying his hands. Whaley wouldn't want to be around to inherit the job if he knew this would be the case as well. Nobody seems to be able to answer those questions -- they just fall back on conspiracy theories about how Ralph is hoarding his millions and sends his cronies out to "tell the GM to cut an expensive player."

 

It's pretty ludicrous.

IMO, Buddy Nix and Chan Gailey are both very smart, highly qualified and experienced, honorable, old-fashioned football men. I'm very happy with both of them leading my team. I've grown to love Chan as a coach. I always kinda liked Nix.

 

I also think that due to their age and experience, they were never going to get their dream job outside of Buffalo. I would bet anything Buddy Nix would have loved to be a GM in his career, and he should have been. Gailey was probably not going to get a lot (read: any) HC jobs outside of the Bills.

 

They were both offered the Bills job knowing there were some downsides, like not having total control and having a meddlesome owner. They considered everything, and decided to take the job because not taking it would mean they would never fulfill their ultimate dreams.

 

They didn't have to be lackeys one bit. 95% of the time they were allowed to do their jobs as they pleased. But they didn't have full and utter control.

 

I would have made the exact same decision to accept the job as they did, and been happy with the decision to this day. And I think 99% of the posters here would have as well.

 

That is not at all, IMO, a far-fetched scenario.

Edited September 7, 2011 by Kelly the Fair and Balanced Dog

[Casey D]

In order to buy into your theory we must believe Buddy Nix is a 100%, grade A certified, stone cold, two-faced liar. I'm not willing to take that step.

 

Just because YOU don't understand the rationale for cutting Hangartner -- another one-trick pony (center) who was downright horrid trying to play guard against 2nd and 3rd stringers -- doesn't mean it isn't a legitimate football decision. Buddy explained this perfectly, in case you missed it. They already have a backup C in Levitre, so keeping a guy who is "only" a backup C and can't play G doesn't make any sense. Sure, if your roster was 60 players you could keep Hangman as your backup C, but that's not the situation.

 

Edit: I realize Hangman backed up at G for Carolina in 2007 and 2008, but he was absolutely horrible for the Bills this preseason in that capacity.

 

It is quite maddening to hear all of you continue to heap the past 11 years of crap upon two gentlemen (Nix and Gailey) who have been around for only 20 months.

 

Do you really believe Nix, at this stage of his life and career, has any interest playing patsy to bean-counters rather than making the decisions he feels are in the best interests of the team? He doesn't need this GM job, or the headaches of trying to deal with an owner tying his hands. Whaley wouldn't want to be around to inherit the job if he knew this would be the case as well. Nobody seems to be able to answer those questions -- they just fall back on conspiracy theories about how Ralph is hoarding his millions and sends his cronies out to "tell the GM to cut an expensive player."

 

It's pretty ludicrous.

Some people refuse to accept the fact that multiple factors can go into these decisions. If Evans or Hangartner is only marginally better than the alternative, then of course the fact that the guy makes, relatively speaking, a lot of money is a reason to go with the almost as good cheaper guy. This is especially true if the cheaper guy is viewed to have upside, and the higher paid guy is in decline. It also helps that Evans fetched a draft pick, which is coin of the realm in Nix's world.

 

At the end of the day, everyone is both right and wrong vis the decisions to get rid of Evans and Hangartner. Were they worthless players--no. Were they great players-- no. Was Evans better than the alternatives-- yes but he is not a good fit in the current offense. Would Hangartner or Evan get us even one more win--doubtful. Given all this, is saving money, developing younger players and getting a draft pick a reasonable decision while leaving the team a bit weaker short term-- I'd say yes. You can obviously disagree, but this is what happened in my view.

 

That is why the JW NGU debate presented a false dichotomy. They were both right. Just different emphasis in my judgment on money versus performance. End of the day, paying a lot more for something only a little better is not always the right move. CD

[eball]

Then why has the story on trading Evans keep evolving? Why wasn't Evans traded last year if he's a detrimental one-trick pony?

 

Shall we revisit Bills' offensive output without Evans in the lineup last year?

Why wasn't Trent Edwards cut in preseason, but instead was handed the starting job for two games? Because Gailey is incompetent? Everyone keeps exaggerating what Nix and Gailey have said. They didn't say Evans isn't a very good ballplayer, they said his profile doesn't fit what they want to do.

 

 

Yes, we're talking about guy in his 70s, who has never been a candidate for the GM job until he parachuted at OBD.

 

There is no need for a conspiracy theory to decipher the behind the scenes at OBD. It has been fairly constant for over 50 years. You may think that the football people run th eteam, but in the end, the business side runs the whole show. There's no reason to doubt that Nix & Gailey are trying to build a winner. But the financial constraint that they have - cash to cap, limited bids on high value free agents - severely limits their ability to build a winner. It basically forces them to hit home runs with every single draft pick or street FA pick up. So far, they've been hitting singles & doubles.

 

In the end, they will probably be a better team than last year. But they're still far away from being competitive and may never be competitive under the current mandate. If you can't see that trading Evans & cutting Hangartner was a pure salary dump, considering their replacements, then Ralph Wilson Enterprises thanks you for your support.

Personnel decisions often come down to salary, sure. You're comparing employee A and employee B. A has been at your company for 10 years and does a very good job. B has been around for 2 years and isn't quite as good as A at some things, but he does a lot more around the office and doesn't complain about it; he also got to know the new boss and makes an effort to learn other aspects of the job. By the way, B makes about 1/2 as much money as A. Somebody has to go because you don't need two guys doing the same job. Of course A is going to get the axe.

 

Look, nobody said football isn't a business. What I take issue with is the presumption Nix was "told" to dump salary. I simply don't believe it.

[GG]

Look, nobody said football isn't a business. What I take issue with is the presumption Nix was "told" to dump salary. I simply don't believe it.

 

Really? Is that why Nix's first rationale for the trade was that they didn't want to lose some of the talent they had at WR - and then they proceeded to cut those guys and no other NFL team picked them up?

 

If you believe everything the front office says, how dare they cut Namaan Roosvelt who was hailed by Gailey as an undiscovered gem? You know, the not so talented guy in the nuclear science lab who makes up for it by sweeping the floors?

 

Fact is, this offense is significantly worse without Evans in it. The only reason that Evans doesn't fit this offense is that Gailey needs to triage the game plan to feature quick dump offs & underneath passes. Great offensive plan for sustained 5 play 40-yard drives.

[DC Tom]

In order to buy into your theory we must believe Buddy Nix is a 100%, grade A certified, stone cold, two-faced liar. I'm not willing to take that step.

 

Just because YOU don't understand the rationale for cutting Hangartner -- another one-trick pony (center) who was downright horrid trying to play guard against 2nd and 3rd stringers -- doesn't mean it isn't a legitimate football decision. Buddy explained this perfectly, in case you missed it. They already have a backup C in Levitre, so keeping a guy who is "only" a backup C and can't play G doesn't make any sense. Sure, if your roster was 60 players you could keep Hangman as your backup C, but that's not the situation.

 

Edit: I realize Hangman backed up at G for Carolina in 2007 and 2008, but he was absolutely horrible for the Bills this preseason in that capacity.

 

Conversely, just because YOU don't understand the Bills' front office's drive for profitability doesn't mean that cutting Hangartner wasn't motivated by money. Certainly, cutting pretty much your only veteran depth on a line so lacking in depth that you couldn't field a consistent unit all preseason isn't a very good football move.

 

It is quite maddening to hear all of you continue to heap the past 11 years of crap upon two gentlemen (Nix and Gailey) who have been around for only 20 months.

 

Really? You invest this much effort (not much, I understand) into arguing that I'm wrong saying Nix and Gailey aren't responsible for the cuts...then turn around and say I'm heaping the past 11 years of crap on them? If you're going to argue with me, at least don't be such a raging dumbass about it and contradict yourself. I'm heaping the past 11 years of crap on the bean-counters responsible for the last 11 years of crap. I'm pretty much absolving Nix and Gailey of responsibility.

 

Do you really believe Nix, at this stage of his life and career, has any interest playing patsy to bean-counters rather than making the decisions he feels are in the best interests of the team? He doesn't need this GM job, or the headaches of trying to deal with an owner tying his hands. Whaley wouldn't want to be around to inherit the job if he knew this would be the case as well. Nobody seems to be able to answer those questions -- they just fall back on conspiracy theories about how Ralph is hoarding his millions and sends his cronies out to "tell the GM to cut an expensive player."

 

It's pretty ludicrous.

 

I think Nix and Gailey are responsible to THEIR bosses...and when their bosses say "Cut a high-priced player, here's a list to pick from," they either say "Okay" or "I quit" (which meddling and constraints are, I suspect, why Mularkey bailed). "Ludicrous" is thinking that it'll be different for Nix and Gailey, because after decades of !@#$ing up the boneheads counting the money have somehow learned their lesson.

[shrader]

In order to buy into your theory we must believe Buddy Nix is a 100%, grade A certified, stone cold, two-faced liar. I'm not willing to take that step.

 

So he's either constantly lying or always telling it like it is? No, the real truth, as usual, lies somewhere in the middle. You show me a GM who is completely up front and 100% honest and I'll show you a guy on the unemployment line. There are some things that Nix is never going to say because it undermines the job he is trying to complete. I have absolutely no problem with that.

[HuSeYiN1978]

Yeah i read about this interview fully last night but didnt have the patience to type everything down... Good job E... Now let's get a win...

[eball]

Really? Is that why Nix's first rationale for the trade was that they didn't want to lose some of the talent they had at WR - and then they proceeded to cut those guys and no other NFL team picked them up?

 

If you believe everything the front office says, how dare they cut Namaan Roosvelt who was hailed by Gailey as an undiscovered gem? You know, the not so talented guy in the nuclear science lab who makes up for it by sweeping the floors?

 

Fact is, this offense is significantly worse without Evans in it. The only reason that Evans doesn't fit this offense is that Gailey needs to triage the game plan to feature quick dump offs & underneath passes. Great offensive plan for sustained 5 play 40-yard drives.

There are lots of plausible explanations. For one, there was no reason to trash Evans on his way out the door. He was traded to a contender and praised for what he gave the Bills. Only after everyone started calling it a "salary dump" and criticizing the Bills for not getting a higher draft pick did Nix feel the need to come out and expand upon what Gailey said during camp -- that Evans didn't fit what they were trying to do.

 

As for those talented receivers? Jones is now the #2. Easley made the team. Nelson proved to be valuable last year. Smith is a high profile FA signing and an undeniable talent. The others (Johnson, Parrish) weren't going anywhere. ALL of these receivers (with the exception of Parrish) are big bodies willing to play physical football, be it short, medium, or deep routes. So your point is?

 

Everyone wants to make this so cut and dried. It's just not that simplistic. What continues to astound me, however, is how many people accept as gospel that Ralph and his cronies are ordering Nix to save money.

[GG]

Everyone wants to make this so cut and dried. It's just not that simplistic. What continues to astound me, however, is how many people accept as gospel that Ralph and his cronies are ordering Nix to save money.

 

You have your rosy eyed opinion and I have my pessimistic opinion that's clouded by a 50-year period of consistency. Who's view is probably closer to the truth.

 

Take a look at the depth chart and tell me if cutting Hangartner wasn't driven mostly by money.

 

Very quietly Easley went from a penciled-in starter to 3rd string. Outside Stevie, how many of these guys would start on another NFL team? If you are Rex Ryan, exactly which of the mentioned players cause you to design your defense around? Bills traded a bona fide NFL receiving threat to give plyaing time to a bunch of JAGs and we're supposed to take Nix's word that the offense will be improved by Evans' departure?

[eball]

Conversely, just because YOU don't understand the Bills' front office's drive for profitability doesn't mean that cutting Hangartner wasn't motivated by money. Certainly, cutting pretty much your only veteran depth on a line so lacking in depth that you couldn't field a consistent unit all preseason isn't a very good football move.

Geez, I know I'm a broken record, but it's NOT THAT SIMPLE. There are other positions, other considerations, besides just "cutting pretty much your only veteran depth." The roster is limited. The only position Buffalo felt comfortable subbing Hangman in was at C. That doesn't warrant a roster spot if you can get a guy who can back up three positions.

 

Really? You invest this much effort (not much, I understand) into arguing that I'm wrong saying Nix and Gailey aren't responsible for the cuts...then turn around and say I'm heaping the past 11 years of crap on them? If you're going to argue with me, at least don't be such a raging dumbass about it and contradict yourself. I'm heaping the past 11 years of crap on the bean-counters responsible for the last 11 years of crap. I'm pretty much absolving Nix and Gailey of responsibility.

You either misunderstand, or you're being intentionally obtuse. I'm critical of folks who seem to blame Nix and Gailey for the poor personnel decisions made over the past 11 years. In your case, that includes both your implication Nix is a liar and patsy for the bean-counters, and your placing of "phantom" blame upon the bean-counters who allegedly ordered the trade of Evans and cut of Hangman.

 

I think Nix and Gailey are responsible to THEIR bosses...and when their bosses say "Cut a high-priced player, here's a list to pick from," they either say "Okay" or "I quit" (which meddling and constraints are, I suspect, why Mularkey bailed). "Ludicrous" is thinking that it'll be different for Nix and Gailey, because after decades of !@#$ing up the boneheads counting the money have somehow learned their lesson.

Is it not possible that immediately post-Donahoe Ralph DID put restrictions in place, but after the failures of Marv/Dick he realized he should put the football decisions back in the hands of football people? Why is that so hard to believe? Everyone has suddenly forgotten how Ralph gave complete control to Donahoe just 10 short years ago.

[Malazan]

You're fighting a losing battle, eball, decisions obviously only have one factor, and one factor alone on TBD.

[RuntheDamnBall]

Geez, I know I'm a broken record, but it's NOT THAT SIMPLE. There are other positions, other considerations, besides just "cutting pretty much your only veteran depth." The roster is limited. The only position Buffalo felt comfortable subbing Hangman in was at C. That doesn't warrant a roster spot if you can get a guy who can back up three positions.

 

 

You either misunderstand, or you're being intentionally obtuse. I'm critical of folks who seem to blame Nix and Gailey for the poor personnel decisions made over the past 11 years. In your case, that includes both your implication Nix is a liar and patsy for the bean-counters, and your placing of "phantom" blame upon the bean-counters who allegedly ordered the trade of Evans and cut of Hangman.

 

 

Is it not possible that immediately post-Donahoe Ralph DID put restrictions in place, but after the failures of Marv/Dick he realized he should put the football decisions back in the hands of football people? Why is that so hard to believe? Everyone has suddenly forgotten how Ralph gave complete control to Donahoe just 10 short years ago.

I have kind of begun to accept that we're never really going to know exactly how things work inside OBD, but didn't it go around that Donahoe was getting calls from Ralph every day toward the end of his tenure? That kind of puts the lie to the "complete control" idea. Now, Donahoe may in fact have had complete control for awhile; it seems like he did, and Ralph says as much. But I think Ralph's reputation as a meddler is well-founded enough to suggest that once the Gregg Williams show ended, Ralph was beginning to exert more influence.

[LabattBlue]

You have your rosy eyed opinion and I have my pessimistic opinion that's clouded by a 50-year period of consistency. Who's view is probably closer to the truth.

 

Take a look at the depth chart and tell me if cutting Hangartner wasn't driven mostly by money.

 

Very quietly Easley went from a penciled-in starter to 3rd string. Outside Stevie, how many of these guys would start on another NFL team? If you are Rex Ryan, exactly which of the mentioned players cause you to design your defense around? Bills traded a bona fide NFL receiving threat to give plyaing time to a bunch of JAGs and we're supposed to take Nix's word that the offense will be improved by Evans' departure?

:thumbsup:

[Ramius]

There are lots of plausible explanations. For one, there was no reason to trash Evans on his way out the door. He was traded to a contender and praised for what he gave the Bills. Only after everyone started calling it a "salary dump" and criticizing the Bills for not getting a higher draft pick did Nix feel the need to come out and expand upon what Gailey said during camp -- that Evans didn't fit what they were trying to do.

 

As for those talented receivers? Jones is now the #2. Easley made the team. Nelson proved to be valuable last year. Smith is a high profile FA signing and an undeniable talent. The others (Johnson, Parrish) weren't going anywhere. ALL of these receivers (with the exception of Parrish) are big bodies willing to play physical football, be it short, medium, or deep routes. So your point is?

 

Everyone wants to make this so cut and dried. It's just not that simplistic. What continues to astound me, however, is how many people accept as gospel that Ralph and his cronies are ordering Nix to save money.

 

Just because Jones is listed as #2 on the depth chart doesn't mean that he's anything close to resembling a #2 WR. With a straight face, tell me which starting lineup causes more problems...Evans/Johnson or Johnson/Jones? There was no football reason to trade Evans because a)there isn't someone who is proven they are as good as Evans is, and b)Evans on the team in 2011 and 2012 does a lot more good than a 4th round pick in 2012 will do.

 

This was a salary dump, much like the Hangartner move. If the Bills were $2 mil under the cap, you could justify trading Evans to free up room. But we're 26 million under. The only impact the Evans trade was to pad ralphie's wallet.

 

In the past 11 years, despite all the change, there's been 3 constants at OBD. Ralph, Littman, and Overdorf. Now you tell me who is running the show and where the problem lies.

[eball]

Very quietly Easley went from a penciled-in starter to 3rd string. Outside Stevie, how many of these guys would start on another NFL team? If you are Rex Ryan, exactly which of the mentioned players cause you to design your defense around? Bills traded a bona fide NFL receiving threat to give plyaing time to a bunch of JAGs and we're supposed to take Nix's word that the offense will be improved by Evans' departure?

If you want to question the football decision, be my guest. The bottom line is we won't know how that plays out until the season starts. But my point is just that -- it was a football decision first and foremost.

 

I promise you, if the Bills' offense takes a step backwards from last season (particularly the passing attack), I'll be the first to come on and say how wrong it was for the Bills to get rid of Evans.

 

But if the offense improves, I trust all of you who are so confident the Bills' passing game is going to suffer will be just as gracious.

[ieatcrayonz]

If you want to question the football decision, be my guest. The bottom line is we won't know how that plays out until the season starts. But my point is just that -- it was a football decision first and foremost.

 

I promise you, if the Bills' offense takes a step backwards from last season (particularly the passing attack), I'll be the first to come on and say how wrong it was for the Bills to get rid of Evans.

 

But if the offense improves, I trust all of you who are so confident the Bills' passing game is going to suffer will be just as gracious.

In what round of your fantasy football draft did you pick up Donald Jones?

[eball]

Just because Jones is listed as #2 on the depth chart doesn't mean that he's anything close to resembling a #2 WR. With a straight face, tell me which starting lineup causes more problems...Evans/Johnson or Johnson/Jones? There was no football reason to trade Evans because a)there isn't someone who is proven they are as good as Evans is, and b)Evans on the team in 2011 and 2012 does a lot more good than a 4th round pick in 2012 will do.

 

This was a salary dump, much like the Hangartner move. If the Bills were $2 mil under the cap, you could justify trading Evans to free up room. But we're 26 million under. The only impact the Evans trade was to pad ralphie's wallet.

 

In the past 11 years, despite all the change, there's been 3 constants at OBD. Ralph, Littman, and Overdorf. Now you tell me who is running the show and where the problem lies.

I'm through debating this point. I'll agree to disagree. The proof will be shown on the field -- the Bills' passing attack will either improve, decline, or stay about the same. I'm sure we'll all have our opinions once we see which of the three results occur.

 

In what round of your fantasy football draft did you pick up Donald Jones?

I didn't, but I did notice that Stevie Johnson went about 8 or 9 rounds higher than Lee Evans.

[shrader]

I'm through debating this point. I'll agree to disagree. The proof will be shown on the field -- the Bills' passing attack will either improve, decline, or stay about the same. I'm sure we'll all have our opinions once we see which of the three results occur.

 

That doesn't really say anything about how they would have done if they still had Evans this year. Obviously that comparison can never be made.