DrDawkinstein Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 They refused to pony up for Pat Williams, Jabari Greer, etc. They were (and this is well documented)behind the Evans trade and the Hangartner cutting. They were behind the cutting of Langston Walker even though he would have been a serviceable backup. All of these moves happened for monetary reasons, not football ones. Then you toss in the yearly "we're not going to be active in free agency" that we're subjected to and their refusal to consider almost all top free agents, its fairly easy to connect the dots. And before you bring up Barnett, remember the Packers released him later on in free agency. Its not as if he was a big name out there on day 1 of free agency. We only "outbid" the jets on smith because they were holding money back in hopes of signing Asomugha. The bean counters have been running the show for a while now. If you can't notice this then i'm sorry for you. We can all "notice it", but there is a difference between noticing it and stating it as fact. Im simply trying to help you guys build your case against them as it is currently very weak. I believe it was well documented that it was Donahoe who let Williams walk. I'll give you Greer as we really have no idea what was going on there. As I posted above, the Hangartner and Evans moves were good moves. If you want to complain about anything, then it is shame on the FO for not having a backup Center replacement. But we all saw from 2010 that Hanny was a complete liability at Center ever since his back injury. Im not "defending the bean counters", Im seriously trying to come up with a good argument against them. All Ive seen so far is that they are a good "hidden scapegoat" to harp on.
RuntheDamnBall Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 So the best we have is being "pretty sure" (meaning: enough people on the board said it) that they were behind 1. cutting a guy with a back problem so bad he couldnt snap the ball to a Shotgun QB last year and regularly got shoved back into the QB 2. trading a WR who they once made the 3rd highest paid WR whose production has declined to almost 0 and got a 4th round pick for him The HORROR!! DD, I like your style most of the time, but isn't it disingenuous to suggest that since the results weren't that bad in this case, that they justify the means? It is bad operational strategy to have too many people in on the football decisions, especially if it's the people with less football acumen who are dictating them. The idea that this is a bottom-line run organization that ultimately doesn't care enough to put a winning product on the field is nothing new here, and really, until they prove otherwise, they kind of deserve that criticism. I do think some (so far, mixed-results) decisions correspond with a desire to improve - Merriman, the Fitz extension, Barnett, good scrap-heap acquisitions at TE, RT... But until they make the playoffs for the first time in twelve years, they own the criticism and the responsibility for making it right. If they don't, 25,000 empty seats will be a September phenomenon, not just a playing-out-the-string December one. They ought to realize that this hurts the bottom line more than a few extra Mil going Stevie's way.
DrDawkinstein Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 (edited) DD, I like your style most of the time, but isn't it disingenuous to suggest that since the results weren't that bad in this case, that they justify the means? It is bad operational strategy to have too many people in on the football decisions, especially if it's the people with less football acumen who are dictating them. The idea that this is a bottom-line run organization that ultimately doesn't care enough to put a winning product on the field is nothing new here, and really, until they prove otherwise, they kind of deserve that criticism. I do think some (so far, mixed-results) decisions correspond with a desire to improve - Merriman, the Fitz extension, Barnett, good scrap-heap acquisitions at TE, RT... But until they make the playoffs for the first time in twelve years, they own the criticism and the responsibility for making it right. If they don't, 25,000 empty seats will be a September phenomenon, not just a playing-out-the-string December one. They ought to realize that this hurts the bottom line more than a few extra Mil going Stevie's way. I dont disagree with anything youve said here, really. Although I thought from day 1 that the Evans trade was a good move and something that good teams would do. Im just trying to understand/build the case against the Bean Counters. People keep saying they wont let the GM sign players, but history shows the Bills have paid plenty of players. Just not the correct players. People want to say they are cheap for trading Evans. But neglect the fact that he is at the end of his contract. A contract the same Bean Counters gave him to make him the 3rd highest paid WR. Im looking for examples where we got outbid on players. Greer is a good one. Pat Williams would be a good one, but is cloudy because Donahoe took credit for that. Dont get me wrong though, I completely agree with your last paragraph. Simply trying to further the discussion beyond pitchforks and torches. Edited December 21, 2011 by DrDareustein
Kevin Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 Maybe the possible front office shake up IS Overdorf/Littman.
Haven Moses Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 Hard to imagine Chan or Buddy retiring. Ralph still calls them "Kid"
BillsVet Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 (edited) Im way more interested in activity with the Coaching Staff than the current front office. But if it means promoting Whaley so we dont lose him to another team, then Im all for it. Management has more influence on the roster than the coaching staff. And right now management has ulterior motives which significantly impact how the roster is constructed. Whaley isn't going anywhere either. You don't get promoted only to change organizations less than 12 months later. Edited December 21, 2011 by BillsVet
Paup 1995MVP Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 I think everyone is missing one thing here. Sure it will be great for Buddy to disappear. (Fired, retire, be a consultant-to what is my question) And promoting Whaley to running the show has a twinge of excitement, because he supposedly knows football and is not pushing 100 years old. But if he gets to run the show, I am hoping he gets rid of our piss poor head coach Chan Gailey. I am surprised that not many of you on here are blaming Chan for the big mess, that is pretending to be an NFL team. We SUCK right now. Sure the talent level is not stellar in the slightest. But the guys we do have, are nowhere near playing up to their potential. In all phases of the game. (we can not even cover a punt for god's sake) That has to fall on the coach. We have lost seven straight. Most likely soon to be nine straight. We have not been in 5 or those games by halftime. The Titans game, we were down by 13 before we scored late, and the second Jets game we blew at the end. This team is NOT competitive. That is unacceptable. We have been outscored in the last 7 games by 124 points!! That is almost 18 pts/games. Are you kidding me?!! Gailey has done nothing to change what we are doing, even though his gameplans continue to not work. The guy just does not get how to gameplan from week to week, or half to half, or motivate in the slightest. If he goes 9-23 in two years, why should he be given a third year? I just do not see it.
K-9 Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 (edited) You may be right, but the way Dallas spends vs. how Buffalo spends are two completely different animals. Dallas actually spends enough to be in cap danger and has elite players to pay. Hangartner was getting paid slightly above going rate for a backup or average interior OL. For one more year while you find out what you have, it would not have been throwing good money after bad. I think Hangartner at OC while everyone else can maintain their positions would have been better than Levitre, then Urbik (who has performed OK) and multiple shifts. Urbik should have been able to stay at RG. I agree that it would have been nice to have an experienced center when our starter went down, but I can't criticize the decision to cut Hangartner at the time so I won't judge it with the hindsight of Wood getting injured. He was getting blown up in both practice and in the pre-season by third stringers and he was pretty bad as our starter in 2010. The fact he was making $2m plus was just a coincidence and not the reason some around here think was the reason he was cut. He cut himself with his performance. Having backup OLmen that play multiple positions is the norm in the league. It would be nice to have dedicated position backups but that's not practical. I'm glad Urbik has been a revelation as a backup center and it's nice to know he can slide over from G is needed. GO BILLS!!! I do think some (so far, mixed-results) decisions correspond with a desire to improve - Merriman, the Fitz extension, Barnett, good scrap-heap acquisitions at TE, RT... But until they make the playoffs for the first time in twelve years, they own the criticism and the responsibility for making it right. If they don't, 25,000 empty seats will be a September phenomenon, not just a playing-out-the-string December one. They ought to realize that this hurts the bottom line more than a few extra Mil going Stevie's way. Can't argue with any of this, especially the text in bold. GO BILLS!!! Edited December 21, 2011 by K-9
All_Pro_Bills Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 We can all "notice it", but there is a difference between noticing it and stating it as fact. Im simply trying to help you guys build your case against them as it is currently very weak. I believe it was well documented that it was Donahoe who let Williams walk. I'll give you Greer as we really have no idea what was going on there. As I posted above, the Hangartner and Evans moves were good moves. If you want to complain about anything, then it is shame on the FO for not having a backup Center replacement. But we all saw from 2010 that Hanny was a complete liability at Center ever since his back injury. Im not "defending the bean counters", Im seriously trying to come up with a good argument against them. All Ive seen so far is that they are a good "hidden scapegoat" to harp on. I agree with you in principal but a couple comments. 1) The concept that the 'bean counters' are really running the show can never be proven since if it was then the whole facade of how the organization functions would be revealed. To work it must not be public because if the fans 'knew' the team wasn't being run by the football guys making football decisions then support would disappear. 2) All we're talking about is a credible hypothesis about how the organization makes decisions based on the evidence we have, subject to interpretation by the observer. I don't think any of us can offer up enough 'evidence' to meet the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' threshold of judgment. IMO, a lot of the 'evidence' lends to the credibility of the idea that Ralph's finance guys are the real power behind all the major decisions at OBD. Do I know that for a fact without any firsthand knowledge of the decision process? No. Can I prove it beyond a reasonable doubt? Again, no. But using what events I can observe and what 'facts' I have available along with my personnal experiences, and some cognitive reasoning, plus a review of the events of the past 10 years or so (and looking around the league at successful organizations), it seems highly likely to me that there is an element of truth behind this hypothesis.
Trader Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 (edited) I wouldn't put much credence in this normally, but since it's from Jason LaCanfora, I'm inclined to give it more credibility. He works for the league and isn't putting random crap out there to drive up ratings, like anyone working for a network. Anyway, the line is this: "There are some rumblings that a front office shakeup of some sort in Buffalo is not out of the question" It's buried in his round up of the week's games: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d82541a13/article/teams-left-for-dead-a-month-ago-still-fighting-for-playoff-lives?campaign=Twitter_features "rumblings" that a "shakeup" is "not out of the question" is a very, very long way away from "Buddy Nix is likely to be fired," so I mean, don't go nuts. But it's the only thing I've heard yet that the Bills are considering changes this winter. They are not going to fire Nix there is no reason for it. Nix has a lot of friends and contacts in the league. The Bills have a bad reputation around the league already. Nix will retire or move to another role if it involves him. The silence out of one Bills drive is interesting, somethings cooking. Unfortunately the three headed monster Wilson, Overdorf, and littman seem to be untouchable. It's a Medussa like group that kills any chance of success. Edited December 21, 2011 by Trader
CBD Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 Im looking for examples where we got outbid on players. Greer is a good one. Pat Williams would be a good one, but is cloudy because Donahoe took credit for that. In the case of Williams they were against the cap and had to choose between Schobel, Williams & Jonas Jennings. They were able to work a deal with Schobel, keeping him above the aging Williams and often injured Jennings. Given the constraints of the salary cap, the Bills could have a difficult time keeping together all of the main components of a defense which statistically ranked No. 2 in the NFL last season, so securing Schobel's services long-term is significant. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=1877220
DrDawkinstein Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 In the case of Williams they were against the cap and had to choose between Schobel, Williams & Jonas Jennings. They were able to work a deal with Schobel, keeping him above the aging Williams and often injured Jennings. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=1877220 Thanks! Great information and addition to the conversation. I think it's pretty obvious that it's not as simple of a situation as "the bean counters are watching the bottom line". Also, lol at Jonas Jennings. I remember when San Fran threw that money at him, all I thought was "Enjoy paying a guy on IR!" I believe early in that season he went out with a THUMB injury.
The Big Cat Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 They refused to pony up for Pat Williams, Jabari Greer, etc. They were (and this is well documented)behind the Evans trade and the Hangartner cutting. They were behind the cutting of Langston Walker even though he would have been a serviceable backup. All of these moves happened for monetary reasons, not football ones. Then you toss in the yearly "we're not going to be active in free agency" that we're subjected to and their refusal to consider almost all top free agents, its fairly easy to connect the dots. And before you bring up Barnett, remember the Packers released him later on in free agency. Its not as if he was a big name out there on day 1 of free agency. We only "outbid" the jets on smith because they were holding money back in hopes of signing Asomugha. The bean counters have been running the show for a while now. If you can't notice this then i'm sorry for you. Where is it "well documented" that they were behind the Evans trade? I'm serious. If it's "well documented" provide just a single link to a credited news source to verify this claim. If such a link exists, okay fine. Otherwise, you're just circulating rumors and unsubstantiated hearsay, believing what you what you want to believe because it makes your point. If you could also provide the same in-print evidence to support your similar claims about Greer and Williams, I'd be curious to read those as well. I agree with you in principal but a couple comments. 1) The concept that the 'bean counters' are really running the show can never be proven since if it was then the whole facade of how the organization functions would be revealed. To work it must not be public because if the fans 'knew' the team wasn't being run by the football guys making football decisions then support would disappear. 2) All we're talking about is a credible hypothesis about how the organization makes decisions based on the evidence we have, subject to interpretation by the observer. I don't think any of us can offer up enough 'evidence' to meet the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' threshold of judgment. IMO, a lot of the 'evidence' lends to the credibility of the idea that Ralph's finance guys are the real power behind all the major decisions at OBD. Do I know that for a fact without any firsthand knowledge of the decision process? No. Can I prove it beyond a reasonable doubt? Again, no. But using what events I can observe and what 'facts' I have available along with my personnal experiences, and some cognitive reasoning, plus a review of the events of the past 10 years or so (and looking around the league at successful organizations), it seems highly likely to me that there is an element of truth behind this hypothesis. You do realize, that the way you've constructed this argument, taken in a vacuum, and applied to ANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCE would be immediately dismissed as a crackpot conspiracy theory right?
janicks Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 Where is it "well documented" that they were behind the Evans trade? JW wrote an article strongly suggesting that this was the case. I can't find the original artile, but here is the Sullivan article referencing it. http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/columns/jerry-sullivan/article539932.ece
DrDawkinstein Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 (edited) JW wrote an article strongly suggesting that this was the case. I can't find the original artile, but here is the Sullivan article referencing it. http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/columns/jerry-sullivan/article539932.ece So a Sullivan article referencing another article that "suggested" it is considered "well documented" around here? This is like when one ESPN reporter "Tweets" something, and then another reporter quotes that tweet as a fact, and then the original guy points to the subsequent article as more evidence.... Im not trying to be dumb about this, but a lot of people are using phrases like "well documented" and "fact" and stating things like it's absolute truth... meanwhile when you look at the ENTIRE Bills history as a WHOLE, it says otherwise. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What is really funny about this thread, is that there is an EXACT OPPOSING thread directly below it. People are in here complaining that the money guys control the team too much, yet the next thread down contains a bunch of people in favor of cutting Fitz and Merriman because we are paying them too much... http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/140126-merriman-parrish-players-wanting-to-stay-with-their-teamcityno-thank-you/ I swear, Bills fans are the most back-asswards group of Bipolar nutjobs out there... Edited December 21, 2011 by DrDareustein
cody Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 http://www.buffalobills.com/about-us/front-office.html This list seems to be in the order of importance. How many companies would list their treasurer higher than the CEO?
DrDawkinstein Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 http://www.buffalobills.com/about-us/front-office.html This list seems to be in the order of importance. How many companies would list their treasurer higher than the CEO? This is actually the best link Ive seen towards that argument. Kudos! Very interesting indeed.
janicks Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 http://www.buffalobills.com/about-us/front-office.html This list seems to be in the order of importance. How many companies would list their treasurer higher than the CEO? That is a whole lot of reaching right there.
BuffaloBill Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 THis seems most likely to me. Nix is retiring/being pushed out in favor of Whaley. Can't imagine a wholesale changeover. If anything happens this is likely to be the case. Whaley is clearly the heir apparant so the only question is when and not if.
Recommended Posts