Miyagi-Do Karate Posted December 20, 2011 Posted December 20, 2011 Here is a good and timely article about the type of organizational dysfunction that can afflict NFL teams: http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/On-the-Firing-Line-9215.html Here is the key excerpt which I think sheds light on the Bills' problems: The key to sustained success in the NFL is having buy-in from all three facets, with a singular focus and purpose. For instance, if a team is a "draft and develop" team reflecting a philosophy of the general manager to build from within – as the Packers – the coach and the contracts person (which I was in Green Bay) have to operate with that philosophy front of mind. The coaching staff must be willing to play young players and suffer through such inexperience. They must accept that they will not be rewarded with quick fixes or insurance policies to plug holes due to injury. "Draft and develop" coaching staffs must trust their scouts and must be willing to endure growing pains on the fly. Similarly, the contract side of the organization must allocate resources to securing core young players for the long-term rather than chasing high-priced players from other teams in free agency. I just think that's not the issue. Green Bay won the Superbowl last year with the highest number of IR'd players in the league. If you have depth and a solid system, you can overcome injuries. Although my suspicion is that the Bills' players don't get injured more, they just get IR'd more, because OBD doesn't believe that they'll need those players in late December and January and they want a chance to look at the young, cheaper replacements to see whether a change can be made. Honestly, it's easy for Green Bay to preach this when the only reason they win is because they have an all-world QB. They'd be an 8-8 team (probably worse) without Rodgers.
BEAST MODE BABY! Posted December 20, 2011 Posted December 20, 2011 We have a 93 year old confused guy from Detroit. Is anyone surprised? We have a 93 year-old confused guy whose business is insurance. And insurance is all about mitigating risk to preserve the bottom line. How Ralph runs this franchise should surprise no one. That said, I like what Nix is doing. Barnett is a huge improvement over Poz. San Fran can have Whitner. Wilson is better. We need some OLB's, a talented #2 WR and some additional talent on the OL. Another good TE would be a luxury. Next year I think we see a big improvement.
CodeMonkey Posted December 20, 2011 Posted December 20, 2011 We have a 93 year-old confused guy whose business is insurance. And insurance is all about mitigating risk to preserve the bottom line. How Ralph runs this franchise should surprise no one. That said, I like what Nix is doing. Barnett is a huge improvement over Poz. San Fran can have Whitner. Wilson is better. We need some OLB's, a talented #2 WR and some additional talent on the OL. Another good TE would be a luxury. Next year I think we see a big improvement. Seems to be the mantra of the Bills organization, "next year". Out of curiosity, last year about this time did you think there would be big improvement this year?
Fan in San Diego Posted December 20, 2011 Posted December 20, 2011 It will be interesting to see with the new CBA agreement where they are forced to spend closer to the cap. Not sure of the details but it does go up and up.
jcbillsfan Posted December 20, 2011 Posted December 20, 2011 You are wrong. I'm not going to dig it all up for you, but it was clear at the time that the decision to trade Evans was made by Ralph's accountants, and Nix and Buddy grudgingly went along with it because they had no choice. Ttyou are wrong . The theory you are following was presented by one writer and quickly denied by the team ,and never confirmed by another writer. either way it was a great move , save money and get a 4th round pick . It certainly is at least in part lack of investment.....letting Evans go at 3M per year and Handgartner as good center backup.....I dont buy the he can't play guard argument they gave. not one team in the league would have kept handgartner at that salary to be a back up . In the end urbik filled in well at center, the levitre week was a mistake . Agreed. You're not following the Bills if you think Evans was traded to improve the team. It was to improve the bottom line. Which is unfortunate because we basically traded Lee's salary for Brad Smith's salary, and now Brad the QB is out there running routes as our starting WR. A huge downgrade on an offense that didn't have much room to go down. Veteran WR's are important to have at times like these when your QB is struggling badly. Gets back to the original point about recycling players, which was a very solid observation. This is a team treading water. Expect 500 seasons at best until we spend what other teams are spending, and that involves paying some guys a little more than you think they're worth. Funny that last year's superbowl champs and the best team in the NFL is owned by shareholders, with a dynamic board of directors that make informed decisions and actively re-invest in their team. Proactive, planned guidance and thoughtful team direction, all in a market smaller than ours and look what they've acccomplished. We have a 93 year old confused guy from Detroit. Is anyone surprised? He was traded for several reasons/ He didnt like to run slants , which as a Bill fan you see how many they run. Secondly he was blocking the development of other players. One was easly and it was unfortunite that he had an issue . The Parrish injury hurt . No. You plan by having young guys ready to step into starting roles, which allows you to let certain players to walk. The steelers don't lets "stars" go unless they have a replacement already on the roster ready to step in. The Bills do it ass backwards by cutting someone and then scrambling to find a replacement. what stars have the bills let go under Buddy. The problem was lack of drafted talent under the dickie j group. Now if levitre, wood, johnson, bryd are allowed to walk in the next two years. THne you have a valid argument .
8-8 Forever? Posted December 20, 2011 Posted December 20, 2011 They let starters walk in free agency and draft players to fill manufactured roster holes. And they don't compensate by signing starters in free agency because they don't want to pay market rates. Barnett was a nice get - but there is no reason they couldn't have signed Barnett AND Poz, other than $$. And let's not forget, Barnett was a bargain because he was coming off of an injury. has it ever occurred to Bills fans that most players do not want to be with this franchise? They're drafted, the play out their 1st contract and get the H..ll out. minor league developmental team for the rest of the league. If I was a nfl rock star I would not want to be in WNY either...
Tcali Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 It's a lack of investment. To be sure, the Bills lack roster depth, as they have for two decades. But I get concerned when posters and writers refer to this issue as though it's the cause of the Bills' current woes - it isn't. Rather, it's a symptom of a lack of investment in the product by OBD. To call the problem a "lack of depth" suggests that the issue can somehow be cured through one or two more drafts. But we all know that isn't the case, because the Bills have shown over and over again that they won't (i) re-sign their own players at market rates, or (ii) spend on free agents to improve the roster. So all that happens through the draft is a recylcing process, whereby we let Poz/Whitner walk and draft Sheppard/Searcy to replace them. Next year no doubt we'll draft Evans' replacement. The fundamental problem is a lack of investment by the owner and his bean counters. The entire concept of "building through the draft," as preached by Nix, is a sham, because the philosophy doesn't work if you don't continue to accumulate players through free agency or re-signing your own guys. In order to have depth, you need to invest $$ in your personnel, in at least one of those two ways. The Bills do neither. Most successful teams focus on at least one or the other - Green Bay and Pittsburgh draft well and tend to re-sign their best players to second contracts (though not all of them); San Francisco has 7 starters this year that it signed as free agents. Again, I know this isn't a new point - we all know where the Bills' struggles derive from. I just don't want the discussion about "lack of depth" to lose sight of what the issue really is. The Bills don't invest. They don't rebuild - they recycle. They are built to turn a profit for their ownership with minimal personnel expenditures, and they have succeeded in doing so. They are built to sell tickets in July and August. They are not built to compete in December and January. poz ,whitner,evans--all good moves. problem is we have to do something positive on the other end. poz is an average LB who got paid a mint. whitner has no ball skills altho he is an ok tackler.evans---old/injured now most of the time.we got a 4th for a guy who woulda played only a few games--and even if he did try to play well for us his forte is the long route which fitzy cant throw.
Bruce Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 It's a lack of investment. To be sure, the Bills lack roster depth, as they have for two decades. But I get concerned when posters and writers refer to this issue as though it's the cause of the Bills' current woes - it isn't. Rather, it's a symptom of a lack of investment in the product by OBD. To call the problem a "lack of depth" suggests that the issue can somehow be cured through one or two more drafts. But we all know that isn't the case, because the Bills have shown over and over again that they won't (i) re-sign their own players at market rates, or (ii) spend on free agents to improve the roster. So all that happens through the draft is a recylcing process, whereby we let Poz/Whitner walk and draft Sheppard/Searcy to replace them. Next year no doubt we'll draft Evans' replacement. The fundamental problem is a lack of investment by the owner and his bean counters. The entire concept of "building through the draft," as preached by Nix, is a sham, because the philosophy doesn't work if you don't continue to accumulate players through free agency or re-signing your own guys. In order to have depth, you need to invest $$ in your personnel, in at least one of those two ways. The Bills do neither. Most successful teams focus on at least one or the other - Green Bay and Pittsburgh draft well and tend to re-sign their best players to second contracts (though not all of them); San Francisco has 7 starters this year that it signed as free agents. Again, I know this isn't a new point - we all know where the Bills' struggles derive from. I just don't want the discussion about "lack of depth" to lose sight of what the issue really is. The Bills don't invest. They don't rebuild - they recycle. They are built to turn a profit for their ownership with minimal personnel expenditures, and they have succeeded in doing so. They are built to sell tickets in July and August. They are not built to compete in December and January. I agree in principal with what you are saying...for some of it. Let's take your argument that building through the draft doesn't work. Not only is this biasedly untrue (as most of the league will attest), but to build off of free agent signings is brainless. Do I need to remind you of the pre-Shanahan, Snyder-owned Washington Redskins throwing money at any free agent with a pulse? That worked really well. I agree that what is really the cause of it all is Ralph and Overdorf/ Littman. A lack of investment in the product on the field is what has caused this decade of terrible play. But I don't see giving it a different name makes any difference. I say lack of depth. The Bills were 5-2, then lost most of their top WR's, Kyle Williams, Merriman (was he ever healthy?), Wood, both LT's...McGee...heck, even the Lindell went to IR. Once the starting lineup went down, so did the record. This, to me, says lack of depth because you should have good depth behind your starting lineup to see a minimal (if any) loss of production. So...yeah...not paying the Bills (no pun intended) when it came to player contracts over the past 10 years have taken their toll. I still think you keep Pat Williams, Antoine Winfield, and London Fletcher and build around those guys. Front office and coaching turnover/ bad decisions have influenced these moves, too. Donahoe supposedly was wanting to move away from those players. Stupid. Now Donahoe is gone, and we've had to clean up that mess since. But you say potato, I say potaaato.
Bill from NYC Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 The key is you draft a core of key guys, and try to hang on to them. Maybe there are guys that you would love to hang onto, but are too costly--then you plan by drafting their replacements. Yes, but the Bills only do this with defensive backs and running backs. It is absolutely impossible to build a winning team this way. I mean 0% chance. And by the way the 2 culprits are not Gailey/Nix. It's obvioulsly Levy and Ralph. When Polian left and Bruce/Andre/Thurman/Kelly were starting to age, Levy went full scale after defensive backs. He did the same thing in 2006 with his idiotic conterpart Jauron. Some day people will see just how much Levy damaged this franchise. Ralph likes "excitement adding" ticket selling running backs. It's obvious, no?
Bruce Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 has it ever occurred to Bills fans that most players do not want to be with this franchise? They're drafted, the play out their 1st contract and get the H..ll out. minor league developmental team for the rest of the league. If I was a nfl rock star I would not want to be in WNY either... Spoken like someone who was not around (or was too young to remember Jim Kelly). Kelly, did not want to come to Buffalo, either. Neither did Cornelius Bennett. Nor Bruce Smith. But when these players finally agreed to terms, things began to turn for the better. What, you're going to tell me that Green Freakin' Bay, WI is a paradise? An inland Hawaii? Not if you have a brain! What makes Green Bay so hot is that they are winning! That's all that matters. Look up reserve GB QB Graham Harrell. The Bills made a push to sign him off of GB's practice squad. With Aaron Rodgers firmly entrenched as a starter for many years to come, Harrell will probably never sniff the field except in clean up duty. He'd have a much better chance to play and be a #1 with Buffalo. Yet he chose GB. Why? GB is winning. If Buffalo starts to win, players will want to be in WNY. The danger is...will Ralph allow Mr. Burns (aka Littman and Overdorf) to loosen up the purse strings enough to pay for talent?
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 I am not going to be able to prove to some of you that the Earth is round... "1500 years ago, everybody knew that the earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody knew that the earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you knew that the Bills traded Lee Evans because he was an aging one trick pony who only ran deep routes. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow. - "Kay" (Tommy Lee Jones) in Men in Black.
Buffalo Barbarian Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 They have not had roster depth for 20+ years. Whitner and Poz shouldn't have been allowed to make it to their last season - they should've been locked up well before then at more reasonable rates. And I don't buy the 4-3 argument with Poz - the Bills basically play a 4-3. More like 10 plus, after all we were in the superbowl 20 years ago and we had good depth when Wade was here, the D was great just no QB. After that the rest of your statement is pretty much true.
Bob in STL Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 It's a lack of investment. To be sure, the Bills lack roster depth, as they have for two decades. But I get concerned when posters and writers refer to this issue as though it's the cause of the Bills' current woes - it isn't. Rather, it's a symptom of a lack of investment in the product by OBD. To call the problem a "lack of depth" suggests that the issue can somehow be cured through one or two more drafts. But we all know that isn't the case, because the Bills have shown over and over again that they won't (i) re-sign their own players at market rates, or (ii) spend on free agents to improve the roster. So all that happens through the draft is a recylcing process, whereby we let Poz/Whitner walk and draft Sheppard/Searcy to replace them. Next year no doubt we'll draft Evans' replacement. The fundamental problem is a lack of investment by the owner and his bean counters. The entire concept of "building through the draft," as preached by Nix, is a sham, because the philosophy doesn't work if you don't continue to accumulate players through free agency or re-signing your own guys. In order to have depth, you need to invest $$ in your personnel, in at least one of those two ways. The Bills do neither. Most successful teams focus on at least one or the other - Green Bay and Pittsburgh draft well and tend to re-sign their best players to second contracts (though not all of them); San Francisco has 7 starters this year that it signed as free agents. Again, I know this isn't a new point - we all know where the Bills' struggles derive from. I just don't want the discussion about "lack of depth" to lose sight of what the issue really is. The Bills don't invest. They don't rebuild - they recycle. They are built to turn a profit for their ownership with minimal personnel expenditures, and they have succeeded in doing so. They are built to sell tickets in July and August. They are not built to compete in December and January. Nice post. I think your "lack of invetsment" theory clarifies a point on why we have a lack of depth and a lack of talent. It is the underlying reason. You also shed light on why we seem to use premium draft picks on the same positions over and over - we do not keep our best players. Coaching turnover is a big part of the drafting disfunction. Every coach wants to bring in "his guys" and "his system". At every change over we lost good players and then fail to replace them with better ones. One example was letting Pat Williams go. How long did it take to replace him? Kyle Williams was grafted about 7 syears later took 3 years to develop. Dareus looks good right now. We have been operating under the cap for how long now? We started year ~$25M below the cap and with question marks at OT, TE, WR, QB, DT, DE, OLB and ILB. It is not a surprise that so many UDFA rookies make our team. It is not great scouting, it is low oevrall talent on the roster. Cut it up any way you want and you come back to low commitment by the FO.
Ramius Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 Yes, but the Bills only do this with defensive backs and running backs. It is absolutely impossible to build a winning team this way. I mean 0% chance. And by the way the 2 culprits are not Gailey/Nix. It's obvioulsly Levy and Ralph. When Polian left and Bruce/Andre/Thurman/Kelly were starting to age, Levy went full scale after defensive backs. He did the same thing in 2006 with his idiotic conterpart Jauron. Some day people will see just how much Levy damaged this franchise. Ralph likes "excitement adding" ticket selling running backs. It's obvious, no? Polian/Butler drafted 4 1st round DBs in 5 years in the early to mid 90s. That's now Levy's fault?
Dopey Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 You are wrong. I'm not going to dig it all up for you, but it was clear at the time that the decision to trade Evans was made by Ralph's accountants, and Nix and Buddy grudgingly went along with it because they had no choice. "I'm not going to dig it up"- That is too funny. So, it was clear that the accountant made this trade? Not Lee's lack of production?
Bill from NYC Posted December 22, 2011 Posted December 22, 2011 Polian/Butler drafted 4 1st round DBs in 5 years in the early to mid 90s. That's now Levy's fault? Yes. When Polian/Butler drafted these guys the pieces were in place. They had drafted a great QB, an OL, Thurman Thomas, Andre Reed, and a pass rush that included Bruce Smith. And btw Butler/Wade signed Bryce and Big Ted. Levy, ever the idiot, was drafting players such as Jeff Burress instead of guys to fill the void as these great players aged. Additionally, he was outcoached in superbowls. This is beyond dispute imo. When he came back and brought in Jauron, the 2006 draft speaks for itself, wouldn't you say? And it never got better. Every draft that Levy/Jauron were involved in was not good. The free agent signings were even worse. But, the above is merely an opinion. If you want to talk about how great Levy was for this franchise, I am willing to listen. It's all good on this end.
Ramius Posted December 22, 2011 Posted December 22, 2011 Yes. When Polian/Butler drafted these guys the pieces were in place. They had drafted a great QB, an OL, Thurman Thomas, Andre Reed, and a pass rush that included Bruce Smith. And btw Butler/Wade signed Bryce and Big Ted. Levy, ever the idiot, was drafting players such as Jeff Burress instead of guys to fill the void as these great players aged. Additionally, he was outcoached in superbowls. This is beyond dispute imo. When he came back and brought in Jauron, the 2006 draft speaks for itself, wouldn't you say? And it never got better. Every draft that Levy/Jauron were involved in was not good. The free agent signings were even worse. But, the above is merely an opinion. If you want to talk about how great Levy was for this franchise, I am willing to listen. It's all good on this end. So now you're saying that Levy was running the drafts in the early 1990s, and he was over ruling Polian/Butler and demanding we draft DBs?
fansince88 Posted December 22, 2011 Posted December 22, 2011 My understanding is that they could have locked up Poz before the labor dispute/CBA expiration without those restrictions, but I could be wrong. As for Whitner, they could've locked him up earlier (or tried to) before the impasse occurred. And it certaily appeared as though they had a last crack at him before he signed with the Bengals/49ers but they declined to get involved. As for disregarding Donahoe/Levy, I totally disagree. I'm not sure how you can say that it's irrelevant when we have it on good authority that Littman and Overdorf traded Evans away. It's the same group running this team, regardless of public appearances. I don't see any difference in how this team is run as opposed to the previous regimes. Steveie Johnson is going to walk - you watch. They'll draft his replacement in Round 1. Same old same old. As for the draft, clearly they need to draft better, but I think the jury is still out on whether the Bills have indeed "whiffed." A counter-argument could be made that the Bills have drafted solid players but have failed to develop them and have failed to re-sign them. Whitner, Maybin and Evans are all high draft picks who are components of other teams' roster depth. McKelvin is sure to be next on that list, and perhaps Spiller after him. These players cannot be called busts right now - they just haven't been developed by the Bills. I don't see evidence of that changing, quite frankly. I am semi_comfortable with the fo not signing Stevie right now. I think it is possible he goes FA and finds out that he is asking too much.
Bill from NYC Posted December 22, 2011 Posted December 22, 2011 So now you're saying that Levy was running the drafts in the early 1990s, and he was over ruling Polian/Butler and demanding we draft DBs? I think that Marv got more room from Mr. Wilson than anyone in the history of the franchise. He trusted Marv; this is evident. And he gave him a lot of room to help screw up the team. What do you think?
Recommended Posts